Winklevoss‑Backed Gemini Cuts Up To 25% Of Staff, Exits UK, EU, And Australia

bitcoinist2026-02-06 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-02-06 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

Gemini, the cryptocurrency exchange founded by the Winklevoss twins, announced significant layoffs and a withdrawal from key international markets. The company is cutting up to 25% of its workforce, affecting around 200 employees, and will wind down operations in the UK, EU, and Australia. This decision is part of a strategic shift to focus resources on its new prediction markets platform, Gemini Predictions, which the founders believe represent a major future growth opportunity. They cited regulatory complexity and operational challenges as reasons for scaling back global expansion. Since its mid-December launch, the prediction platform has seen over 10,000 users and $24 million in trading volume. The company's stock (GEMI) has fallen over 85% from its all-time high.

Gemini (GEMI), the cryptocurrency exchange founded and run by billionaire twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, announced significant changes to its business on Thursday, including deep job cuts and a withdrawal from several major international markets.

Gemini Scales Back Global Operations

Gemini plans to reduce its workforce by up to 25%. This decision could affect approximately 200 employees worldwide, as the exchange disclosed its increased focus on artificial intelligence (AI)-related operations.

The cuts will span multiple regions, including the United States and Singapore. At the same time, it will wind down operations in the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Australia, signaling a sharp pullback from markets it once viewed as central to its global expansion strategy.

In a blog post published Thursday, the Winklevoss twins acknowledged the challenges the company has faced overseas. They said operating in foreign jurisdictions has proven difficult due to a combination of regulatory hurdles and operational complexity.

As a result, the founders said Gemini had become overstretched and needed to simplify its structure to remain competitive. The twins described the layoffs as a necessary step to realign the company with its long‐term goals.

“Today, we are reducing our size again by roughly 25%,” they wrote, adding that they believe the resulting organization will be better positioned to carry out the crypto exchange’s mission.

Winklevoss Twins’ Bet On Prediction Markets

The restructuring comes as Gemini narrows its focus toward what the founders see as the next major growth opportunity: prediction markets.

The Winklevoss twins said they believe prediction markets have the potential to become as large as, or even larger than, today’s capital markets. In their view, these platforms can harness collective intelligence and market dynamics to generate insights about future events in ways traditional systems cannot.

As part of this strategy, Gemini has invested in securing the necessary license to launch its own prediction marketplace, positioning the company as an early entrant in what it describes as a new and promising frontier.

The exchange launched Gemini Predictions in mid‐December and says early adoption has been encouraging. According to the company, more than 10,000 users have already participated, trading over $24 million on the platform since its debut.

The founders framed this shift as an evolution of Gemini’s vision. While the company’s first decade focused on building infrastructure for the future of money, they now envision a broader “super app” that bridges both money and markets.

They added that to successfully pursue this direction, Gemini must concentrate its resources and reduce distractions. By scaling back its global operations and workforce, the company aims to free up the bandwidth needed to develop and expand its prediction market offerings.

The 1-D chart shows GEMI’s 85% crash since its September public debut. Source: GEMI on TradingView.com

At the time of writing, the exchange’s stock, trading under the ticker symbol GEMI, was trading at $6.69. This represents a 7% drop in the past 24 hours and is over 85% below the stock’s all-time high of $45.90.

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

İlgili Sorular

QWhat percentage of its workforce is Gemini cutting, and which major international markets is it exiting?

AGemini is cutting up to 25% of its workforce and is exiting the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Australia.

QWhat new area of focus did the Winklevoss twins cite as the reason for the company's restructuring?

AThe Winklevoss twins cited a new focus on prediction markets and AI-related operations as the reason for the restructuring.

QAccording to the founders, what were the main challenges that led to the decision to pull back from international markets?

AThe main challenges were a combination of regulatory hurdles and operational complexity in foreign jurisdictions.

QWhat is the name of Gemini's new prediction market platform, and what early adoption metrics were shared?

AThe platform is called Gemini Predictions. Early adoption metrics show over 10,000 users have participated, trading over $24 million since its mid-December debut.

QHow much has Gemini's stock (GEMI) fallen from its all-time high, and what was its price at the time of writing?

AAt the time of writing, the stock was trading at $6.69, which is over 85% below its all-time high of $45.90.

İlgili Okumalar

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit1 saat önce

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit1 saat önce

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit1 saat önce

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit1 saat önce

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit1 saat önce

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit1 saat önce

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit3 saat önce

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit3 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片