News related to
adia

A wave of ambition is reshaping the technology landscape as leading entrepreneurs turn their attention to building artificial intelligence data centres in space. What began as scattered experiments in off-planet computing has matured into a competition among industry powerhouses seeking an edge in processing capacity, energy efficiency, and control over the infrastructure that will anchor next-generation AI systems. The pursuit is driven by the belief that Earth-based facilities are reaching fundamental limits, from land availability to cooling constraints, and that low-Earth orbit may provide the only environment capable of sustaining the exponential escalation in computational demand. Advocates frame this as an extension of a long-standing principle in engineering and exploration: to put human ingenuity to its fullest possible use, wherever the boundaries of science allow.

Several major technology leaders have stepped into this arena over the past two years. Their investments reflect a profound shift in strategy as companies realise that AI models cannot continue to scale using terrestrial infrastructure alone. The voracious energy requirements of large-scale training workloads challenge even the most advanced data-centre designs, pushing firms to explore solutions that draw on off-planet solar power and exploit the vacuum of space for passive cooling. Executives argue that orbiting facilities promise a cleaner energy profile, reduced environmental impact, and unprecedented independence from Earth’s physical constraints. As one aerospace investor remarked during a private industry event, the next digital revolution may be fuelled not by new algorithms but by new geography.

Engineering teams working on these orbital concepts often describe them as a convergence of satellite technology, chip innovation, and AI architecture. The logic is straightforward: satellites already operate reliably in extreme conditions with limited maintenance; AI systems increasingly require specialised compute hardware that benefits from consistent temperature conditions; and the economics of launch have changed dramatically due to reusable rockets. Once the cost of placing hardware into orbit falls to thresholds comparable to building premium facilities on Earth, the case for space-based computing strengthens considerably. What was once a speculative thought experiment has become a viable commercial target because access to space is no longer a privilege of governments alone.

However, the motivations driving this race are not solely technical. Strategic considerations weigh heavily. Ownership of orbital AI capacity promises unparalleled control over data sovereignty and computational independence. For executives wary of regulatory intervention or geopolitical risk, space offers a jurisdictional buffer that has become increasingly attractive. The ability to operate hardware outside traditional national borders gives corporations leverage at a moment when governments are tightening rules on data transfer, algorithmic transparency, and cloud-computing dependencies. Critics warn that this dynamic could set the stage for tension between public oversight and private ambition, particularly as orbital networks start to support commercial, defence, and financial applications simultaneously.

Security analysts have begun to examine the implications of off-planet AI infrastructure for global stability. On one hand, distributing critical systems across multiple orbital layers may reduce the vulnerability of communication and computing networks to terrestrial attacks or natural disasters. On the other, it introduces fresh risks, as high-value satellites could become targets in future disputes. Industry leaders tend to emphasise resilience and cooperation, arguing that shared standards and open coordination mechanisms can prevent escalation. Yet even in the early stages of development, commercial confidentiality and competitive pressure limit transparency, raising questions about how cooperative such a system can truly be.

Environmental considerations further complicate the picture. Proponents argue that orbital facilities will dramatically reduce the carbon footprint of data centres by tapping continuous solar energy and eliminating the need for extensive water-based cooling. They claim that redirecting computation to space will relieve pressure on overloaded terrestrial grids and free up land used for sprawling data-centre campuses. Environmental organisations counter that launching hundreds of tonnes of hardware into orbit will generate emissions during the construction phase and intensify concerns about space debris. Engineers involved in the projects acknowledge these issues but maintain that the long-term carbon savings outweigh the initial costs. Some firms have begun exploring closed-loop manufacturing cycles using recycled orbital material, a concept still in its infancy but increasingly part of corporate presentations.

The economic dimension of the space computing race has also attracted significant attention. Venture capital firms see orbital AI networks as a foundational platform similar in scale to the early internet, creating opportunities for startups focused on maintenance robotics, radiation-hardened chips, inter-satellite laser communication, and autonomous control systems. Government space agencies have shown interest too, recognising that private data-centre initiatives could stimulate broader commercial activity in orbit. Financial analysts caution that the capital intensity of these projects is immense and that many entrants may struggle to secure the funds required to move from prototype to full-scale deployment. But they also acknowledge that the firms leading the charge have histories of turning audacious concepts into viable industries.

One of the most compelling arguments for orbital AI centres revolves around scientific potential. Researchers emphasise that such facilities could support breakthroughs in materials engineering, climate modelling, pharmaceutical development, and astrophysics. Training models in microgravity environments may enable experiments that are impractical on Earth, and the isolation of orbital systems creates opportunities for secure high-performance computing dedicated to sensitive research. A prominent AI scientist recently noted at a conference that new frontiers in intelligence will be unlocked only when researchers have access to computational substrates as novel as the algorithms themselves, and that space may provide exactly that.

Despite enthusiasm, several fundamental questions remain unresolved. Energy transmission is one of them. While orbiting platforms can harness abundant solar power, efficiently transferring that energy to onboard compute clusters and ensuring stable operation during orbital night remains a challenge. Another issue concerns maintenance. Although robotic servicing is improving, most concepts still require periodic human intervention, raising questions about safety, reliability, and cost. Legal scholars are also wrestling with the future regulatory landscape, debating whether orbital AI nodes should be governed by space law, telecommunications frameworks, or entirely new agreements. These uncertainties highlight the complexity of forging infrastructure that defies conventional definitions.

Public perception is another area shaping the debate. The idea of billionaire-led initiatives expanding beyond Earth has drawn criticism from those who view it as a diversion of resources from urgent terrestrial needs. Advocates counter that technology has always advanced through bold exploration and that the benefits of space-based AI will eventually extend across society, from medical research to disaster forecasting. Several industry leaders have used narratives emphasising human progress and responsibility, suggesting that building orbital computing platforms represents a contribution to global knowledge rather than a retreat from Earth’s challenges.

By Nitya Chakraborty Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be attending G20 summit at Johannesburg on November 22 and 23 amidst the diplomatic crisis for India over the Bangladesh demand for deportation of the ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina from her shelter in India. On November 17, the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh indicted Hasina on […]

The article Winning Perception Battle Against Bangladesh Is The Main Task Of Narendra Modi At G-20 Summit appeared first on Latest India news, analysis and reports on Newspack by India Press Agency).

Beijing has initiated sweeping agricultural trade measures targeting the United States, Canada and the European Union as a means to counter duties imposed on Chinese electric vehicles. The move centres on sectors worth billions of dollars in export value and signals a new front in the global tariff standoff as Chinese factories ramp up global auto-sales ambitions.

According to official announcements and industry trackers, China imposed tariffs and import restrictions on major agricultural products including soybeans, pork, canola and cognac after Western governments raised tariffs on Chinese EV imports—some reaching 100 per cent in the US, and up to 35 per cent in the EU. Those duties stemmed from concerns about subsidised manufacturing, imports displacing domestic output and national-security implications tied to EV supply-chains.

One Chinese commercial diplomat told Canadian media that Ottawa’s export restraints on Chinese EVs directly triggered Beijing’s agriculture penalties. Canadian farmers in canola and pulses markets have already seen orders plummet and export corridors shut or taxed heavily. European spirits producers also face duties: cognac exports to China, valued at around $1.7 billion annually, have dropped by about 35 per cent since the levy took effect.

Analysts say the strategy is calculated. While China’s domestic market remains protected from full import competition, its international agriculture import volumes give Beijing leverage. An academic at Peking University noted that “a slight adjustment in China’s import preferences can ripple through farming regions and rural constituencies that carry significant political weight”. By focusing on sectors with concentrated politically-sensitive producers, China increases the pressure on Western governments to reconsider EV levies.

On the Western side, officials are signalling that they are unlikely to surrender their EV-tariff stance. A senior analyst at a Brussels-based think-tank said that the European Commission had “clearly shown that it was not willing to back down from the EV case”, citing China’s rapid auto-industry progress and state-support programmes. With climate targets and supply-chain security on the table, Western capitals view EV tariffs as integral to domestic industry viability.

Yet the backlash in agriculture could be deeper and more enduring than the EV duties themselves. A supply-chain expert explained that new contracts, logistics investments and alternative-buyer relationships developed in response to Chinese import suspensions may lock in shifts for years to come. In concrete terms, U. S. soybean farmers—who sold $12.6 billion worth to China in 2024—have seen export volumes fall to zero for key new-crop shipments, while Canadian producers of rapeseed and pea oil are facing a near-complete market closure under 100 per cent tariffs.

Observers point out that agriculture is an especially potent tool in trade diplomacy because it touches multiple layers of the economy: from regional employment to global commodity markets and corporate finances. By wielding farm-product bans or tariffs, Beijing can inflict political damage in sending countries while avoiding direct escalation of high-tech sectors where Western governments might respond more aggressively.

For Western farm sectors the choices are stark. Some firms are exploring alternative markets in Latin America, Africa or South-East Asia, while others are pressing their governments for compensation or trade-negotiation efforts. Meanwhile, Western trade officials are increasingly emphasising diversification of supply-chains away from China, which may dampen China’s leverage over time.

Canada is set to introduce a comprehensive federal framework aimed at regulating fiat-backed stablecoins under its 2025 budget. The plan mandates issuers to maintain full asset reserves, enforce redemption policies, and deploy robust risk-management and data-security protocols.

The regulatory scheme will be overseen by the Bank of Canada under the existing Retail Payment Activities Act, with the BoC allocating CAD 10 million over two years beginning in the 2026-27 fiscal year for implementation. Administration thereafter is expected to cost around CAD 5 million annually, to be offset through regulated-issuer fees.

This approach aligns Canada with the global trend in digital-asset regulation. The United States passed its own stablecoin legislation in July, placing pressure on Canada to move with similar urgency. The international stablecoin market currently stands above USD 300 billion and is projected to reach USD 2 trillion by 2028.

Regulated issuers will face specific requirements: they must hold reserves sufficient to cover outstanding stablecoins, enable immediate redemption at par value, and adopt risk protocols covering operational, credit, and market exposures. Issuers also must protect consumers’ personal and financial data and support national-security safeguards. Entities already operating as payment-service providers may need to transition under the Retail Payment Activities Act if they issue “prescribed stablecoins”.

Industry reaction has been broadly positive. The Canada arm of Coinbase called the framework “a watershed moment” that will “change how Canadians interact with money and the internet”. Fintech firms such as Tetra Digital and Wealthsimple, which are developing Canadian-dollar stablecoin offerings, have welcomed clarity of regulation as unlocking innovation. Nonetheless, some market commentators caution that tighter regulation must avoid stifling fintech entrants or pushing innovation offshore.

Canada’s decision follows a growing regulatory impetus. The BoC had earlier urged federal and provincial authorities to coordinate efforts on stable-coin regulation and payment-system modernisation, highlighting that Canada’s payment infrastructure lagged that of other advanced economies.

The timing of the regulatory initiative is notable. While the budget itself does not specify the exact date when the legislation will be tabled, it signals a shift toward payment-ecosystem reform. The budget also signals expansion of the BoC’s oversight of payment-service firms and accelerated deployment of the Real-Time Rail payments system expected to launch in 2026.

Analysts see multiple drivers behind the move: protecting consumers from stable-coin issuer failure; preserving monetary sovereignty by keeping domestic transactions off unregulated foreign stablecoins; encouraging competition and innovation in the payments sector; and aligning with international regulatory frameworks as digital assets blur traditional banking boundaries.

Some key challenges lie ahead. Defining which tokens qualify as “stablecoins” under the framework, and carving the issuer view between payment-instrument regulation and securities regimes at the provincial level, remain open. Enforcement mechanisms, cross-border coordination, and transitional arrangements for existing issuers will also test regulators’ capacity.

Under the announced funding plan, the BoC will allocate CAD 10 million over the first two years to establish regulation of stablecoin issuance and oversight, beginning in the 2026-27 fiscal period. Ongoing annual oversight costs of CAD 5 million will be recouped via licensed-issuer fees. Regulators assert that the initiative will support faster, cheaper and safer payment flows for Canadians while reducing reliance on unregulated digital tokens.

The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority has secured a 4.7 per cent stake in the initial public offering of India’s investment-platform operator Groww, acquiring approximately 14 million shares via its India subsidiary Monsoon for 1.4 billion rupees. The investment was made through two separate transactions ahead of Groww’s IPO, in which 298.45 million equity shares were earmarked for institutional investors.

Groww’s anchor book raised 29.8 billion rupees from 102 institutional investors ahead of its public offer, which opens on 4 November and aims for a valuation of around US$754 million. The Government of Singapore committed 1.39 billion rupees in the anchor round for a 4.68 per cent stake.

The depth of anchor demand underlines strong institutional confidence in the Bengaluru-based company. The anchor tranche accounted for five out of the six largest global sovereign-wealth funds involved, and domestic mutual funds took nearly half of the allotted 29.84 million shares in the anchor raise at a unit price of ₹100. Groww’s parent, Billionbrains Garage Ventures, will deploy fresh issue proceeds for cloud-infrastructure upgrades, brand building and margin-trading facility expansion.

Groww faces a turning point as it transitions beyond core broking. In the quarter ended June 2025, broking revenue accounted for 79.5 per cent of total revenues, down from 87.4 per cent a year earlier, as the company ramps enrollment in commodities, bonds and margin-trading services. With strong backing from marquee institutional players, Groww appears to be counting on growth in wealth-management, lending and derivatives to justify its IPO valuation.

The involvement of ADIA gives Groww not only capital but credibility in the public markets. For the Abu Dhabi fund, the deal provides further exposure to India’s dynamic fintech ecosystem as it continues to expand its footprint through Asia-focused growth equity deals. The participation of the Government of Singapore and multiple global asset managers reinforces the message that the Indian retail-investment rally still commands global attention.

The government of British Columbia has introduced legislation that would permanently ban new crypto-mining operations from connecting to the provincial grid via BC Hydro, and impose formal limits on power access for AI and data-centre operators. The bill, known as the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, aims to steer the province’s clean-electricity supply toward mining, LNG and natural-resource industries viewed as higher-priority than the high-load crypto sector.

Under the new framework, BC Hydro will no longer approve fresh power-grid connections for crypto-mining facilities. The moratorium first established in 2022 is now set to become law. In parallel, beginning in late 2025 the province will introduce an allocation process for electricity demanded by AI and data-centres: only a capped amount of power will be available to those sectors, and they must compete for it under stricter criteria.

Government officials say the shift reflects a need to address surging grid-demand from emerging industries and to ensure that public electricity resources deliver broad economic and employment benefits. Premier David Eby said the move will help the province “move faster” on major transmission infrastructure and support industrial growth in a planned megaproject in the northwest. Energy and Climate Solutions Minister Adrian Dix added: “Our new allocation framework will prioritise vital growth in sectors like mining, natural gas and lowest-emission LNG, while ensuring our clean energy is directed to projects that deliver the greatest benefit to British Columbians.”

The backdrop encompasses the looming construction of the North Coast Transmission Line, a roughly $6 billion project designed to bring new clean-electricity capacity to the province’s sparsely-electrified northwest. That infrastructure is central to the government’s strategy of prioritising industrial connections over speculative, high-load users such as crypto-mining farms.

Industry analysts have mixed reactions. Supporters say the policy reflects sound planning in a jurisdiction dependent on hydroelectric power and facing increasing pressure from multiple large-scale electricity users. They note that the high energy-intensity of crypto-mining—with relatively modest job creation and economic multiplier effects—makes it a less compelling candidate compared with mining, LNG, hydrogen and industrial AI. On the other hand, critics warn that the framework gives the government wide discretionary power, potentially reducing transparency and favouring incumbents. As one Green-party MLA noted: “With no detail on this framework or the criteria for decision-making in Bill 31, we are concerned that the minister will be the one making these consequential determinations under the influence of friends or lobbyists.”

The government has indicated that data-centres and AI firms will still be eligible for power, but will face competition under the new mechanism: for example, BC Hydro reportedly will allocate only about 300 megawatts for AI and 100 megawatts for data-centre use every two years. Those thresholds will represent a major scaling down in open-access grid connections for such technology users and signal a shift away from first-come, first-served power allocations.

For prospective crypto-miners, the measure marks a turning point. Major mining projects that had anticipated low-cost Canadian hydro power will face altered calculus: either repurpose for non-crypto uses, or relocate to jurisdictions with more open grid access. This may induce capital flight or slow the growth of a nascent mining industry in the province. Conversely, proponents of the policy argue it will preserve affordability for households and existing industrial users by preventing unmanaged load growth.

The government’s timing is also notable. The bill not only formalises the ban on new crypto-mining connections, but synchronises with the broader policy shift to accelerate the NCTL and re-shape grid access rules. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2026 and extend into the early 2030s. For the grid, this means a period of constrained supply allocation while demand from resource-intensive projects expands.

Community and Indigenous groups have been emphasising that increased industrial electrification must occur in consultation and benefit-sharing with First Nations. The legislation allows for First Nations co-ownership of the transmission line and signals a broader reconciliation dimension to the infrastructure strategy.

In the crypto-community the reaction is sharp. Firms and investors note that BC’s abundant hydro power was a major attraction to set up mining operations at scale. With the ban in place, developers will need to evaluate stranded-asset risk or shift to other Canadian provinces or international venues. Some warn that innovation in GPU- and AI-mining overlap may find itself constrained as power availability tightens.

From a global lens, British Columbia joins a growing cohort of jurisdictions imposing stricter controls on high-energy crypto-activities and re-examining how emerging tech intersects with energy policy. The regulation underscores the tension between rapid tech growth and public-utility responsibilities in regions reliant on renewables and constrained transmission.