Blockchain Tech Levels the Playing Field

I hope that everyone has enjoyed hearing from my team of senior analysts over the last three weeks.

I’ve still been writing the Friday AMA myself, but I handed over the reins to my team for the Monday through Thursday issues. So many great topics have been covered. I sincerely hope you found value in those issues of The Bleeding Edge. I know I did.

It is that time of the year when I need some additional time for research and space to think and plan for next year. I simply couldn’t do both. Fortunately, I have a fantastic team to allow me to step back and think big about all that’s coming next year.

As I reflect on the last decade of Brownstone Research since I began in 2015, nothing comes even close to what the new year will bring in 2026. This has required more deep thought and research than I have ever needed in any prior year.

We are in for a jaw-dropping, mind-boggling, radical transformation next year. All of our lives will change.

If you read The Bleeding Edge regularly, I know you can feel it coming. I know you can feel it in your gut. We may not fully understand the implications, but we know it’s coming.

Keeping all of you ahead of these trends, prepared, and profiting from these trends is what keeps me motivated every day.

We’re about to enter a period of materially higher annual GDP growth that will be full of opportunity for those who are prepared… and fraught with danger and despair for those who aren’t.

My commitment is to ensure that my subscribers are armed with the knowledge to be prepared for what’s coming.

What you do with that knowledge is entirely up to you…

Have a wonderful weekend,

Jeff

Uranium Stocks: Metal vs. Miners

Hello Jeff and the whole team,

Thank you again for your recent analyses on the “energy phase” of the AI revolution.
I’d like to dig deeper into one particular point regarding uranium, which, in my view, could once again become explosive in this context.

Historically, the uranium market has seen two major peaks:

The first was between 1973 and 1978, when the price of the ore rose from about $6 to over $40 per pound.

The second was between 2003 and 2007, when the spot price climbed from about $10 to $136 per pound.

In both cases, it was the mining companies that delivered the most spectacular gains.

Paladin Energy surged roughly 50x… Uranium One about 30x… Denison Mines rose around 20x… while the metal itself only gained 6x to 13x, depending on the period.

Today, with the enormous energy demand expected to power AI data centers, the situation seems even more favorable for a new super-cycle.

You recently highlighted the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust (SRUUF) as an exposure to the metal, but its potential seems more limited (3x–4x at best).

Do you think it would be wiser, in order to aim for the exponential gains of the next cycle, to focus on well-positioned uranium mining stocks — even though they are riskier?

And if so, what key criteria would you prioritize to identify those offering the best potential according to your approach?

Have a great day.

– Cherif K.

Hi Cherif,

Great to hear from you, and thanks for such an insightful question.

You have framed this topic around uranium correctly. There are fantastic gains to be had gain exposure to the underlying commodity, but there are far larger potential returns with the uranium mining and exploration plays.

You may be surprised to know this, but I have historically been an active investor in mining and exploration. Years ago, Paladin Energy and Denison Mines were two of my core holdings and produced some of my largest returns.

Commodities are very cyclical in terms of price action, and to your point, we are entering a supercycle for uranium.

We got our Near Future Report subscribers into the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust just before the uranium market started to move higher. In The Near Future Report, my focus is on growth sectors and equities that allow us to sleep well at night. High growth combined with lower-risk, high-quality, stable assets is critical for my research and recommendations in The Near Future Report.

That’s how we’ve been able to outperform the very best hedge funds on the planet, year after year, while maintaining a low-risk portfolio.

The timing of your question is particularly relevant as this month, my research in Exponential Tech Investor centers around this very issue.

Due to the increased risk and volatility of technology-driven mining and exploration, and the smaller size of these associated companies, these equities are best suited for Exponential Tech Investor.

To the point you made, the risk/reward setup with some of these uranium miners is far greater than the uranium trust. The potential is incredible, and the timing is fantastic right now. We’re gaining exposure.

To answer your question about criteria, there are several things to consider.

It’s critical to understand the ability of the management team to execute on its plans, its consistency over time, the proven and probable reserves, the leverage the company has to the increasing price of uranium, and supply/demand factors in the industry.

There’s also jurisdiction of mines, key relationships with governments for uranium purchase, access to the U.S. markets, production costs and financial health, and longer-term strategic growth plans.

If you’d like to know which company I believe has the best risk/reward setup in the uranium industry, I recommend checking out Exponential Tech Investor ahead of this month’s issue, which will go out on Monday. This is not one to miss.

Quantum Devices That Can Run at Room Temperature?

Hello Jeff,

Thanks for your articles on quantum computing – it is quite a tricky technology to understand.

Have you heard of an Australian company called Archer Materials (ASX code AXE), which has developed scalable quantum devices that can operate at room temperature?

They announced on 15/10/25 Melbourne time a breakthrough to advance qubit development. It is all too technical for me to understand its importance or not, as far as realistic working quantum computing production possibilities are concerned.

Perhaps you could look at it and advise if they have some time or not. Regards.

– Martin Y.

Hi Martin,

I was wondering when someone was going to write in about this company…

Archer Materials was a minerals exploration company – literally a mining company – until it pivoted to a materials and quantum computing company about six years ago. Anytime we see a switch like this, we always need to evaluate with a lot of skepticism.

It is a legitimate company, however. They are trying to develop – but have not yet proven – carbon-based qubits capable of operating at room temperature. It is worth noting that none of the major quantum computing companies that have operational and high-fidelity quantum computers have taken a carbon-based approach.

To put things in perspective, Archer’s goal is to demonstrate a single qubit before the end of 2026. Even if we assume that Archer is successful, which is a major leap of faith, the company is years behind the competition. This is a tiny company with very limited resources.

Archer is also working on what it calls a biochip, which is low low-power, graphene-based biosensor designed to detect ions in the blood for diagnostic purposes. Again, Archer is pursuing the use of graphene, which has proven to be a very difficult material to commercialize. This is also a risky, unproven endeavor.

This is a classic example of a company trying to take advantage of hype and excitement in fields that are getting a lot of attention, but have very limited resources to be taken seriously.

Far too much risk here and not enough substance for me to ever take seriously. Something major would have to change in terms of funding, quality of team, and technology development.

Banks Take Advantage of Us Every Day, Everywhere

Hello Jeff and Team,

I loved the article written about tokenization and how it will democratize financial access in yesterday’s Bleeding Edge. I do have a question about a more basic application that I have not seen anyone address yet. I seriously doubt that I am the only one this has occurred to.

All the banks and traditional financial institutions have been taking profits from normal people for a very long time. When I say that I’m not talking about fees per se, I mean when funds are transferred from one account to another. For example, if I transfer funds from one account to another and both are my accounts at different banks (say Bank of America to Chase), it takes at least a day for the ACH transaction to go through, and even longer if it’s a Friday. During that period, who is earning interest on my money?

Obviously, the price on each individual transaction would be small, but given the volume that goes through this system, it seems like there is probably a lot of value being lost just by people waiting for the funds to clear their accounts. It seems like a lot of this would be eliminated by using stablecoins now that the GENIUS Act has been signed into law. I just feel like the traditional financial institutions have been stealing from us for long enough.

Thanks for listening to my rant.

– Synthya G.

Hi Synthya,

Thanks for writing in again, and with such a wonderful truth about the financial services industry.

I’d like to provide an example to further amplify the point that you are making.

• The average interest rate that a bank pays its customers in a savings account in the U.S. is 0.40%.
• The Federal Reserve overnight rate, the rate that the Fed pays banks for keeping your capital with the Fed, is between 3.75–4%.
• Anyone can earn 5.25% on USDC (a USD stablecoin) on Kraken.

That’s crazy, isn’t it? A bank makes as much as 4% using your money, and yet it pays you just 0.40%. What a joke.

So yes, stablecoin interest rates are fantastic, typically above the Fed Funds rate. And some interest rates are as high as 15% during certain windows.

Banks have built their profit machines at our expense due to their relationships with the Federal Reserve and positioning as the “trusted intermediary” for our funds. And yet, every year, we learn about banks that have been caught for corruption, using customer funds inappropriately, manipulating the LIBOR rate, overleveraging, and on and on.

For example, just in the last two years:

• TD Bank pleaded guilty to being involved in money laundering and paid $3.1 billion in fines.
• Citi, HSBC, Morgan Stanley, RBC, and Deutsche Bank all agreed to pay about $130 million for anti-competitive spot fixing in the foreign exchange markets.
• Deutsche Bank was fined $186 million by the Federal Reserve for not having proper anti-money laundering controls in place.

It’s so corrupt. The list is too long. And it all happens at our expense.

So yes, stablecoins are a fantastic solution for all of us. With blockchain technology, we no longer need a “trusted intermediary.” That’s what it means when we say blockchain is trustless. In many cases, we don’t need a middleman. We have learned through their actions that those middlemen are not trustworthy.

Blockchain technology and digital assets level the playing field for all of us. The technology reduces friction and expense from financial transactions and provides a transparent and immutable ledger to remove the risk of manipulation of transactions.

Your comments weren’t a rant. They were the truth. And they are also the motivation of the entire blockchain and stablecoin industry to succeed.

The passing of the GENIUS Act – and soon the CLARITY Act – will transform financial services in ways that are beneficial to all of us, not just the untrustworthy “middlemen” sitting in their fancy offices in New York, London, and Hong Kong.

Thanks again,

Jeff