In April 2025, 73% of AI experts surveyed by the Pew Research Center stated that artificial intelligence would have a positive impact on how people perform their jobs over the next two decades; only 23% of the US public agreed. The growing gulf is not just about jobs or productivity; it also encompasses broader societal issues. It is about what these systems are.
This article is based on ideas originally published by VoxEU – Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) and has been independently rewritten and extended by The Economy editorial team. While inspired by the original analysis, the content presented here reflects a broader interpretation and additional commentary. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of VoxEU or CEPR.
This article was independently developed by The Economy editorial team and draws on original analysis published by East Asia Forum. The content has been substantially rewritten, expanded, and reframed for broader context and relevance. All views expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent the official position of East Asia Forum or its contributors.
This article is based on ideas originally published by VoxEU – Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) and has been independently rewritten and extended by The Economy editorial team. While inspired by the original analysis, the content presented here reflects a broader interpretation and additional commentary. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of VoxEU or CEPR.
Forecasts for stablecoin market growth remain sharply divided. J.P. Morgan warns the “Genius Act” may expose vulnerabilities in Tether's dominance. Building market trust remains an urgent challenge.
J.P. Morgan, the world’s largest bank by assets, has expressed skepticism over projections of explosive short-term growth in the stablecoin market. The firm warned that fundamental limitations in infrastructure and public perception could delay stablecoins’ integration into mainstream financial systems for the foreseeable future.
On July 23 (local time), Bloomberg reported that J.P. Morgan had warned market expectations for stablecoins were “overly optimistic.” In a research note, the bank’s strategists acknowledged growing political and institutional interest in the sector but argued that the infrastructure required for explosive growth remains insufficient. “While growth will likely continue, it won’t happen as fast as many are expecting,” they wrote, adding that institutions and conservative investors are unlikely to adopt payment-focused stablecoins as cash substitutes in the near term.
The note stands in contrast to recent optimism from U.S. policymakers and banks. Treasury Secretary Scott Besent testified before the Senate last month that the dollar-backed stablecoin market could grow to $2 trillion by 2028, calling for legislation to support such assets as a way to strengthen the dollar’s global standing. In April, Standard Chartered Bank projected that the total supply of stablecoins could exceed $2 trillion within three years. With the current stablecoin market—dominated by Tether (USDT) and USD Coin (USDC)—estimated at around $270 billion, that would represent a nearly tenfold expansion.
J.P. Morgan’s caution, however, does not reflect outright skepticism toward stablecoin technology itself. The bank is actively engaged in a joint stablecoin initiative alongside Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo. Last month, it also launched a pilot program for JPMD, a deposit token designed for institutional clients. Even J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon, long known for his critical stance on digital assets, struck a more conciliatory tone during the bank’s Q2 earnings call on July 16. “I still question why we need stablecoins over traditional payment systems,” he said, “but they do exist—and we intend to understand and use deposit and stablecoins effectively.”
Concerns are mounting across the market that stablecoins may struggle to grow rapidly in the near term, due in part to structural limitations in proposed regulatory frameworks—most notably the GENIUS Act. Designed to establish clear rules for the issuance and operation of payment-based stablecoins, the GENIUS Act passed the Senate on June 17 and cleared the House on July 17. With only the president’s signature remaining, the bill is on the verge of becoming law.
The problem, critics say, is that once enacted, the legislation could push several existing stablecoins—including Tether—out of the U.S. market. The bill mandates that issuers fully back their stablecoins with liquid assets such as U.S. dollars or short-term Treasuries on a one-to-one basis, and publish annually audited financial statements verified by an external accounting firm.
This poses a serious challenge for some issuers that have not historically complied with such standards. Tether, for example, has reportedly backed parts of its reserves with volatile assets like Bitcoin and gold, and has faced criticism for relying on self-issued reports rather than independent audits. While Tether now claims it has made significant progress toward meeting the new requirements, many experts remain skeptical that the company will be able to fully comply with the GENIUS Act’s standards in the near term.
A key question going forward is whether stablecoins can build meaningful trust among participants in the financial system. The most widely used model in the current market is the fiat-collateralized stablecoin, in which issuers are required to deposit one U.S. dollar—or an equivalent liquid asset—into a bank account or trust for every coin they issue. Market leaders Tether and USDC both operate on this model. The value of such stablecoins rests entirely on the belief that the issuer holds adequate reserves in dollars or Treasuries to back every token. If users lose confidence that they can redeem one coin for one dollar at any time, the market cannot expand—indeed, the transactional structure could collapse altogether.
Stablecoin issuers are well aware of this vulnerability and are making aggressive moves to strengthen market confidence. Earlier this month, Ripple Labs—the issuer of RLUSD—applied for a national bank charter with the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The firm plans to launch Ripple National Trust Bank to manage RLUSD reserves and custody operations in-house. “Because stablecoins are trust-based assets, issuers operating within regulated financial institutions gain a significant competitive edge,” one market analyst noted. “Ripple’s entry into banking is a strategic move to boost its position in the market.”
Trump criticizes Fed during visit, raising concerns over headquarters renovation. Makes blunt call for Powell to “cut interest rates.” Market sees slim odds of rate cut at upcoming July FOMC meeting.
With the July meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) just around the corner, former President Donald Trump made an unexpected visit to the Federal Reserve’s headquarters. During his meeting with Fed Chair Jerome Powell, Trump reportedly criticized the central bank’s controversial renovation spending and openly called on Powell to lower interest rates.
On July 24 (local time), former President Donald Trump visited the Federal Reserve’s headquarters under the pretext of inspecting ongoing renovation work. The visit was highly unusual, as sitting or former presidents rarely make direct appearances at the independent central bank. Trump was accompanied by Fed Chair Jerome Powell, Republican Senators Tim Scott and Thom Tillis, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought, Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte, and several Trump-appointed members of the National Capital Planning Commission.
Wearing a hard hat at the construction site, Trump stood beside Powell and declared, “One of the reasons I came here is the budget overrun issue. I want to know how this happened.” In recent weeks, OMB Director Vought and Deputy White House Chief of Staff James Blair have raised concerns about the Fed’s renovation budget, reportedly framing the issue as a potential justification for Powell’s dismissal.
Trump himself echoed those concerns during the visit, citing a rise in renovation costs. “The budget seems to be about $3.1 billion, up from $2.7 billion.” he remarked. Powell, standing at his side, shook his head and responded, “That number has never come from anyone inside the Fed.” When Trump pulled out a document from his suit pocket, Powell examined it with reading glasses and clarified, “That figure includes a third building across the street that was completed five years ago.”
Following his tour of the Federal Reserve headquarters, former President Donald Trump told reporters that he did not believe Fed Chair Jerome Powell should be removed from office—a notable departure from his previous stance. “That would be a very big move, and I don’t think it’s necessary,” he said. When asked what Powell would have to say for Trump to stop criticizing him, the former president replied bluntly, “Well, I’d like him to cut rates.” Powell reportedly smiled in response but declined to comment.
Trump also suggested that a rate cut by the Fed would create a “synergistic effect” when combined with the administration’s ongoing tariff negotiations. “We want rates to come down,” he said. “The economy is booming, and interest rates are the final piece.” He added, “High rates don’t help growth. We’re already doing well, but if rates go lower, we’ll take off like a rocket.” Trump went further, asserting, “We should have the lowest interest rates in the world,” and claimed that reducing rates to 1% could save the government over $1 trillion.
This is not the first time Trump has called for rates below 1%. During a speech at the White House Faith Office luncheon on July 14, he reiterated that the U.S. economy is strong, corporate confidence is surging, incomes are rising, prices are falling, and inflation is “no longer a problem.” He again stated that the federal funds rate “should be under 1%.” Trump also criticized the cost of federal borrowing, noting that each one percentage point increase in rates adds roughly $360 billion (approx. ₩496 trillion) in annual interest payments on the national debt.
As the Trump administration continues to ramp up pressure on the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, markets are closely watching the upcoming July 29–30 FOMC meeting for any policy shift. Since cutting the benchmark rate to 4.50% in December, the Fed has held rates steady through all four meetings this year—signaling its commitment to independent decision -making despite persistent political pressure.
Most analysts expect the Fed to hold rates once again, citing a lack of compelling data to support a cut. Key economic indicators remain relatively stable. On July 17, the U.S. Department of Commerce reported that retail sales in June rose 0.6% from the previous month to $720.1 billion, sharply exceeding market expectations tracked by Dow Jones (0.2%), Reuters (0.1%), and Bloomberg (0.1%).
The labor market—often seen as a barometer of real economic conditions—also remains resilient. On July 24, the U.S. Department of Labor reported 217,000 new unemployment claims for the week ending July 19, a decrease of 4,000 from the previous week and the lowest level since early April. The figure also came in below the Dow Jones consensus forecast of 227,000. Weekly jobless claims have now declined for six consecutive weeks.
Preemptive Remarks Ahead of High-Level Talks
Trade Talks Increasingly Resemble Transactions
Allied Status Hinges on Ability to Pay
In a series of interviews with multiple media outlets, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick openly revealed Washington’s hardline trade strategy by referencing tariff negotiations with Japan in a way that put pressure on South Korea. His comments were widely interpreted as a de facto demand that Seoul make concessions similar to Tokyo’s. The remarks signal a structural approach aimed at reclaiming U.S.-centered benefits by applying the same standards across Asian nations. This strategy goes beyond bilateral pressure and raises concerns over its potential to erode diplomatic autonomy across the region.
In interviews with CNBC, Bloomberg, and others, Lutnick stated, “Korea, like Europe, is desperate for a trade agreement with the United States right now.” He added, “That’s why you could hear expletives coming from the Korean side while they were reading the terms of the U.S.-Japan deal.” He continued, “Korea and Japan are rivals.”
These remarks appear to be part of a calculated move to incite competitive tension between U.S. allies in Asia, thereby extracting further economic and political concessions. Previously, the United States lowered reciprocal tariffs on Japanese goods from 25% to 15%, in exchange for a promised investment of USD 550 billion from Japan. This deal included automobiles, which had faced a 2.5% base tariff plus an additional 25% item-specific tariff—totaling 27.5%. Going forward, Japanese cars will be subject only to a 15% tariff when exported to the U.S., without any volume limits.
The Biden administration has made a point of detailing Japan’s commitments in market access and infrastructure investments to highlight that the tariff reductions were granted in return for a price paid. This strategy also serves to pressure other countries to make similar concessions. “Imagine how Korea must have felt when they saw the terms Japan had agreed to,” Lutnick said. “They probably said, ‘Oh my God,’ and now they’re coming to my office today.”
Lutnick subsequently met with South Korea’s Trade Minister Cheong-Kwan Kim and Trade Negotiation Head Han-Koo Yeo for a session that lasted approximately 80 minutes. The U.S. has set a deadline of August 1 for Korea to avoid new tariffs, leaving just one week to finalize a deal. With Japan having already sealed its agreement and time running out, experts warn that Korea is facing mounting pressure.
Former President Trump also weighed in, saying, “Other countries can buy [the tariffs] down, just like Japan did,” making it clear he views trade negotiations in transactional terms. Speaking at the Federal Reserve construction site in Washington, D.C., Trump said, “Japan’s promised investment is not a loan—it’s a signing bonus,” implying that Tokyo’s pledges will be fulfilled over time as part of the agreement.
Praising the deal with Japan, Trump suggested that other countries seeking tariff relief would also need to pay a price. The disclosure of the items Japan offered has come to serve as a blueprint for how aggressively the U.S. may push other nations. According to the White House, Japan agreed to increase its defense procurement from U.S. companies from USD 14 billion to USD 17 billion annually. This includes the purchase of 100 aircraft from Boeing.
Japan also committed to increasing its imports of U.S. rice by 75%, though this expansion stays within the framework of the country’s existing WTO tariff-rate quota of about 770,000 metric tons. In other words, while the overall volume of rice imports remains unchanged, the share of U.S. rice will rise. Additionally, Japan pledged to buy another USD 8 billion worth of U.S. agricultural and industrial goods. Trump expressed satisfaction, claiming that “this will be worth even more than the USD 550 billion Japan offered.”
Moreover, Trump announced at a Republican event that Japan plans to join a joint venture for liquefied natural gas (LNG) development in Alaska. The project is a massive USD 44 billion undertaking, although Japan has not yet disclosed its exact level of investment, timeline, or methodology. Trump had previously asked South Korea to participate in the same initiative.
This U.S. approach fits into a consistent “conditional benefits” strategy: offering tariff relief in exchange for financial or strategic concessions, while pressuring negotiating partners to accept the terms. With Japan having already complied, similar demands are now being extended to South Korea and other Asian countries, suggesting a pre-planned sequence within a broader regional strategy. While these countries appear to be negotiating individually, in reality, they are operating within a unified framework designed by the U.S.
A particularly illustrative moment came during the U.S.-Japan 2+2 trade talks. On July 22, Trump shared a photo on social media showing him at the negotiating table. In front of him was a panel titled “Japan Invests in America,” listing the investment amount as USD 400 billion. However, the printed “4” had been crossed out and replaced by a handwritten “5.”
The panel was prepared in advance by the Japanese delegation, but Trump unilaterally increased the figure—an act interpreted as an on-the-spot revision of the investment total. In the final announcement, the U.S. again raised Japan’s investment pledge to USD 550 billion, a striking example of how forcefully Washington pursues its own interests. More than just a numbers game, it demonstrated the typical U.S. hardline diplomacy that disregards the position of its negotiating partners.
Ultimately, the U.S. is signaling ever more clearly that Asian countries must now offer strategic returns for the economic benefits they’ve long enjoyed in the American market. The cases of Japan and South Korea are merely the most visible examples of this shift. Beneath the surface lies a structural strategy aimed at managing the entire region under a single framework. This trend reflects a shift in Washington’s view of allied status—from a matter of strategic value to one of financial capability—and is likely to further constrain the diplomatic autonomy and bargaining space of countries across Asia.
A Beijing summit between China and the EU yields cordial language but no breakthroughs. The EU presses China on trade imbalances and Ukraine, but leaves with little leverage. Europe faces a strategic crossroads, caught between dependence on China and alignment with the U.S.
In a year marked by mounting geopolitical tension, China hosted top European Union leaders in Beijing in an attempt to reboot a strained partnership. While both sides signaled a willingness to cooperate on trade, climate, and global challenges, the summit ended with little tangible progress. Beijing maintained its usual ambiguity on issues like Ukraine, while Brussels expressed polite dissatisfaction with economic asymmetries and political posturing. The talks reflected not only the complexity of the EU-China relationship but also the increasingly precarious position of Europe in a world divided between great powers.
In the lead-up to the summit, China welcomed EU officials with pomp and promises of strategic cooperation. Yet behind the cordiality, both sides harbored frustrations. The European Union wanted answers on trade imbalances, overcapacity in key industries, and Beijing’s continued neutrality in the Ukraine war. Chinese leaders, for their part, sought relief from EU tariffs and a halt to what they view as growing protectionism in Europe.
Despite hours of dialogue and mutual pledges for better ties, neither side gave ground. Beijing remained non-committal on cutting excess exports in sectors like electric vehicles and solar panels, and brushed off pressure to distance itself from Moscow. Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel, representing the EU, reiterated Europe’s commitment to fair trade and peace in Ukraine, but stopped short of offering meaningful incentives or threats.
From a broader geopolitical view, it’s clear that the EU may need China more than China needs the EU. China’s confrontation with the United States is intensifying. Still, it can weather the storm through support from Russia and economic ties across Southeast Asia, especially with Vietnam, Myanmar, and Thailand leaning toward Beijing.
Europe, however, is in a more precarious position. The continent still reels from the economic fallout of war in Ukraine, an overreliance on energy imports, and the shifting loyalty of old allies. Japan, once seen as a critical swing partner in EU strategy, has now aligned mainly with Washington. That leaves the EU in need of alternative power brokers to balance against U.S. dominance.
China, aware of this imbalance, refuses to yield ground on issues that Europe views as vital, such as subsidies, market access, and the conflict in Ukraine. However, deeper alignment with China could also give Moscow more leverage in peace negotiations, an outcome that European leaders find difficult to accept.
Ultimately, the Beijing summit served more as a stage for diplomatic signaling than a platform for decisive action. There were no new trade agreements, no updated timelines on tariff disputes, and no change in China’s approach to Ukraine. For all the summit’s ceremony and symbolism, it offered few concrete outcomes.
Both sides remain tied by mutual economic dependency, yet burdened by diverging worldviews and political priorities. China is unlikely to abandon its industrial strategy or foreign policy alignment with Russia. Europe, meanwhile, remains uncertain about how far it can, or should, go in confronting Beijing without undermining its economic stability.
Silicon Valley is now borrowing China’s grueling “996” work schedule to stay competitive. Chinese firms, such as DeepSeek, are reshaping the AI battlefield with high-performance models at a low cost. This convergence of hustle and innovation is testing the boundaries of ambition, ethics, and global collaboration.
A new tech culture is quietly emerging at the intersection of America and China, a vision of relentless work, hyper-cost efficiency, and geopolitical rivalry. Silicon Valley firms once prided themselves on offering employees perks such as pool tables and flexible hours; today, many are signing up for China-style “996” schedules, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week, to chase breakthroughs in AI. Meanwhile, Chinese startups like DeepSeek are challenging U.S. dominance with open-source language models that outperform in reasoning benchmarks while costing a fraction of the training cost. This collision of values and strategies is redefining what AI innovation looks like and what it demands.
Once dismissed as exploitative, China’s “996” schedule sparked protests and even coined the term “modern slavery.” Yet today, that model is migrating west. Wired recently reported that several Silicon Valley AI startups are demanding employees work 12-hour days for six days a week, totaling 72 hours, with incentives or equity sweetening the deal.
Founders argue that only hyper-intensity can match the pace of global AI competition, especially when competitors move quickly. One AI firm, Rilla, reportedly requires all 80 of its staffers to follow the 996 schedule, drawing inspiration from legends like Steve Jobs and Kobe Bryant. Others, like Fella & Delilah, offer large pay and equity increases to staff who opt in.
But critics warn this culture threatens workforce wellbeing and equity. Experts point to burnout, legal violations, and a chilling effect on diversity, especially for workers who can’t sustain such schedules due to caregiving responsibilities or health issues. As Silicon Valley’s values shift from culture and balance to relentlessness, the gold rush of AI innovation may exact a painful toll.
This trend illustrates how competitive pressure can supersede previous workplace norms, risking not only exhaustion but also the cultural foundations that once defined Silicon Valley.
It wasn’t just Silicon Valley adapting to China’s tech grind. Chinese AI startup DeepSeek has released R1, an open-source model that rivals leading Western models on math and reasoning tasks, yet reportedly costs only about USD 6 million to train, roughly one-tenth the resources required for GPT-4. According to Wired, the model’s combination of efficiency and capability has shaken investors and challenged assumptions of Western technological superiority.
DeepSeek’s model became the top-downloaded app in the U.S. App Store, sending shockwaves through stock markets and raising questions about open‑source innovation and geopolitical disruption. Its rapid popularity and cost-effectiveness prompted comparisons to the Sputnik moment, and stirred global concern over U.S. hegemony in the field of AI.
Yet DeepSeek isn’t just about affordability. Wired also found that R1 systematically censors politically sensitive topics like Taiwan and Tiananmen, even through its open-source versions, reflecting deep alignment with Chinese regulatory norms. While uncensored versions may be hosted elsewhere, application-level restrictions remain pervasive.
The startup’s meteoric rise extends across multiple industries as well. From automakers and banks to government agencies, companies in China are integrating DeepSeek to signal progress, even if actual usage is limited or superficial. In a nation grappling with AI ambition and ideological control, DeepSeek exemplifies both promise and peril.
Taken together, these trends reveal a new paradigm in AI: one where speed takes precedence over sustainability, and efficiency supersedes integrity. For Silicon Valley, adopting 996-style work schedules is a reflection of existential urgency. For Chinese innovators, DeepSeek demonstrates how low-cost approaches and open-source optimism can propel global leadership, albeit with trade-offs in transparency and autonomy.
Silicon Valley start-ups have been asking employees to choose between Summit and systems, while American workers are now being pushed into a 72-hour workweek. Meanwhile, DeepSeek’s refusal to engage with political topics raises concerns about ideological compliance embedded in technology itself.
A Reddit thread exemplifies the ambivalence: one user quipped, “We tried four‑day work weeks and productivity soared, then someone suggested we work more instead.” That satirical tone captures both desperation and absurdity in the race to keep pace. Additionally, labor experts warn that many U.S. AI startups implementing the 996 work schedule might violate domestic labor law protections.
The 996 was not particularly popular in China until recently, but DeepSeek has achieved huge success with the same lifestyle. Their rise shows how business results can normalize extreme practices.
Rather than emulating unsustainable practices, institutions can lead by example, setting limits on working hours, demanding transparency in AI models, and promoting the ethical use of data. That means not just building faster or cheaper models, but building them responsibly. In this cross-border culture clash, competition is inevitable. However, success will depend not only on technological prowess but also on whether societies can uphold human-centric principles alongside algorithmic ambitions. Our future need not be defined by burnout or obedience, but by innovation that rests on dignity, diversity, and democratic values.
Intel will cut 15% of its workforce after a dismal Q2 2025 performance. Total headcount is expected to shrink by nearly a quarter by year-end. Flagship Ohio factory faces years-long construction delays amid financial strain.
Intel was once synonymous with American innovation, a bellwether of technological progress and silicon dominance. But in 2025, the company is fighting to stay relevant amid fierce competition, financial setbacks, and internal upheaval. In just a matter of months, Intel has shifted from ambitious expansion to survival mode, slashing jobs, scaling back investments, and pushing back its flagship U.S. manufacturing project. What was once a confident roadmap to the future has become a painful detour through restructuring and reckoning.
In a dramatic sign of upheaval at one of America’s most storied technology companies, Intel has announced it will lay off 15% of its global workforce, following a bruising second-quarter earnings report. The move, part of a sweeping restructuring strategy under CEO Lip-Bu Tan, comes as the company posted a USD 2.9 billion net loss and warned of sustained challenges ahead.
This 15% cut, amounting to nearly 24,000 jobs, marks one of the largest in Intel’s history. Executives say the downsizing is essential to streamline operations and redirect investment toward artificial intelligence and next-generation semiconductors. In a memo to employees, Tan emphasized the urgency of Intel’s transition from “a legacy manufacturer to a next-generation innovator.”
Investors responded with cautious optimism, encouraged by Intel’s projected USD 17 billion in cost savings by year-end. But for many inside the company, the layoffs signal deeper structural fractures and a departure from the decades-long stability that once defined the chip giant.
The layoffs are only part of a larger retrenchment. According to CRN, Intel expects its core headcount to decrease from approximately 108,900 employees at the end of 2024 to just 75,000 by the end of 2025, resulting in a nearly 31% reduction due to layoffs, attrition, and reorganization.
This unprecedented workforce contraction reflects Intel’s broader pivot. Company leaders are shedding middle management layers, narrowing their focus on chip design, and doubling down on high-performing technical roles. The Foundry Services division, once hailed as a future pillar of Intel’s diversification, is now viewed as a liability due to mounting losses, accelerating the urgency to trim costs.
Further complicating the picture is Intel’s decision to delay its marquee manufacturing project in the U.S., a massive USD 28 billion semiconductor complex in New Albany, Ohio. Branded “Ohio One,” the plant was expected to jumpstart domestic chip manufacturing and restore Intel’s global edge. Now, that vision is on hold.
According to 10TV and local reports, construction timelines have slipped dramatically. Originally projected to go online in 2025, the facility’s first fab won’t be operational until at least 2030, with the second potentially delayed to 2031 or later. The decision stems from Intel’s revised capital discipline strategy, which matches long-term infrastructure with actual market demand, rather than speculative scale.
The delay also puts pressure on political stakeholders. The Ohio plant had attracted significant support from the federal and state governments as part of the CHIPS Act, which aims to revitalize U.S. semiconductor manufacturing. With timelines pushed back half a decade or more, public confidence in Intel’s ability to deliver both technologically and strategically is beginning to waver.
As Intel battles cost overruns, sheds tens of thousands of jobs, and postpones a key domestic investment, the picture that emerges is not just one of a company in transition, but one in deep crisis. Whether these aggressive measures yield the turnaround leadership envisions remains to be seen. What’s clear is that the path forward will be slower, leaner, and far more uncertain than ever before.
