Five Top Tech Takeaways: Bitcoin ETFs, Open AI SOC2 Compliant Offering, GPT Store is Ready, SEC gets Hacked, and AI-Laptops invade CES

The Bitcoin ETF Horse Race is on.

BlackRock’s Bitcoin Fund Makes Its Debut

The U.S. financial market witnessed a significant milestone with the debut of Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs). Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) led the pack with a first-day trading volume of $532 million, closely followed by Invesco Galaxy Bitcoin ETF (BTCO) at $531 million, and Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Trust (FBTC) at $481 million. Other notable ETFs included Hashdex Bitcoin ETF (DEFI) and WisdomTree Bitcoin Fund (BTCW), with BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) placing sixth. This development represents a major shift in the cryptocurrency landscape, offering investors a new avenue to participate in Bitcoin trading through traditional financial instruments.

Key takeaways:

• Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) emerged as the leader in first-day trading volume among the newly launched Bitcoin ETFs.
• The launch of these ETFs marks a significant integration of Bitcoin into conventional financial markets.
• BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), despite its industry prominence, ranked sixth in trading volume on its debut day.

(Source: CoinDesk)

OpenAI's GPT Store: A New App Store for the AI Era?

OpenAI has unveiled its GPT Store, a new marketplace designed for the trading of specialized chatbot agents. This platform, which caters to paid ChatGPT users, expands upon the existing ChatGPT Plus service by offering a wider array of tools for purchase and monetization. The GPT Store enables the development of chatbot agents with unique personalities or themes, tailored for specific tasks like salary negotiation, lesson planning, or recipe development. Over 3 million custom versions of ChatGPT have already been crafted, and OpenAI plans to feature notable GPT tools weekly in the store. This initiative is likened to Apple's App Store, encouraging diverse AI development. OpenAI also announced a forthcoming revenue-sharing program, incentivizing creators based on user engagement with their GPTs.

Key takeaways:

• OpenAI's GPT Store provides a platform for buying and selling customized chatbot agents, enhancing the utility of ChatGPT.
• The store offers diverse chatbot applications, from professional tasks to creative endeavors.
• OpenAI is fostering a community of developers with revenue-sharing incentives and legal support for potential copyright issues.

(Source: The Guardian)

OpenAI's Latest Offering: SOC2 Certified ChatGPT Team for Secure Team Collaboration

OpenAI has introduced a new subscription service called "ChatGPT Team," targeting small to medium-sized teams (up to 149 members). This service offers a dedicated workspace and admin tools for managing team interactions with ChatGPT. It includes access to OpenAI's latest AI models: GPT-4, GPT-4 with Vision, and DALL-E 3, along with functionalities to analyze, edit, and extract information from uploaded files. Users can also build and share custom GPTs without coding experience. ChatGPT Team is priced at $30 per user per month or $25 if billed annually, which is more affordable than the enterprise version but costlier than individual subscriptions. The plan promises new features and improvements, and OpenAI assures that team data and conversations will not be used for model training. 

Key Takeaways:

• SOC2 and Non-Leakage of Data: The offering is SOC2 Type I certified, and it will not send data back to OpenAI's LLM. For more on the SOC2 Type I certification, see here. 
• Access to Advanced AI Models: Subscribers get access to the latest OpenAI models, including GPT-4 and DALL-E 3, enhancing their capabilities in text and image generation.
• Cost-Effective for Small Teams: With a pricing strategy aimed at smaller teams, ChatGPT Team is an affordable option for businesses seeking advanced AI tools without the enterprise-level investment.

(Source: TechCrunch)

Bitcoin Chaos Triggered by SEC Account Hack: Understanding the Aftermath

A security breach at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) caused significant upheaval in the bitcoin market. The SEC's account was compromised, leading to the false announcement of the approval of spot bitcoin ETFs. This unauthorized post caused a 2.5% spike in bitcoin prices, followed by a substantial drop, resulting in a $40 billion value swing. The SEC retracted the statement, confirming the account hack. This incident has raised concerns about market manipulation and regulatory oversight, with the SEC facing pressure from U.S. senators to explain the breach. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) might investigate the matter, given bitcoin's classification as a commodity in the U.S. The SEC and other regulatory bodies are expected to conduct separate inquiries into the hack and any related staff misconduct.

(Source: WIRED)

Key Takeaways

• Impact on Bitcoin Market: The false announcement temporarily influenced bitcoin prices, highlighting the cryptocurrency's sensitivity to regulatory news.
• Regulatory Scrutiny: The incident has prompted U.S. senators to demand explanations from the SEC, stressing the importance of cybersecurity in financial regulation.
• Potential Investigations: The SEC, CFTC, and possibly other regulatory bodies may conduct investigations to understand the breach's circumstances and prevent future incidents.

AI-Powered Laptops: The New Trend at CES 2024

At the CES 2024 consumer electronics trade show in Las Vegas, PC and microchip companies unveiled a new strategy to boost laptop sales: the integration of artificial intelligence (AI). With the pandemic era leading to a saturation in laptop purchases, companies like Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Intel are focusing on neural processing units (NPUs) in their latest chip designs. These NPUs are expected to enhance AI functions in laptops, offering a high level of performance with modest power needs. This move is partly aimed at competing with Apple's market share by adding unique AI capabilities to laptops. The inclusion of NPUs is expected to appeal to consumers seeking more advanced, AI-integrated devices.

Key Takeaways

• Introduction of Neural Processing Units (NPUs): The latest chip designs from major companies now include NPUs to enhance AI functionalities in laptops.
• Targeting High-End Laptop Market: This innovation aims to attract consumers towards more expensive, high-end laptops with advanced AI capabilities.
• Competitive Strategy Against Apple: Incorporating AI features into laptops is part of a strategy to compete with Apple and attract consumers looking for cutting-edge technology.

(Source: Reuters)

Author: Malik Datardina, CPA, CA, CISA. Malik works at Auvenir as a GRC Strategist that is working to transform the engagement experience for accounting firms and their clients. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent UWCISA, UW, Auvenir (or its affiliates), CPA Canada or anyone else. This post was written with the assistance of an AI language model. The model provided suggestions and completions to help me write, but the final content and opinions are my own.

CNET, CES and Crowd-sourced audits: Independence does matter

In a previous post, I looked at how the editorial interference from CBS forced CNET to award the Best in Show category to another contestant because CBS was involved in litigation against the company who actually did win best in show. The perspective that I took was more of a "decision usefulness" perspective: could a reader actually figure out who the real winner is due to the use of disclaimers. 

Others were much more outraged over this lack of objectivity. 

Since my post, Greg Sandoval, a reporter at CNET, has resigned over the controversy (click here to see his tweet).  More importantly, the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) itselft has taken a firm stand against this move by CBS. As noted in this press release, they have effectively overturned CNET's decision and have awarded the Best in Show to both the Hopper and Razor's Edge (effectively CNET's second choice). They have also are requesting a request for proposal for "a new partner to run the Best of CES awards program". 

Looking at the heart of the issue, the question is how does one maintain independence when reporting on a matter? 

We can take a look at what the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) and the Canadian Public Accountability Board (CPAB) have written about independence in this publication. On page 7, they cite the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) and breakdown independence in two categories: 

• "Independence of mind: The state of mind that permits the expression of a conclusion without being affected by influences that compromise professional judgment, thereby allowing an individual to act with integrity and exercise objectivity and professional skepticism.
• "Independence in appearance: The avoidance of facts and circumstances that are so significant that a reasonable and informed  third party would be likely to conclude, weighing all the specific facts and circumstances, that a firm’s, or a member of the audit team’s, integrity, objectivity or professional skepticism has been compromised."

The publication also a number of threats to independence. The two probably most relevant are the "self-interest threat" and the "intimidation threat", which I think are probably most relevant to the CNET-CES controversy. Effectively, CBS's objectivity of the reporters was put aside in favour of the self-interest emanating from their litigation against DISH (who makes the Hopper). 

But the more interesting one to explore is the "intimidation threat". And this is most felt by reporters and editors who are pressured to abandon their view in favour of what the parent company wanted. And it speaks to a fundamental flaw in journalism: the press depends on money from the companies and others that they need to write about. The biggest illustration of this is what went down between Fox News and Jane Akre and Steve Wilson when they were forced to stop reporting about the health effects of drinking milk from cows that had been given Monanto's Bovine Growth Hormone. The reporters were fired when they refused to give into the "intimidation threat". They initially won their case under Florida's whistle blower law, but when Fox appealed they lost. The reason? The media has no obligation to tell the truth.  

So the challenge remains as to how does one remain independent when they need to eat and pay their bills in a free market system? Greg took the principled stance as, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson did, but not everyone can afford to pay the prices. People have to pay rent and take care of their families. The reality is that if society really cares about have access to information that has integrity they need to pay for it.

Is it time to have audited standards for the media, similar to the one used for financial information generated by financial companies? 

Although not perfect by any stretch of the imagination - the accounting scandals, a la Enron, serve as an important reminder of the lack of perfection in the system - the way financial information is subjected to testing serves at least as a starting to point as way to understand what needs to be there to ensure the information has integrity. 

Another probably more plausible approach is to leverage crowd sourcing and organize it to enable people comment or blow the whistle on information that is produced in a manner that is inaccurate, incomplete or invalid. The Guardian actually did this for the MPs expenses: they built an app that allowed ordinary users to analyze MPs expenses (if interested check out the Google Docs Spreadsheet with this info). As noted in the article, there was another attempt to build such an app (see here for the alternative). This is both good and bad. It's good in the sense that no one organization has the ability to monopolize such initiatives. However, it is bad in the sense that the efforts of the crowd are effectively divided. Regardless, it does illustrate that the potential for "crowd sourced audits".