Business
Crypto exchange Coinbase to lay off 14% of staff as AI reshapes work
Cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase said it’s slashing roughly 14% of its workforce, or about 700 workers, partly because artificial intelligence is reshaping the way people work.
“The biggest risk now is not taking action. We are adjusting early and deliberately to rebuild Coinbase to be lean, fast, and AI-native,” Coinbase Chief Executive and co-founder Brian Armstrong said in a Tuesday email to employees.
The email, which was posted on social media, said engineers with the help of AI are completing work in days rather than weeks. As more tasks get automated, that’s made it possible for the company to lean on smaller teams.
The company also cited other factors contributing to the job losses, including the volatility of the cryptocurrency business.
Founded in San Francisco, Coinbase is the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the United States. Millions of people use its platform to buy, sell, transfer and store cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin.
Coinbase is among tech companies that have been laying off workers and pointing to how AI is making workers more productive. Although some experts say the role AI has been playing is overblown, advancements in technology have also made it possible to generate code and automate other tasks. Companies are also spending more on artificial intelligence, some building new AI-powered gadgets or building out new data centers.
This year, companies such as Block, Meta, Oracle and more have announced they’re slashing thousands of workers. From January to March, tech companies have announced 52,050 layoffs, up 40% from the same period last year, according to outplacement and executive coaching firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
Coinbase is also changing how it operates, Armstrong told employees. It’s reducing management layers and some leaders will oversee 15 workers or more, his email said. Managers will operate like “player-coaches” and it’s experimenting with “one person teams” in which the role of an engineer, designer and product manager are part of one position.
“AI is bringing a profound shift in how companies operate, and we’re reshaping Coinbase to lead in this new era,” Armstrong told employees. “This is a new way of working, and we need to leverage AI across every facet of our jobs.”
Coinbase largely makes money from cryptocurrency transaction fees, but trading activity has slowed. In the fourth quarter of 2025, the company reported total revenue of roughly $1.8 billion, missing analysts’ expectations. The company posted a net loss of $667 million during that quarter, which it partly attributed to losses in certain strategic investments.
As of December, Coinbase had more than 4,900 employees, according to its website. Although the company leased office space in San Francisco, it has allowed employees to work remotely and doesn’t have a physical headquarters.
Coinbase’s share price fell more than 2% on Tuesday to $197.75.
Business
‘Avatar’ Suit Focuses on Hot Topic in A.I. Age: A Character’s Face
An actress accused the director James Cameron of stealing her likeness to create an “Avatar” character in a lawsuit filed on Tuesday in California — a case that reflects a core fear among Hollywood performers in the artificial intelligence age: losing control of their own faces.
The actress, Q’orianka Kilcher, also sued Disney, which controls the multibillion-dollar “Avatar” franchise, which started in 2009.
“In the age of A.I., our likeness is no longer safe,” Ms. Kilcher, 36, said in an interview. “While what happened to me is personal, it’s also a big warning that, if we don’t act now, this type of thing will become standard. This case is about the future of identity.”
The lawsuit involves Neytiri, the digitally created, blue-skinned warrior princess in Mr. Cameron’s three “Avatar” blockbusters. According to the complaint, Mr. Cameron used a photo of Ms. Kilcher as a teenager — without her knowledge — as the foundation for Neytiri, incorporating her features “directly into his production art” and digital production pipeline.
“Neytiri’s lips, chin, jawline and overall mouth shape” in the trilogy “are Q’orianka Kilcher’s,” the complaint said. “This was not a fleeting inspiration or a vague homage; it was a literal transplant of a real teenager’s facial structure.”
In 2010, Ms. Kilcher, who is also an Indigenous rights activist, met Mr. Cameron by chance at a charity event in Hollywood, where he told her that she was the “early inspiration” for Neytiri’s look, according to the complaint. “She did not take this to mean that her actual face had been replicated,” the complaint said.
Ms. Kilcher is suing now, the complaint said, because of an interview that Mr. Cameron gave to a French media outlet in 2024. In the interview, Mr. Cameron mentions Ms. Kilcher and “points to an image of Neytiri and says unambiguously: ‘This is actually her lower face,’” the complaint said. The interview came to her attention a year later.
“For the first time in a public forum, Cameron explicitly admitted the full truth about Neytiri’s design,” according to the complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. “One of Hollywood’s most powerful filmmakers exploited a young Indigenous girl’s biometric identity and cultural heritage to create a record-breaking film franchise, without credit or compensation to her.”
A lawyer for Mr. Cameron did not respond to a request for comment. Disney had no immediate comment.
Ms. Kilcher’s action is the latest in a large number of legal attacks on “Avatar” over the years — almost all of them resolved by courts in Mr. Cameron’s favor, including five separate lawsuits accusing him of copyright infringement or the stealing of ideas. A sixth infringement lawsuit is ongoing and was expanded last month.
In part, Ms. Kilcher is suing under California’s decades-old “right of publicity” statute, which allows people to bring claims against unauthorized use of their identities. It’s a complex area of the law that has taken on a new immediacy in the age of generative A.I., an emerging technology that allows anyone with an internet connection to easily create images that replicate existing art, photographs and human likenesses.
Generally speaking, right-of-publicity laws (about 25 states have one) balance First Amendment protections by distinguishing between commercial exploitation (using a likeness to sell a product) and expressive works (such as news, art, parody). But “there is not always a bright line,” said Jennifer E. Rothman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School who is viewed as a leading authority on right-to-privacy law.
Ms. Kilcher’s break in Hollywood came in 2005 when, as a 14-year-old, she was cast as Pocahontas in Terrence Malick’s “The New World.” She has since acted in films like “Dog” and TV shows like “Yellowstone,” and is a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
Ms. Kilcher is asking for damages that include “all profits” attributable to the unauthorized use, including from the sale of “Avatar” tickets; the three “Avatar” films have collected $1.8 billion at the North American box office alone.
“The damages we are asking for are commensurate with the exploitation,” Arnold P. Peter, one of Ms. Kilcher’s lawyers, said in an interview.
Business
U.S. Trade Deficit Grew in March
The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services rose to $60.3 billion in March, increasing 4.4 percent from the previous month, after the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s global tariffs, according to data from the Commerce Department released on Tuesday.
Exports grew 2 percent in the month, to a record $320.9 billion, as the United States exported more oil, soybeans and industrial supplies. The U.S. trade surplus in petroleum hit a record in March, as war with Iran pushed up the price of oil and U.S. energy exports. Imports also gained 2.3 percent in March, to $381.2 billion. The combination increased the monthly trade deficit, the gap between what the United States imports and what it exports.
Tariffs resulted in up-and-down swings in the trade deficit last year. The monthly trade deficit is now somewhat lower than it was in 2024. But overall, the figure hit a record last year, as the United States continued to import high-priced computer chips and weight-loss drugs, and importers stockpiled foreign goods before tariffs took effect.
The data provided the first snapshot of trade since the Supreme Court ruling forced major changes to the Trump administration’s tariff regime.
On Feb. 20, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Trump had exceeded his authority last year when he used an emergency law to impose steep tariffs on nearly every nation.
That ruling forced the administration to withdraw the double-digit tariffs it had issued under that law, which varied by country based on bilateral trade deficits. Mr. Trump immediately moved to replace those levies with a flat 10 percent tariff, issued under a legal authority known as Section 122.
The Section 122 tariff will expire in July unless Congress votes to reauthorize it. So the Trump administration has been working on tariffs to replace it. It has started two trade investigations under another legal provision known as Section 301, which allows the president to impose tariffs in response to unfair trade practices.
One of the new investigations would target countries that don’t have laws blocking imports made with forced labor. The other centers on what the administration calls “excess capacity” among 16 of the country’s largest trading partners.
The Trump administration says overproduction in the factory sectors of some foreign countries has resulted in large and persistent U.S. trade deficits with those nations. Representatives from various industries, ranging from sugar to technology to chemicals, are set to testify about the investigation on Tuesday and Wednesday in Washington this week.
Next week, Mr. Trump is expected to visit Beijing, for a meeting with the Chinese leader that will be partly focused on trade. U.S. imports from China have shrunk significantly, as the administration has imposed high tariffs on Chinese goods, and companies have relocated supply chains out of the country.
Business
Commentary: How many Cybertrucks has Tesla sold to the public? Fewer than you might think
How bad are sales of Tesla’s Cybertruck? Nearly 20% of the vehicles went to Elon Musk’s other companies, raising questions about the vehicle’s future
The Cybertruck, Tesla’s would-be competitor in the EV pickup truck market, has long since secured its place as the Edsel of the electric vehicle age.
It’s been derided as unwieldy and ugly and unable to match other pickups in basic functionality. In the colorful take of Tesla critic Will Lockett, it’s “the vehicular form of halitosis” and an “ick’ on four wheels.”
But one doesn’t need words to describe how the Cybertruck has fared among the pickup-buying public; the numbers tell the story.
According to Cox Automotive’s Kelley Blue Book, Tesla sold only 20,237 of the vehicles in 2025, down 48.1% from the 38,965 sold the year before. The slide continued in the first quarter of this year, Cox reported — 3,519 sold, down 45.1% from the 6,406 sold in the year-earlier period.
But there’s more to the story — or to be more precise, less.
In the fourth quarter of 2025, of the 7,071 Cybertruck U.S. registrations, 1,279 went to SpaceX, the rocketship company headed by Tesla boss Elon Musk, which is planning an initial public stock offering sometime this year. An additional 60 were registered by other companies in the Musk empire, namely xAI, Neuralink and the Boring Co.
In other words, nearly 20% of all the Cybertrucks registered in the U.S. in the fourth quarter went to Musk’s companies. Based on the Cybertruck’s starting price of $70,000, that’s the equivalent of $93.7 million in merchandise circulating within Musk’s orbit rather than going to outside buyers.
In the fourth quarter of 2025, of the 7,071 Cybertruck U.S. registrations, 1,279 went to SpaceX
The figures were compiled by S&P Global Mobility and reported by Bloomberg. I asked Tesla to comment but received no reply.
The transfers of Cybertrucks to other Musk companies raise questions about how he conflates the interests of his private companies and his public company (Tesla), arguably to the disadvantage of Tesla shareholders. More on that in a moment.
The sales numbers raise obvious questions about the future of the Cybertruck as part of Tesla’s five-model lineup. They also undermine Musk’s declared faith in the truck. When it was introduced in 2023, Musk asserted that he expected to sell 250,000 to 500,000 Cybertrucks a year once manufacturing capacity was fully engaged.
It would be hard to find market experts who took that prediction seriously, but few probably expected the shortfall to be so steep. Cybertruck’s 48.1% decline in 2025 sales compared with 2024 was the sharpest such decline of any EV in the U.S. market over that period, in which EV sales generally slumped.
Initial Cybertruck sales of 38,965 in 2024 seemed almost to validate Musk’s optimism. But negative perceptions took hold through the year and into 2025, starting with the ridicule the vehicle’s boxy design attracted on the street.
Poor manufacturing quality has prompted U.S. regulators to order eight recalls of Cybertrucks since its introduction, culminating in the March 2025 recall of almost every Cybertruck to correct the tendency of a stainless steel exterior panel to come off the vehicle at freeway speeds, posing a hazard to other drivers.
Online reports and videos showing Cybertrucks defeated by conditions such as uneven terrain and steep grades that are routinely managed by rival pickups may also have sapped buyer enthusiasm for the model.
It’s true that the Cybertruck has problems that aren’t shared with other EVs. One is that it can’t be sold in European Union countries, because the EU has found that its exterior design can imperil pedestrians.
Nor do other EV manufacturers have to contend with public obloquy being showered on their leaders; Tesla sales in Germany cratered last year after Musk threw his support behind the extreme-right neo-Nazi party Alternative for Germany. There, new Tesla vehicle registrations fell by 76.3% in February 2025 from the same month a year earlier — that is, to 1,429 from 6,029. The decline continued all year, resulting in an overall decline of 48.4%.
As my colleague Caroline Petrow-Cohen reported last year, public distemper over Musk’s position as the leader of DOGE, the quasi-governmental body that ran roughshod through the federal workforce after Donald Trump launched his second term, also may have cut into Tesla sales in the U.S. A study by Yale researchers last year estimated that Musk cost Tesla as many as 1.26 million car sales since October 2022, when he acquired the social media platform Twitter and gave greater access on it to the far right and other extremist voices.
That said, Teslas remained the best-selling EVs in the U.S. market last year with nearly 60% of EV unit sales, according to Cox. Its full-year decline of 7% was exceeded by several other carmakers with EVs in their lineups, including BMW (down 16.7%), Kia (down 39.7%) and Ford (down 14.1%).
The U.S. EV market generally lost ground after the expiration of federal incentives last year, but many individual models slumped sharply, including Ford’s all-electric version of its top-selling F-150 pickup, sales of which fell 18.5% from the year before (though it still outsold the Cybertruck).
Tesla’s transfers of Cybertrucks to other Musk operations should concern Tesla shareholders, depending on how much, if anything, SpaceX and the other companies paid for the vehicles. In arm’s-length transactions between related parties, the transfers should be marked at prices resembling those on the open market, whether individual or fleet sales.
Tesla has been vague to the point of opacity about these deals. In an amendment to its annual report filed on April 30 (after the Bloomberg report), it disclosed that it received about $143.3 million last year and $100,000 this year in deals with SpaceX, including “the sale of vehicles” at what may be market prices. But it didn’t say those deals involved the Cybertruck.
It would be interesting to know how SpaceX is using its Cybertrucks, since it wouldn’t seem to need a fleet to transport equipment headed for space in the back of pickup trucks. Why Musk’s AI or neurological companies need any such vehicles is hard to gauge.
As it happens, however, Tesla investors don’t seem to have been fazed by Bloomberg’s report. Tesla shares closed in Monday’s trading at $392.51, higher than they were on April 15, the day before Bloomberg published, when they closed at $391.95.
This wouldn’t be the first time that Musk has melded his personal interests with those of his public shareholders. The prototypical such action occurred in 2016, when he orchestrated Tesla’s purchase of his SolarCity for $2.8 billion, a 35% premium from the latter’s trading price. (Investment manager Jim Chanos, who had short positions in both companies, called the deal a “shameful example of corporate governance at its worst.”)
At the time, Tesla’s seven board seats were held by Musk and four of his cronies, including his brother Kimbal, and SolarCity’s board included Musk and two of his cousins. On that occasion, Tesla investors turned queasy, pushing Tesla shares down by more than 10% the day the deal was announced.
Musk defended the deal as a triumph of clean energy industry synergy, but one struggles to find significant gains from the linkup. Energy generation and storage, which would cover SolarCity’s business, accounted for about 13.5% of Tesla’s revenue in 2025, nearly a decade after the merger.
What role the Cybertruck — indeed, any Tesla vehicles — will play in the company’s future remains murky. Musk recently has talked about shifting the company’s focus to AI, robotaxis and humanoid robots, but these all resemble pipe dreams. AI is more and more a marketing term with less meat on its bones than the incessant publicity about it suggests and Tesla’s robotaxi venture today consists of about a dozen vehicles tooling around Austin, Texas, with human supervisors in the car or near at hand.
Musk last year projected that humanoid robots would generate “$30 trillion in revenue” for Tesla, though he acknowledged that he was “just guessing” and that there would be a “long way to go between here and making one billion robots a year.” As I’ve reported, however, even some robotics experts argue that giving workaday robots humanoid features makes no sense functionally and is likely to be abandoned once manufacturers seriously contemplate how household robots should look and function.
None of this means that Tesla might not be able to recapture its mojo in the EV market. Consumer interest in EVs tends to rise and fall in lockstep with gas prices. EV makers had a tough 2025 in the U.S. But that could turn around this year if President Trump’s Iran adventure continues to drive up the cost of oil and consequently gasoline prices at the pump.
But Tesla faces a lot more competition for EVs than it ever has in the past; other companies such as Hyundai have moved down-market and China’s BYD recently surpassed Tesla in global sales of battery-powered vehicles. BYD has been largely kept out of the U.S. market by high tariffs, but it may be impossible to keep its cars out forever. Tesla, which pioneered the EV market, may need a new model to compete with BYD and the foreign and domestic automakers already in the market, but the Cybertruck sure hasn’t been looking like its savior.
-
News2 minutes agoIn Indiana Primary Elections, Most Trump-Backed Challengers Beat Incumbents
-
Politics8 minutes agoTakeaways From Indiana Primary Elections 2026: Trump Gets Payback
-
Business14 minutes ago‘Avatar’ Suit Focuses on Hot Topic in A.I. Age: A Character’s Face
-
Science20 minutes agoIn Venice, an Ocean-Inspired Exhibition Takes Visitors Under the Sea
-
Health26 minutes agoF.D.A. Blocked Publication of Research Finding Covid and Shingles Vaccines Were Safe
-
Culture38 minutes agoBook Review: ‘Prestige Drama,’ by Seamas O’Reilly
-
Lifestyle44 minutes agoStreet Style Look of the Week: A Brand Loyalist Steps Out in Blue
-
Education50 minutes agoHow Anne Frank Is Linked to a Sapling on Staten Island