Home Blog

Mozilla President: meet the open source ‘rebel alliance’ that could break Big Tech’s grip on AI



Much of the public conversation about AI today focuses on what it can do. New capabilities emerge almost weekly, and with them come understandable questions about safety, trust, and control. But the questions that matter most are: Who controls the infrastructure behind AI? And what values is it designed to protect?

Answering those questions will shape not only how AI works, but whose interests it serves. As governments, businesses, and citizens grapple with the future of AI, we have a critical opportunity today to ensure the building blocks of AI are pro-human by design. The choices we make now will determine whether AI continues to be something owned and directed by a small number of actors — or a resource that can be shaped and governed more broadly in the public interest.

This became even more apparent recently, when the U.S. government’s action to suspend access to Mythos unnerved governments and companies around the world, raising concerns about one government’s ability to unilaterally cut off technology used by others.

Encouragingly, a new path is beginning to emerge, led by middle-power nations. At this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney set out a challenge for middle-power nations like his own — nations with the capacity to build a world that “encompasses our values, such as respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.” Canada has also released its national AI strategy, which prioritizes the development of open-source AI technology.

More recently, the European Union joined Canada in “placing open source at the centre of the EU’s technological sovereignty.” This includes commitments to support open-source alternatives throughout the AI stack, backing startups, and developing new government procurement guidelines that put the EU’s thumb on the scale in favor of open-source innovation. Countries from Germany to Japan are looking at ways to integrate open source into their national strategies, while the UK has announced an Open Source Builder’s Fund, aiming to make Britain the “home of global open source AI talent.”

Open source is emerging as a powerful consensus middle path and the private sector is catching on.

Research has shown that open-source technology has created over $8.8 trillion in demand-side value: firms would have to spend 3.5 times more on software than they currently do if open source didn’t exist. Entrepreneurs and researchers are building and leveraging open-source AI tools, models, and datasets that reflect local needs and perspectives. Developers are gravitating quickly toward open-source AI. A recent a16z and OpenRouter study found that open-source models grew from roughly 1–2% of token volume in late 2024 to nearly 30% by mid-2025 — a clear marker of momentum among builders, and a significant business opportunity.

Unlike AI technology owned and controlled by a few large corporations, open-source AI is available to everyone. That not only means governments and companies can own the infrastructure on which they build — it means anyone can look under the hood. That transparency is what can make AI safe and accountable by design.

At Mozilla, we often talk about building technology that amplifies human agency rather than replacing it. In December 2022, we amended our foundational Manifesto with a Pledge for a Healthy Internet, centered on four commitments: that the internet should include all people; promote civil discourse, human dignity, and individual expression; elevate critical thinking and verifiable facts; and catalyze collaboration across communities working for the common good.

That is the path Canada, the EU, and other middle powers are leading — in collaboration with a private sector hungry for AI alternatives to the closed models that dominate today.

AI has enormous potential, but a growing unease surrounds its direction and who controls it. The antidote is building AI that is open, trustworthy, and reflective of a diversity of voices outside Silicon Valley and China’s AI labs. That future can only be built by a middle-power, open-source coalition determined to ensure AI works for human beings — not the other way around.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Puig Brands upgraded by BNP Paribas, citing valuation and sales outlook




Puig Brands upgraded by BNP Paribas, citing valuation and sales outlook

Venmo: Pay $30 on Whatnot & Get $10 Bonus


The Offer

No direct link

  • Venmo is offering $10 when you shop $30 or more on Whatnot and pay with Venmo. Valid through 7/10/26.

Here’s how to do this deal:

  • Head to the Whatnot app and add Venmo as your payment method.
  • Join a show and find something you love.
  • Check out with Venmo on a purchase of $30+ and we’ll drop $10 in your account within 14 days.

The Fin Print

  • Eligible Participant: Open only to individuals who; (1) are residents of any one (1) of the fifty (50) United States or the District of Columbia, (2) are eighteen (18) years of age or older, (3) have an existing U.S. Venmo account in good standing (“Valid Account”), (4) receive an authorized email or view an in app banner or tile inviting participation in the offer (“Invitation”), and (5) receive the Reward (defined below) in the Valid Account (eligibility for/those who receive the Rewards will be determined solely by Venmo) (“Eligible Participant”).
  • [Offer Period: Starts June 10, 2026, at 12:00:00 a.m., and ends on July 10, 2026, at 11:59:59 p.m. PT or upon reaching the maximum 50,000 redemptions available under this offer (“Offer Period”).]
  • How it Works: An Eligible Participant must successfully complete an eligible purchase of at least $30 USD or more using Venmo on the WhatNot® app or at Whatnot.com during the Offer Period.
    Once an eligible purchase has been successfully completed and verified by Venmo, $10 cash back will be sent to Eligible Participant’s Valid Account (“Reward”). Reward should be added to Eligible Participant’s Valid Account within fourteen (14) days after purchase is completed but may be available sooner. There are only 50,000 Rewards available during the Offer Period; Rewards will no longer be available once the limit is reached. There is a limit of one (1) Reward or a maximum of $10 USD, per Valid Account.
  • Miscellaneous: Valid Account must remain in good standing from the time of participation through Reward fulfilment to redeem a Reward, as determined in Venmo’s sole discretion. Venmo may provide an alternate reward of equal value if it is unable for any reason to fulfill the Reward. Venmo reserves the right to cancel, suspend or modify this offer in part or in its entirety at any time without notice, for any reason in its sole discretion. Similar offers may run at the same time; qualification for this offer does not constitute qualification for any other offer. Venmo is not responsible and/or liable if any e-mail, Reward, Qualifying Transaction, or offer-related materials or correspondence are lost, fraudulent, abusive, stolen, late, incomplete, illegible, interrupted, delayed, altered, defective, misdirected, tampered with, or irregular in any way or if any participant’s e-mail address, Valid Account, or other contact information does not work, is deleted, or is changed without participant giving prior written notice to Venmo. Venmo reserves the right to review any account or transaction related to this offer, in its sole discretion, without notice, and delay or reverse completion of the Reward. Offer is void where prohibited and if Qualifying Transactions are fraudulent, abusive, not completed through legitimate channels, or irregular in any way. Certain offers may not be transferable. Participation is subject to the Venmo User Agreement. Any questions relating to the offer will be resolved in Venmo’s sole discretion and its decisions related to the offer will be final and binding.

Our Verdict

Far as I can tell this is a public offer for anyone (?). Look at for the email from [email protected]. 

Hat tip to reader Kats

ANDREW TATE SAYS THIS ABOUT CRYPTO FUTURE #shorts



#shorts

💰DONT MISS THE BULLRUN !! & EARN Up to 1000USDC Rewards 💚 BINANCE💰
✅ Access top crypto markets with the best liquidity available.
👁️ Referral code: CPA_00NYABTOIZ
👏 👏

Andrew Tate talks about crypto – bitcoin, ethereum and the community scams that are happeing. Developers create telegram channels and then pump and dump on the first opprotunity to earn on the believers. TOP G doesnt fall for those crypto scams and understands how bitcoin and ethereum and other altcoins work.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use For any copyright issues or business inquiries: thetateonly@gmail.com Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

source

Clash of titans: GSIB proposal pits megabank against megabank



  • Key takeaway: JPMorganChase and Bank of America objected to the proposed removal of risk-weighted assets from the denominator of the short-term wholesale funding component of the GSIB surcharge, arguing the change could distort how regulators measure a bank’s reliance on short-term wholesale funding. 
  • Expert quote: “The removal of the [short-term wholesale funding] denominator causes the proposal to affect firms unevenly. Utilizing gross STWF with no denominator may overstate risk for a larger firm with lower relative reliance on STWF.” — Alastair Borthwick, chief financial officer at Bank of America.
  • What’s at stake: Despite disagreements over certain aspects of the GSIB and Basel III proposals, banks urged prudential regulators to move quickly to finalize the rules.

The nation’s largest banks are divided over proposed changes to the Federal Reserve’s capital surcharge proposal for global systemically important banks, with one of the biggest disagreements centered on how regulators calculate short-term wholesale funding. 

Processing Content

In separate comment letters submitted June 18, JPMorganChase and Bank of America said the central bank did not provide sufficient justification for removing risk-weighted assets from the denominator of the short-term wholesale funding component of the GSIB surcharge. The banks argued the change could distort how reliance on short-term wholesale funding is measured and produce uneven outcomes across the largest U.S. banks. “The removal of the STWF denominator causes the proposal to affect firms unevenly,” wrote Alastair Borthwick, chief financial officer at Bank of America. “Utilizing gross STWF with no denominator may overstate risk for a larger firm with lower relative reliance on STWF.”

The concerns were not shared by the nation’s two largest investment banks. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, in their own separate comment letters, backed the proposed revisions, arguing the changes would improve the accuracy of the GSIB surcharge by better aligning the short-term wholesale funding measure.

The commentary letter from Goldman Sachs argues that the legacy methodology pairs two unrelated measures and therefore fails to accurately assess a bank’s reliance on short-term wholesale funding.

“Because there is no correlation between STWF and [risk-weighted assets], retaining RWA in the denominator would cause the STWF indicator to drift out of balance over time,” Goldman Sachs’ commentary reads. “Eliminating RWA from the denominator would result in a more transparent and economically grounded measure of reliance on STWF.”

The comment letters came in response to a package of proposed rules released in March by U.S. banking regulators aimed at revising capital requirements. The proposals include changes to the implementation of remaining Basel III standards, revisions to the GSIB surcharge framework and updates to the standardized approach for calculating regulatory capital requirements. 

While Bank of America acknowledged that the GSIB surcharge calculation could be improved, it argued that removing the denominator without replacing it could disadvantage certain firms. Bank of America suggested replacing risk-weighted assets with adjusted average assets, saying the alternative would produce “more consistent results across firms.” Chase argued for keeping the risk-weighted assets denominator, saying the methodology change could require GSIBs to hold more capital against short-term wholesale funding and increase costs for consumers through higher capital requirements. Despite their differences over the STWF calculation, all four banks urged the Fed to update its Method 2 GSIB surcharge formula to account for economic growth and inflation since the framework was established. 

“Absent such adjustments, firms may be penalized for balance sheet growth that merely reflects broader economic expansion rather than an increase in systemic footprint,” Goldman Sachs wrote in its letter.

Some analysts expect regulators to maintain most of the proposed changes to GSIB and Basel III, while making some targeted changes in response to industry feedback.

One potential change could involve the definition of “commitment” in the Basel III proposal. Banks have argued the revised definition is too broad and creates uncertainty over which potential lending arrangements require additional capital.

A joint letter from banking trade groups, including the Bank Policy Institute and the American Bankers Association, said the proposed definition “introduces substantial ambiguity and increases the likelihood of inconsistent application across firms.”

The change could have varying effects across the banking industry. Large banks could face higher capital requirements because of an expanded risk base, while midsize banks could see effects through the standard leverage ratio. Smaller banks could also face additional reporting requirements under the broader definition.

Though there are divisions over certain elements of the proposal, banks have generally supported the GSIB surcharge and Basel III endgame changes, viewing them as a significant improvement over former Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr’s 2023 proposal. Bank comment letters urged regulators to move quickly toward finalizing the rules. 

“We went from huge issues of mid to high teens capital increase to now we’re arguing over the wording of things on the margin,” said Ed Mills, a managing director at Raymond James in a previous interview. “That shows you how far this has come.”



Why Now Could Be the Best Market For Real Estate Investing in Over a Decade


Both active and passive real estate investors have pulled back over the last year. For example, Redfin reported that mom-and-pop investors pulled back by 6% late last year and 13% for condo investments.  

Anecdotally, I’ve heard this from professional real estate operators as well. I talk to at least a couple every week, and for several years now, they’ve said the same thing: “It’s really hard to raise capital from individual investors right now.”

But here’s the thing about retail investors: Because they invest based on “vibes” and headlines, they only start investing well after a recovery. They wait until the headlines are all hunky-dory again, and after assets have been performing well for a while. By then, they’ve missed out on the best opportunities. 

Don’t take my word for it. Dalbar has studied this for decades, pointing out how retail stock investors consistently underperform the market at large. Over a 20-year period, the S&P 500 earned an average annual return of 8.2%, while the average retail investor earned a quarter of that at 2.1%. 

Here’s why you should rethink everything you “know” about today’s real estate market and start investing slowly and steadily in real estate every month as I do. 

The Post-Crash Multifamily Recovery Is Still Early

Apartment property prices crashed 25%-30% in 2022, after interest rates and cap rates shot through the roof. They’ve since started recovering but remain in the early stages of that recovery

Check out Freddie Mac’s Apartment Investment Market Index (AIMI).

Everyone (myself included) assumed that recovery would go faster after prices hit bottom in late 2022-early 2023. But cap rates move in near-lockstep with interest rates, and persistent inflation has kept rates higher for longer. 

That leaves plenty of room for improving prices over the next few years. 

Institutional Investors Are Moving More Money Into Real Estate

Seeing that recovery underway, large investment firms poured $216 billion into apartment buildings, industrial, retail, and other commercial real estate in the first quarter of 2026. Globally, that’s an 18% increase over last year, and North America saw a 25% jump in investment. 

What do they know that you don’t? 

A lot, actually. They have access to world-class data from private firms—and entire teams of professionals whose full-time job is to analyze risk. 

Returning to the stock analogy, this is why active fund managers still outperform individual investors, even if they don’t consistently outperform benchmarks like the S&P 500. 

Higher Cap Rates and Bang for Investors’ Buck

Higher cap rates mean lower property prices per dollar of income. That’s bad news for sellers but great news for buyers. 

Sure, higher interest rates throttle cash flow today, at least for investors who finance a huge portion of the purchase. But as they say, you marry the property but date the rate. Investors can refinance when rates move lower, but they buy in based on today’s (relatively) high cap rates.

That sets you up for supercharged cash flow as rents rise and your loan payments potentially fall.

Distressed Sellers

Investors score the best deals from distressed sellers. And those lingering high cap rates and interest rates have left plenty of distressed multifamily operators. 

High cap rates have put many operators who bought from 2020 to 2023 upside down on their properties. They can’t sell, and they can’t refinance without bringing huge amounts of cash to the table—which they don’t have. 

Plus, high interest rates have left many people who took out floating-rate loans with negative cash flow. Many have defaulted on their loans and are being forced to sell at steep discounts. 

That’s no fun for them. But it’s great for us as investors buying in today. 

New Rental Construction Is Falling

An excess of new rental supply has sent rents falling in much of the country, especially the Sunbelt. 

That imbalance of supply and demand is shifting. Permits for new apartment construction have fallen from 761,000 in early 2023 to 491,000 in April. That’s a 35% drop. 

It takes time for markets to absorb a supply glut, but many are in the process of doing so in mid-2026. Sure enough, you can see it in the surging apartment vacancy rate over the last few years, hitting a peak in early 2026 and starting to decline again. 

 

More Conservative Underwriting

In the years leading up to 2022, many real estate investors played fast and loose with underwriting. They borrowed short-term, floating-rate mortgages and projected huge rent growth and modest expense growth. 

Those operators have since gone out of business. Those who survived learned some expensive lessons. 

Investors today use more conservative financing and underwriting. They have to, with rents stalling and even declining year over year, and the surge in property taxes and insurance between 2023 and 2025.

For passive investors, that means safer investments than those available a few years ago. Often, we see investments paying 8% distributions immediately, between the high cap rates and operators pursuing low-risk, high-cash-flow properties that are already performing well today. No major renovations or rent hikes are required—just strong cash flow based on today’s rents. 

Better Terms for Passive Investors

Because many operators have had trouble raising capital over the last couple of years, they’ve had to offer better terms to attract investors, like higher preferred returns and better profit splits. We see this all the time in my co-investing club, with more operators offering 8%-10% preferred returns and 70/30 or 80/20 profit splits instead of 60/40. 

How I’m Investing Today

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not suggesting you try to time the market. Quite the opposite, in fact. 

I practice dollar-cost averaging with my real estate investments, investing $2,500 or $5,000 every month. I go in on these investments with a co-investing club, where we all split the minimum investment so we can each invest less. 

Too many individual investors look at recent returns and headlines, letting emotion dictate their investments. Look at the big picture instead: Markets go through cycles, but those cycles aren’t always predictable. If you keep investing month in and month out, however, you’ll come out ahead of all those nail-biters sitting on the sidelines.

I do try to invest in recession-resilient real estate, however. Shocks happen, and I don’t want my portfolio melting in the next rainstorm.  

Rather than trying to time the market or pick the next hot asset class, I invest passively in deals all over the country. I invest in many different property types, from single-family to multifamily, mobile home parks to industrial, and raw land to ground-up construction. In fact, my co-investing club just vetted our first international deal, in Canada. 

Some investments will inevitably underperform. Others will overperform. Most will fall in the middle of the bell curve. That broad exposure is precisely what helps me sleep at night. 

Prediction: This Artificial Intelligence (AI) Semiconductor Stock Will Join the $1 Trillion Club by 2028


There are currently 16 companies that have crossed the $1 trillion market cap plateau, with two more, Walmart and JPMorgan Chase, knocking on the door.

One of the next artificial intelligence (AI) stocks to reach $1 trillion in market cap should be the Dutch semiconductor company ASML (ASML 2.14%).

Currently, ASML is the world’s 20th-largest company, with a market cap of about $693 billion. Based on its rapid growth rate over the past five years or so, it should reach $1 trillion sometime in 2028.

ASML, which makes the lithography equipment used to manufacture semiconductors and chips, has been growing rapidly during the artificial intelligence boom. While it’s not a chip foundry like Taiwan Semiconductor, it has a competitive advantage similar to Taiwan Semiconductor.

Image source: Getty Images.

ASML is the dominant leader in its space, with a market share of roughly 90%. It is also agnostic in that its equipment is used by all the major chipmakers, including Taiwan Semiconductor, and it does not compete with any of them as a chipmaker itself.

Plus, its extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines are cutting-edge and sought after by the leading foundries and chipmakers, such as Samsung Electronics, Taiwan Semiconductor, Intel, Micron, and SK Hynix, among others. Some analysts suggest that its competitors would need 10 years and an investment of more than $100 billion to simply catch up to its technology advantages. That’s a huge leg up on the competition.

The total addressable market for chips is expected to be more than $1 trillion in 2030, and the company anticipates revenue of between $50 billion and $68 billion by 2030 — or 44 billion to 60 billion euros. But some analysts, like Bank of America, think revenue could reach $83 billion by 2030, or 73 billion euros.

Will it join the $1 trillion club by 2028?

ASML Stock Quote

Today’s Change

(-2.14%) $-39.32

Current Price

$1801.86

At the end of fiscal 2025, ASML generated 32.7 billion euros in net sales, around $37 billion. That’s a roughly 15% growth rate from $32 billion in 2024.

A 15% growth rate over the next five years would easily put ASML’s net sales at about $75 billion by the end of 2030 — more than double its current total. That’s probably what BofA is thinking in its projections.

Given the explosion in AI and its huge competitive advantages, I do not see ASML’s growth rate slowing down — if anything, it may increase.

So, if you look at how the market cap has grown over the past five years during the initial AI boom, it is not out of the realm of possibility that ASML could hit $1 trillion in market cap in two years.

In July of 2021, ASML’s market cap was $288 billion, so it has grown at a 19% annualized clip over the past five years. If it averages 19% growth over the next two years as of June 25, the market cap would be roughly $980 billion. So, by the end of calendar year 2028, it would likely surpass $1 trillion and be, perhaps, the 20th company to join the club.

Bank of America is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. JPMorgan Chase is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Dave Kovaleski has positions in Micron Technology. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends ASML, Intel, JPMorgan Chase, Micron Technology, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, and Walmart. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

The MLC rejects Pandora’s bid to use a horse racing ruling against the mechanical royalties lawsuit


The Mechanical Licensing Collective has rejected Pandora‘s attempt to use a federal appeals court ruling on horse racing regulation to undermine the collective’s authority to sue the streaming service over mechanical royalties.

In a filing on Wednesday (June 24) in the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, the MLC called the cited ruling “inapposite” and said it “does not advance Pandora’s argument.”

The response came one week after Pandora filed a notice of supplemental authority citing a June 11 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which found that the enforcement provisions of a federal horseracing law violated the private nondelegation doctrine.

That doctrine restricts Congress‘s ability to hand government enforcement powers to private entities without supervision from a federal agency.

Pandora contends that the same reasoning applies to the MLC – a private, government-designated body created under the Music Modernization Act of 2018 – which can investigate licensees and pursue them in court without sign-off from a government agency.

But the MLC argued that Pandora has forfeited its constitutional challenge by raising it too late in the proceedings.

“Pandora forfeited its constitutional arguments when it chose not to assert them at the outset and instead litigated this action for two years through discovery without once raising them,” the MLC said in its filing.

The collective also argued that it operates under sufficient government oversight to satisfy the nondelegation standard, stating that the MLC and “the individual voting members of its board of directors are appointed and removable by a department head (the Librarian of Congress) and are subject to pervasive oversight by the Librarian and the Register of Copyrights.”

On the substance of the horseracing ruling, the MLC raised three objections.

First, the collective noted that the Fifth Circuit‘s decision does not apply a different legal standard from the one articulated by the Sixth Circuit in Oklahoma v. United States – which is the binding authority in the Middle District of Tennessee, where the Pandora case sits.

Second, the Fifth Circuit‘s specific conclusion that the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) enforcement provisions are unconstitutional “directly conflicts” with the Sixth Circuit‘s conclusion to the contrary.

Pandora itself acknowledged this in its filing, conceding that the Fifth Circuit “expressly parted ways with the Sixth Circuit.”

Third, the MLC argued that the horseracing law’s structure is fundamentally different from the Music Modernization Act.

The MLC said the MMA “fully lacks HISA’s ‘clear delineation’” of enforcement functions, and instead “grants The MLC broad authority to engage in activities concerning the Blanket License, including enforcement, and also grants the agency broad oversight that encompasses The MLC and the entire statutory regime.”

“In sum, Black does not provide Pandora with an escape from the liability that is established in the summary judgment papers,” the MLC said.

The case dates to February 2024, when the MLC sued Pandora in the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, alleging that the company underpaid mechanical royalties on its ad-supported Pandora Free tier.

Both parties filed competing motions for summary judgment in February 2026, each asking Judge Eli J. Richardson to rule in its favor.

In opposition briefs filed in March, the MLC called Pandora‘s constitutional argument “desperate and unfounded.”

The underlying question in the case remains whether Pandora Free qualifies as an “interactive service” under the Copyright Act, which would make it subject to mechanical royalties on all of its streams.

The MLC argues that on-demand listening, unlimited skips and replays, and personalized programming each place the service in that category.

A spokesperson for the MLC told MBW in March that the evidence “confirms that Pandora Free is an ‘interactive service’ and that Pandora has improperly underpaid royalties due to copyright owners under the Blanket License.”

Pandora counters that its free tier operates as noninteractive internet radio, and that its Premium Access sessions, 30-minute windows that free users can unlock after watching a video ad, are licensed separately.

Pandora‘s constitutional argument tracks a separate fight involving its own parent company.

In August 2025, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a lawsuit brought by SoundExchange against SiriusXM, Pandora‘s parent, finding that Section 114 of the Copyright Act does not authorize SoundExchange to litigate royalty disputes.

That ruling turned on statutory interpretation rather than the Constitution, and Buchwald noted that the MLC‘s governing statute, Section 115, expressly grants the collective the power to bring a federal court action.

SoundExchange is appealing the decision.

A ruling from Judge Richardson on the summary judgment motions is pending.Music Business Worldwide

Amex Delta Business Upgrade Offers: Earn Up to 60K Bonus Miles


Amex Delta Business Upgrade Offers

American Express has Delta Business cards upgrade offers that can get you up to 60,000 bonus SkyMiles. If you’re eligible, you can upgrade your existing card to a higher-tier Delta Business card and receive a bonus after meeting the required spending requirement.

Before upgrading, it’s important to compare the offer with applying for a new card. Upgrade offers generally don’t involve a new credit inquiry and let you keep your existing account history, but they also make you ineligible for a new card welcome bonus on that product if you haven’t had it before. Let’s see these two offers.

Delta SkyMiles® Platinum Business Card

  • Upgrade to the Delta SkyMiles® Platinum Business Card to earn 50,000 Bonus Miles after you spend $8,000 in purchases on the Card in the first 6 months of Card Membership.
  • $350 Annual Fee
  • UPGRADE OFFER LINK

Delta SkyMiles® Reserve Business Card

  • Upgrade to the Delta SkyMiles® Reserve Business Card to earn 60,000 Bonus Miles after you spend $12,000 in purchases on the Card in the first 6 months of Card Membership.
  • $650 Annual Fee
  • UPGRADE OFFER LINK

Things to Know

When you upgrade your card, American Express will typically charge a prorated annual fee based on the time remaining in your current cardmember year. If you’ve already paid the annual fee on your existing card, you’ll usually receive a prorated credit for the unused portion and then be charged the prorated fee for the upgraded card.

Also keep in mind that American Express requires you to keep the upgraded card for at least 12 months after accepting the upgrade offer. Downgrading or canceling the card before then could result in the bonus being clawed back and may violate the terms of the upgrade offer.

Guru’s Wrap-up

These are solid upgrade offers, especially for cardholders who don’t qualify for a welcome bonus on a new Delta Business card. Just make sure the additional annual fee and premium benefits make sense for your spending and travel habits. 

HT: Parts_Unknown

INTRO TO FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – THE THREE KEY DECISIONS (PART 1)



This video explains the concept of financial management and the three key decisions of financial management.

source