Raleigh, United States, August 31st, 2026, FinanceWire

Executes a major step in RedHill’s strategic roadmap to fundamentally reposition the Company’s commercial business toward new and larger product opportunities, revenue growth and an accelerated path toward operational profitability

Realizes substantial value from RedHill’s 70% stake in Talicia, currently held within a shared ownership and economic structure, while immediately creating a stronger liquidity position and fully funding the next major steps in RedHill’s transformational commercial expansion

Under the terms of the agreement, Apotex will pay RedHill an upfront payment of $18 million plus up to an additional $35 million in potential worldwide net sales milestone payments

 

RedHill Biopharma Ltd. (Nasdaq: RDHL) (“RedHill” or the “Company”), a specialty biopharmaceutical company, today announced the divestment of its Talicia business to a subsidiary of Apotex Health Corp. (TSX: APTX) (“Apotex”) for an upfront payment of $18 million plus up to an additional $35 million in potential payments based on worldwide net sales milestones.

“This transaction is a pivotal milestone for RedHill. We are converting our 70% stake in Talicia into immediate capital, significantly stronger liquidity and meaningful potential upside, while fully funding the next major step in our commercial business expansion. I want to thank the RedHill team for developing and positioning this important product for success, targeting H. pylori infection, the main cause of gastric cancer and stomach ulcers,” said Dror Ben-Asher, RedHill’s Chief Executive Officer. “We are confident that given its proven capabilities, Apotex is the right home to grow Talicia globally. We thank Apotex for their partnership on the successful conclusion of this transaction, which unlocks the resources needed to scale RedHill’s existing gastrointestinal (GI) commercial franchise into a stronger and larger one, including new, high-value, FDA-approved product opportunities intended to drive sustained growth and accelerate our path toward operational profitability.”

Under the terms of the agreement, RedHill received $18 million in cash and has the potential to receive up to an additional $35 million in payments based on worldwide net sales milestones from Apotex. In return, Apotex will receive RedHill’s 70% interest in Talicia, following Apotex’s prior acquisition of Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s U.S. branded business, which included Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s 30% ownership in Talicia.

RedHill was advised by Morningstar Law Group and Greenberg Traurig LLP on this transaction.

About RedHill Biopharma  

RedHill Biopharma Ltd. (Nasdaq: RDHL) is a specialty biopharmaceutical company primarily focused on U.S. development and commercialization of drugs for gastrointestinal diseases, infectious diseases and oncology. RedHill’s key clinical late-stage development programs include: (i) opaganib (ABC294640), a first-in-class, orally administered sphingosine kinase-2 (SPHK2) selective inhibitor with anti-inflammatory, antiviral, metabolic and anticancer activity, targeting multiple indications with a track record of U.S. government and academic collaborations intended for medical countermeasure development including for EVD, radiation exposure indications such as GI-Acute Radiation Syndrome (GI-ARS), an ongoing Phase 2 study in prostate cancer in combination with darolutamide and a Phase 2/3 program for hospitalized COVID-19; (ii) RHB-102 (Bekinda), with a planned Phase 2 proof-of-concept study for GLP-1/GIP receptor agonist-associated GI intolerance, positive results from a U.S. Phase 3 study for acute gastroenteritis and gastritis, positive results from a U.S. Phase 2 study for IBS-D and potential UK submission for chemotherapy and radiotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. RHB-102 is partnered with Hyloris Pharmaceuticals (EBR: HYL) for worldwide development and commercialization outside North America; (iii) RHB-204, a next-generation optimized formulation of RHB-104, with a planned Phase 2 study for Crohn’s disease (based on RHB-104’s positive Phase 3 Crohn’s disease study results); and (iv) RHB-107 (upamostat), an oral broad-acting, host-directed, serine protease inhibitor with potential for pandemic preparedness, including COVID-19 and also targeting multiple cancer and inflammatory gastrointestinal diseases.

About Apotex 

Apotex is a Canadian-based global health company. Apotex improves everyday access to affordable, innovative medicines and health products for millions of people around the world, with a broad portfolio of generic, biosimilar, and innovative branded pharmaceuticals, and consumer health products. Headquartered in Toronto, with regional offices globally, including in the United States, Mexico, and India, Apotex is the largest Canadian-based pharmaceutical company and a health partner of choice for the Americas for pharmaceutical licensing and product acquisitions.

Forward Looking Statements

This press release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and may discuss investment opportunities, stock analysis, financial performance, investor relations, and market trends. Such statements may be preceded by the words “intends,” “may,” “will,” “plans,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “projects,” “predicts,” “estimates,” “aims,” “believes,” “hopes,” “potential” or similar words, and include, among others, statements regarding the divestment of Talicia and the potential use of the proceeds of that sale; the Company’s ability to acquire or develop new products, expected revenue growth, the Company’s anticipated path toward operational profitability, and the Company’s strategic plans for its commercial business. Forward-looking statements are based on certain assumptions and are subject to various known and unknown risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company’s control and cannot be predicted or quantified, and consequently, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, without limitation: the risk that the divestment of Talicia does not result in any planned asset acquisitions, or that any such acquisitions are not commercially successful; the risk that proceeds from the transaction are insufficient to fund the Company’s strategic plans or that such plans do not achieve the anticipated results; the risk that opaganib is not accepted into Ebola virus disease control programs, or if accepted, that it does not demonstrate efficacy; the risk that development of RHB-204 for Crohn’s disease may not be completed, or if completed may not be approved or may not achieve commercial success; the risk that opaganib is not effective against the indications for which we develop our products; the risk that RHB-102 (Bekinda) does not effectively reduce GLP-1/GIP-related nausea, vomiting and diarrhea; the risk regarding the Company’s ability to regain and maintain compliance with Nasdaq’s listing requirements, including the minimum bid price requirement; the risk that the addition of new revenue generating products or out-licensing transactions will not occur; the risk that the Company will not receive future milestone payments under its existing agreements, including under the Apotex agreement, or that they will be less than anticipated; the risk of current uncertainty regarding U.S. government research and development funding and that the U.S. government is under no obligation to continue to support development of our products and can cease such support at any time; the risk that acceptance onto the RNCP Product Development Pipeline or other governmental and non-governmental development programs will not guarantee ongoing development or that any such development will not be completed or successful; the risk that the FDA does not agree with the Company’s proposed development plans for its programs; the risk that the Company’s development programs and studies may not be successful and, even if successful, such studies and results may not be sufficient for regulatory applications, including emergency use or marketing applications, and that additional studies may be required; the risk that the Company will not successfully commercialize its products; as well as risks and uncertainties associated with (i) the initiation, timing, progress and results of the Company’s research, manufacturing, pre-clinical studies, clinical trials, and other therapeutic candidate development efforts, and the timing of the commercial launch of its commercial products and ones it may acquire or develop in the future; (ii) the Company’s ability to advance its therapeutic candidates into clinical trials or to successfully complete its pre-clinical studies or clinical trials or the development of any necessary commercial companion diagnostics; (iii) the extent and number and type of additional studies that the Company may be required to conduct and the Company’s receipt of regulatory approvals for its therapeutic candidates, and the timing of other regulatory filings, approvals and feedback; (iv) the manufacturing, clinical development, commercialization, and market acceptance of the Company’s therapeutic candidates; (v) the Company’s ability to establish and maintain corporate collaborations; (vi) the Company’s ability to acquire products approved for marketing in the U.S. that achieve commercial success and build its own marketing and commercialization capabilities; (vii) the interpretation of the properties and characteristics of the Company’s therapeutic candidates and the results obtained with its therapeutic candidates in research, pre-clinical studies or clinical trials; (viii) the implementation of the Company’s business model, strategic plans for its business and therapeutic candidates; (ix) the scope of protection the Company is able to establish and maintain for intellectual property rights covering its therapeutic candidates and its ability to operate its business without infringing the intellectual property rights of others; (x) parties from whom the Company licenses its intellectual property defaulting in their obligations to the Company; (xi) the Company’s ability to collect on its judgement against Kukbo; (xii) estimates of the Company’s expenses, future revenues, capital requirements and needs for additional financing; (xiii) the effect of patients suffering adverse experiences using investigative drugs under the Company’s Expanded Access Program; (xiv) competition from other companies and technologies within the Company’s industry; and (xv) the hiring and employment commencement date of executive managers. More detailed information about the Company and the risk factors that may affect the realization of forward-looking statements is set forth in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F filed with the SEC on April 27, 2026. All forward-looking statements included in this press release are made only as of the date of this press release. The Company assumes no obligation to update any written or oral forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise unless required by law.

Contact

Chief Corporate & BD Officer
Adi Frish
RedHill Biopharma
adi@redhillbio.com

New York, United States, August 31st, 2026, FinanceWire

EdWealth (edwealth.ai) today announced the publication of MoneyBench, a benchmark developed by the company to evaluate how AI systems answer personal finance questions. The benchmark compares Ed, EdWealth’s AI personal finance coach, with ChatGPT and Gemini on usefulness and factual accuracy.

Ask an AI about money and a confident, plausible answer arrives instantly. Whether the numbers are right is invisible as you read. In an Intuit Credit Karma survey, 52% of adults who acted on AI financial advice reported a poor decision [1].

According to EdWealth’s MoneyBench results for July, Ed ranked first, winning 62.3% of questions, compared with 20.8% for Gemini and 17.0% for ChatGPT [2].

What made the difference

Writing quality did not separate the three, and accuracy scores often matched. Usefulness did: Ed averaged 4.24 on a five-point scale to ChatGPT’s 3.62 and Gemini’s 3.47, higher on roughly seven of ten questions against each.

Five things set Ed apart:

  • Live numbers. Ed’s 120-plus financial data-and-analysis tools query the current filing, live price, holdings table, not last quarter’s memory.
  • Decision-first answers. Conclusion first, then reasoning, then options.
  • Fact and interpretation, separated. Limits and deadlines are stated as rules, context and trade-offs as interpretation. Most AI blurs the two.
  • A coach that stays. From what a user shares, Ed learns their numbers, goals and habits; every answer builds on the last, across cash flow, taxes, stock compensation, funds, insurance. Account connections are read-only.
  • Statute, not guesswork. Phase-outs, benefit formulas and multi-year tax rules come from a base of 11,566 parameters, sourced to the IRS, SSA, CMS and state authorities, across 51 US jurisdictions.

Confidence is not correctness

“Wealthy families always had a money person to call. Everyone else got search results, then a confident chatbot,” said Allen Ng, founder of EdWealth. “Ed closes that gap: live numbers, the reasoning shown, the decision still yours.”

The answers were scored by Claude, an AI from Anthropic, which builds none of the three. It checked each answer’s key figures against live sources, and an answer containing a fact proven false could not win. That check cost Ed: its score fell 5.3 points, both competitors rose, and Ed still finished first. Its 40 losses appear in the paper beside the wins. Where Ed’s facts were wrong, its usefulness fell with them: useful answers are built on correct ones.

In May’s first round Ed placed third of three, held back by weak data retrieval. EdWealth rebuilt it, and Ed has led every round since.

The part no benchmark can measure

The same question has a different right answer for each person: holdings, taxes, goals. A general assistant answers for everyone; Ed answers for one person, and keeps learning them. The test could not see that: standalone questions, nothing known about the asker. A benchmark measures the answer; a money person of your own knows the question behind it.

The full paper, with complete results, method and limitations: edwealth.ai/moneybench.

“We put our product on trial in public,” said Ng. “Financial AI should be judged on one question: does it help a person make a better money decision. Useful, and right. Only then does the rest follow. Money at peace, wealth in motion.”

About EdWealth

EdWealth builds agentic AI products for personal financial clarity and Financial Fitness. Its debut product, Ed, is a personal finance coach for modern households; user data is never for sale. Ed is available at edwealth.ai, on the App Store, and on Google Play.

Disclaimer: Ed provides financial information and education only — not investment, tax, or legal advice, and not a recommendation to buy or sell anything. Ed does not provide personalised investment recommendations. Ed is not a licensed financial adviser; its AI-generated outputs may be wrong, and all decisions are your own. Consult a licensed professional before acting. Availability, features, and pricing may vary by jurisdiction; Ed is offered only where permitted by applicable law.

Website: https://www.edwealth.ai/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/edwealth.ai/

Media contact: info@edwealth.ai

Sources: [1] Intuit Credit Karma, survey of 1,019 US adults, fielded August 7-14, 2025. [2] Systems as tested, July 2026: Ed in production configuration; ChatGPT (GPT-5.6 Sol) at Pro effort; Gemini (3.6 Flash) at default configuration.

Contact

Communications Lead
Phoebe Woo
EdWealth
info@edwealth.ai

Mutsamudu, Comoros, August 31st, 2026, Chainwire

MEXC, a pioneer in 0-fee digital asset trading, reports a sharp rise in Spot trading activity on the platform as BTC topped $80,000 and ETH and SOL reached near six-month highs. From August 20 to 22, the average daily Spot trading volume of BTC, ETH, SOL, and XRP increased by approximately 299% from the daily average recorded between August 1 and 17. Over the same period, the combined average daily trading volume of ETH, SOL, and XRP exceeded that of BTC. Compared with the BTC-dominated trading structure seen from August 1 to 17, activity on the platform spread noticeably across a broader range of major assets.

This shift in trading composition had already emerged on August 19. On that day, the combined trading share of ETH, SOL, and XRP rose from 30.5% a day earlier to 46.7%, an increase of 16.2 percentage points and the largest single-day gain in August. Their combined daily share subsequently remained above the 34.9% baseline recorded from August 1 to 17, indicating that trading interest in these three major assets had begun to rise before BTC broke above $80,000.

On August 25, when BTC topped $80,000, BTC Spot trading volume increased by approximately 164% from the August 1 to 17 daily average. ETH volume rose by 220%, while SOL and XRP each increased by approximately 500%. BTC remained an important market signal during this rally, but the increase in platform activity was not limited to BTC. Instead, multiple major assets became active at the same time.

The trend continued on August 27, when ETH and SOL climbed to nearly six-month highs. On MEXC, ETH Spot trading volume increased by 36.3% from the previous day, while SOL volume rose by 109.7%. Together, the two assets accounted for 46.4% of combined trading volume across the four assets, marking a new August high and making them the primary drivers of the day’s increase in trading activity.

As market sentiment strengthens, trading demand can rotate quickly across major assets, making trading costs and execution efficiency increasingly important for users seeking to respond to market movements. MEXC currently offers 0-fee trading on selected SOL Spot trading pairs and all XRP Spot trading pairs. Combined with deep liquidity, this enables users to navigate market rotations at lower cost and with greater efficiency while capturing more opportunities.

About MEXC

MEXC is the world’s fastest-growing cryptocurrency exchange, trusted by more than 40 million users across 170+ markets. Built on a user-first philosophy, MEXC offers industry-leading 0-fee trading and access to over 3,000 digital assets. As the Gateway to Infinite Opportunities, MEXC provides a single platform where users can easily trade cryptocurrencies alongside tokenized assets, including stocks, ETFs, commodities, and precious metals.

MEXC Official Website X TelegramHow to Sign Up on MEXC

For media inquiries, please contact MEXC PR team: media@mexc.com

Contact

MEXC PR team
media@mexc.com

Mutsamudu, Comoros, August 31st, 2026, Chainwire

MEXC, a pioneer in 0-fee digital asset trading, reports a sharp rise in Spot trading activity on the platform as BTC topped $80,000 and ETH and SOL reached near six-month highs. From August 20 to 22, the average daily Spot trading volume of BTC, ETH, SOL, and XRP increased by approximately 299% from the daily average recorded between August 1 and 17. Over the same period, the combined average daily trading volume of ETH, SOL, and XRP exceeded that of BTC. Compared with the BTC-dominated trading structure seen from August 1 to 17, activity on the platform spread noticeably across a broader range of major assets.

This shift in trading composition had already emerged on August 19. On that day, the combined trading share of ETH, SOL, and XRP rose from 30.5% a day earlier to 46.7%, an increase of 16.2 percentage points and the largest single-day gain in August. Their combined daily share subsequently remained above the 34.9% baseline recorded from August 1 to 17, indicating that trading interest in these three major assets had begun to rise before BTC broke above $80,000.

On August 25, when BTC topped $80,000, BTC Spot trading volume increased by approximately 164% from the August 1 to 17 daily average. ETH volume rose by 220%, while SOL and XRP each increased by approximately 500%. BTC remained an important market signal during this rally, but the increase in platform activity was not limited to BTC. Instead, multiple major assets became active at the same time.

The trend continued on August 27, when ETH and SOL climbed to nearly six-month highs. On MEXC, ETH Spot trading volume increased by 36.3% from the previous day, while SOL volume rose by 109.7%. Together, the two assets accounted for 46.4% of combined trading volume across the four assets, marking a new August high and making them the primary drivers of the day’s increase in trading activity.

As market sentiment strengthens, trading demand can rotate quickly across major assets, making trading costs and execution efficiency increasingly important for users seeking to respond to market movements. MEXC currently offers 0-fee trading on selected SOL Spot trading pairs and all XRP Spot trading pairs. Combined with deep liquidity, this enables users to navigate market rotations at lower cost and with greater efficiency while capturing more opportunities.

About MEXC

MEXC is the world’s fastest-growing cryptocurrency exchange, trusted by more than 40 million users across 170+ markets. Built on a user-first philosophy, MEXC offers industry-leading 0-fee trading and access to over 3,000 digital assets. As the Gateway to Infinite Opportunities, MEXC provides a single platform where users can easily trade cryptocurrencies alongside tokenized assets, including stocks, ETFs, commodities, and precious metals.

MEXC Official Website X TelegramHow to Sign Up on MEXC

For media inquiries, please contact MEXC PR team: media@mexc.com

Contact

MEXC PR team
media@mexc.com

I have paid for both. That is the only reason this piece exists.

Most comparisons of this kind are written by people who have used one option and are guessing about the other. I spent nine months with a digital marketing agency before joining 100x Engine at Imperfect Labs, and I have now been inside that program for over a year.

The two experiences are not slightly different. They are different in kind.

Quick context on me: I run an advisory practice. Fourteen years in. Not a creator, never wanted to be one. I went looking for help because referrals had stopped scaling and I had no other way to reach people who did not already know someone who knew me.

What Hiring an Agency Actually Looks Like

I paid Rs 70,000 a month. That is Rs 8.4 lakh a year, and I was at the lower end of the market. Most competent agencies in India charge between Rs 1 lakh and Rs 1.5 lakh a month, so Rs 12 to 18 lakh annually.

For that I got a content calendar, a monthly shoot, and about twelve posts a month produced for me.

The work was not bad. It was competent, on time, and professionally edited. The strategy deck they gave me in month one was genuinely thoughtful.

Here is what went wrong anyway.

It did not sound like me. A client mentioned it about four months in. He said my Instagram felt like a different person from the one he sat across from in meetings. That was not a small problem. In advisory work, the entire product is that people trust your judgment. Content that sounds like a marketing department actively worked against the thing I was trying to build.

I learned nothing. Nine months in, I understood Instagram exactly as well as I had on day one. I could not have written a hook. I could not have told you why one video worked and another did not. I was renting a capability, not developing one.

The growth was flat. I went from roughly 400 followers to about 2,900 in nine months. Not nothing, but not much for Rs 6.3 lakh spent. More importantly, almost none of it converted to anything. No inbound enquiries. No conversations that started because someone had watched my content.

When it ended, everything stopped. This is the part people underestimate. I paused the retainer to reassess. Within three weeks there was no content going out, because there was no mechanism for content to exist without them. I had spent Rs 6.3 lakh and owned nothing that survived the invoice stopping.

What 100x Engine Actually Looks Like

The first thing that struck me was the speed.

I expected an onboarding phase, the way the agency had a discovery phase. Instead I was recording video on day two. Profile work, bio, audio setup, everything else ran at the same time in the background.

Imperfect Labs calls these parallel journeys. Nothing waits for anything else. The reasoning is that you learn faster from your own bad footage than from any lesson about making good footage.

I found this stressful for about ten days and then understood why they do it.

What is actually in the program:

Component What it means
Blue Ocean Strategy Finding the angle in your field nobody has taken. Ongoing all year, not one call.
Happy Hour with Shivansh Garg 18 sessions across the year. Turn up, ask anything, bring a drink.
Weekly Viral Hour with Sanket Every week. What is working on Instagram right now.
WhatsApp with a growth consultant They message you first. You do not chase anyone.
Front Row Sessions Live Q&As with industry leaders.

The Blue Ocean Strategy piece is the one I misunderstood going in. I assumed it was a niche-picking session at the start. It is not. Shivansh Garg and the team kept coming back to it all year, asking questions as my content produced actual data. My starting angle was generic. Where I ended up was much narrower and much better, and I would not have found it in one session.

The Viral Hour sessions with Sanket run weekly. He is behind over 1 billion organic views and Rs 25 crore in revenue across the brands he has worked on. The insights here are genuinely game changing. He covers what the platform is rewarding that week and breaks down specific videos that spread, explaining why. A recorded course cannot do that. Neither could my agency, who were working from a strategy document written nine months earlier.

The WhatsApp access works differently from what I expected. I assumed I would send questions and receive answers. What actually happens is the consultants message first. Your hook is describing instead of creating tension. Your last three posts used the same structure. This topic is moving in your space right now, here is an angle.

I never had to know the right question. With the agency, I had to know what to ask for, and I did not know enough to ask well.

The Numbers Side by Side

Agency 100x Engine
Annual cost Rs 12L to Rs 18L Rs 5.5L
Who makes the content Their team You, with guidance
Does it sound like you Rarely That is the point
What you learn Nothing The whole method
If you stop paying Everything stops Skills and audience stay
My growth in 9 months 400 to 2,900 Not applicable
My growth in 12 months Not applicable 620 to 21,300

The cost comparison surprised people I explained this to. The assumption is that a program with direct founder access costs more than an agency retainer. It costs less than half of what a mid-tier agency charges for a year, and I already knew from experience what the agency year produced.

Done For You vs Done With You

This is the whole comparison compressed into one distinction.

An agency does it for you. That is the product. You hand over the problem and they hand back output. For a company selling a product, this makes complete sense. Nobody needs the CEO to personally understand Instagram hooks.

For an individual professional, it makes much less sense. Your credibility is the product. When someone else writes your credibility, it does not read as credible.

100x Engine does it with you. The positioning is yours because you built it. The instincts are yours because you developed them. If I left tomorrow, none of it disappears.

That is not a marketing line. It is the mechanical difference between the two models and it explains every other difference on the list.

Where the Agency Was Genuinely Better

Being fair about this.

It required nothing from me. Once a month I sat for a shoot and the rest happened without my involvement. During my busiest quarters, that was worth something real. 100x Engine requires two to three posts a week and there is no version where someone else does that for you.

The production quality was higher. Their editing was better than mine will ever be. My content looks like a professional filmed on a phone, because it is. Theirs looked polished.

There was no learning curve. I did not have to get comfortable on camera, which took me about six weeks in the program and was genuinely unpleasant.

If your goal is a presentable Instagram presence with minimal personal involvement, an agency delivers that. It just will not build you an audience that trusts you, because trust does not survive being outsourced.

What Actually Changed

Twelve months into 100x Engine I was at 21,300 followers, up from 620.

More importantly, inbound enquiries started arriving from people who had never met me. In fourteen years of practice that had never happened once. Two of them converted into engagements that between them covered the program fee several times over.

I have now renewed for a second year. That decision took me a week, because Rs 5.5 lakh is a real number and I do not spend it casually. What settled it was that I already knew what happens when I stop. I had tested that with the agency. Content stops, drift sets in, nothing compounds.

Which One Fits Which Situation

An agency makes sense if:

  • You are a company or brand rather than an individual
  • Your face and voice are not the product
  • You genuinely cannot commit any weekly time to content
  • Polish matters more to you than connection

100x Engine makes sense if:

  • Your credibility is the business
  • You have real expertise built over years
  • You can post two to three times a week even in bad weeks
  • You want to own what gets built rather than rent it

There is a version of this decision where both are wrong, incidentally. If you are early in your career and have not yet developed a point of view worth broadcasting, neither option helps. The agency will produce content about nothing and the program will keep asking you questions you cannot answer yet.

The Thing I Wish Someone Had Told Me Earlier

I spent Rs 6.3 lakh before I understood what I was actually buying.

The question is not which option is better. It is what you want to exist at the end of the year. An agency gives you twelve months of content. A done with you program gives you the ability to make content for the rest of your career, plus an audience that came to you because of how you think.

Both cost money. Only one of them compounds.

The upcoming Bitvoux launch will expand access to $DXY, the utility token connecting DeXenY’s blockchain, distributed energy, RWA, and AI infrastructure.

Road Town, British Virgin Islands, August 30, 2026, DeXenY is preparing to bring its native utility token, $DXY, to Bitvoux, expanding access to a token designed around one of Web3’s increasingly important real-world applications: connecting decentralized infrastructure with measurable physical activity.

The upcoming launch introduces $DXY to a broader digital-asset audience while DeXenY develops a decentralized energy protocol connecting rooftop solar, battery storage, electric vehicles and microgrids through blockchain-based settlement, verifiable energy data and AI-enabled coordination.

Unlike a token designed primarily around digital activity, $DXY is being developed around participation in a physical energy network.

Its utility spans four core areas: energy settlement, rewards for verified clean-energy generation, network staking and governance.

Why Energy Is Moving Toward Decentralized Infrastructure

Electricity systems are becoming increasingly distributed.

Homes can generate electricity through rooftop solar. Batteries can store energy and release it when needed. Electric vehicles are emerging as mobile energy assets, while microgrids allow communities and businesses to manage electricity at a more localized level.

This shift creates a new challenge: coordinating large numbers of independently owned energy resources while establishing trusted records of what was generated, stored, consumed, and exchanged.

DeXenY is building its protocol around this coordination problem.

Smart meters and connected infrastructure provide the physical data layer. Oracle infrastructure is designed to verify and corroborate that information. Blockchain provides programmable settlement and an auditable transaction layer, while AI can help coordinate decisions across participating energy resources.

The result is a model designed to move from physical activity to verifiable digital settlement: Energy activity → Data verification → Programmable settlement

$DXY Connects the Network’s Economic Functions

Within this architecture, $DXY acts as the common utility layer connecting participants and protocol functions.

The token is designed to facilitate peer-to-peer energy settlement and support DeXenY’s Proof-of-Generation mechanism, through which rewards correspond with verified clean-energy generation.

$DXY is also designed to be staked by validators and oracle participants involved in data verification and to support participation in the protocol’s multi-stakeholder governance model.

This creates a direct connection between token utility and the activities DeXenY is designed to coordinate across its energy ecosystem.

Where Energy, RWA and AI Converge

DeXenY’s architecture extends beyond energy transactions.

The protocol is designed to connect physical infrastructure and energy-related economic activity with real-world asset infrastructure, including physical energy assets, energy-derived cash flows and environmental commodities.

AI forms another layer of the model.

DeXenY envisions AI agents supporting decisions across distributed resources using variables such as electricity prices, weather conditions, demand and grid signals. AI-assisted verification can also contribute to identifying anomalies and strengthening the integrity of energy data before it is connected with blockchain infrastructure.

This creates a convergence of technologies that have often developed independently:

Energy × Web3 × RWA × AI

For DeXenY, the objective is to bring those layers together around a common source of real-world activity: energy.

Bitvoux Launch Expands Access to $DXY

The upcoming Bitvoux launch is designed to make $DXY accessible to a broader digital-asset audience as DeXenY builds out its decentralized energy ecosystem.

It also gives Web3 participants another way to discover a project applying blockchain and token infrastructure beyond purely digital markets.

“The transition to distributed energy creates millions of new participants and connected assets across the electricity system. DeXenY is designed to provide the trust, settlement and intelligence infrastructure connecting that activity, with $DXY serving as the utility layer across the network.”

Additional information regarding the $DXY launch on Bitvoux and trading availability will be communicated through DeXenY’s official channels.

About DeXenY

DeXenY (pronounced “dee-Zen-i”) is a decentralized energy protocol designed to serve as a trust, settlement, and intelligence layer for the distributed energy economy. The protocol brings together distributed energy resources, blockchain-based settlement, tokenized real-world assets, and AI-enabled coordination.

Its native utility token, $DXY, is designed to support energy settlement, Proof-of-Generation rewards, network staking, and multi-stakeholder governance across the DeXenY ecosystem.

Website: https://dexeny.co/
Whitepaper: https://dexeny.co/whitepaper
Telegram: https://t.me/dexeny_official
X: https://x.com/dexeny_off 

  • Dr. Irfan Atcha says complex dental rehabilitation depends on careful planning, function, healing, and long-term stability.

Illinois, USA, Aug 30, 2026, ZEX PR WIRE — Replacing missing teeth is only one part of full-mouth rehabilitation, according to Chicago implant dentist Dr. Irfan Atcha.

For patients with several missing, failing, or damaged teeth, the greater challenge is understanding how the entire mouth functions as a single system. That means looking beyond individual teeth and considering factors such as bite, bone support, healing, comfort, and long-term stability.

Atcha has spent nearly three decades working with patients who need complex dental rehabilitation. Since beginning his career in Chicago in 1996, his work has increasingly focused on dental implants, full-arch treatment, implant-supported dentures, and cases that require more detailed planning.

“When you are dealing with a complex case, replacing the missing teeth is only part of the picture,” Atcha said. “You have to think about how everything works together and what the patient will need over the long term.”

Full-Mouth Rehabilitation Starts With the Bigger Picture

A patient may first seek treatment for an obvious concern, such as missing teeth or difficulty chewing. But in more advanced cases, the underlying issues may involve several areas at once.

That is why Atcha believes full-mouth rehabilitation should begin with a broader evaluation.

“You cannot always treat one problem in isolation,” he said. “The bite, the bone, the remaining teeth, and the way the mouth functions all influence the final plan.”

That approach has become a central part of his work in implant dentistry.

His areas of focus include same-day dental implants, implant-supported dentures, All-on-4 dental implants, and full-arch rehabilitation. These treatments can involve several clinical decisions that need to work together rather than being addressed separately.

Why Planning Matters Before Treatment Begins

For Atcha, one of the most important parts of complex dental care happens before treatment starts.

A full rehabilitation plan may need to account for the condition of existing teeth, the amount of available bone, the patient’s bite, and how the final restoration is expected to function.

“Good planning means thinking several steps ahead,” Atcha said. “You are not only asking what can be done today. You are asking how that decision may affect the overall result later.”

That long-term mindset has shaped his approach throughout his career.

Atcha often points to “long-term success with dental implants” as one of the key themes in his work. In his view, a treatment should not be judged only by what happens on the day of the procedure.

The larger question is how well the rehabilitation continues to function over time.

Complex Cases Require More Than One Solution

Full-mouth rehabilitation is not a single treatment. Different patients may have very different needs, even when their dental problems appear similar at first.

One person may need several teeth replaced. Another may require a full-arch solution. Others may need a combination of treatments to rebuild function across the mouth.

That is why Atcha sees experience and clinical judgement as important parts of the process.

“Two patients can come in with what looks like the same problem and still need very different treatment plans,” he said. “You have to understand the individual case rather than trying to force every patient into the same approach.”

That principle has guided much of his work with complex implant patients in the Chicago area.

Nearly 30 Years of Changing Treatment Options

Atcha began practising in 1996 after earning his Doctor of Dental Surgery degree from the University of Illinois College of Dentistry.

He had previously earned a Bachelor of Science in Biochemistry from the University of Illinois in 1991, and his early interest in research continued during dental school, where he received first-place recognition for a biochemistry table clinic presentation.

Over the decades since, implant dentistry has continued to evolve. Advances in imaging, treatment planning, materials, and clinical techniques have created more options for patients with advanced dental needs.

Atcha has continued his education alongside those changes, earning Fellowship and Diplomate recognition through both the International Congress of Oral Implantologists and the International Dental Implant Association.

He says new technology can improve treatment planning, but it does not remove the need for careful evaluation.

“Technology gives us more information, but the information still has to be interpreted,” he said. “The goal is to use those tools as part of a complete plan.”

Looking Beyond Missing Teeth

For patients considering full-mouth rehabilitation, Atcha believes the most important conversation is often about the larger goal. Replacing missing teeth may be the most visible part of treatment, but restoring function requires looking at how the whole system works together.

That means considering not only what is missing, but also what remains, how the patient bites, how healing may occur, and how the final result is expected to perform over time.

For Atcha, that broader perspective is what separates simple tooth replacement from full-mouth rehabilitation.

“The goal is not just to fill a space,” he said. “The goal is to create a treatment plan that makes sense for the whole mouth and for the patient’s long-term needs.”

For more information about Dr. Irfan Atcha and New Teeth Chicago, visit newteethchicago.com.

About Dr. Irfan Atcha
Dr. Irfan Atcha is a Chicago-based implant dentist who has been practising since 1996. He earned a Bachelor of Science in Biochemistry from the University of Illinois and a Doctor of Dental Surgery degree from the University of Illinois College of Dentistry. His work focuses on dental implants, full-arch rehabilitation, same-day dental implants, implant-supported dentures, and complex treatment planning.

  • Woodstock, Georgia technology and go-to-market professional Clayton Fields explains why evaluating a new system should include the cost and complexity of leaving the old one behind.

WOODSTOCK, Ga. Aug 30, 2026, ZEX PR WIRE — Businesses have more technology choices than ever, but Clayton Fields believes the availability of a newer system does not automatically make replacing an existing one the right decision.

Fields, a Woodstock, Georgia-based go-to-market professional with decades of experience in enterprise technology, security software, services, startups, and AI-enabled solutions, has spent much of his career working around organizations evaluating new technology. He says those decisions can become too focused on the capabilities of the new product while overlooking an equally important question: What will it actually take to replace what is already working?

“When companies evaluate new technology, the conversation naturally starts with what the new product can do,” Fields said. “I think you also have to understand everything that has been built around the system you already have. Replacing technology is rarely just replacing technology.”

What Problem Is the Business Actually Trying to Solve?

Fields recommends beginning any replacement decision by clearly identifying the problem.

A company may have an older system, but age alone does not necessarily make that system ineffective. The more important question is whether it is preventing the organization from accomplishing something important.

Employees may be spending too much time on manual processes. Customers may be experiencing unnecessary delays. Security requirements may have changed. An existing system may no longer integrate effectively with other tools.

Those are specific problems that can be evaluated.

“If the main argument for replacing something is that a newer option exists, I would want to understand more,” Fields said. “What becomes meaningfully better after the change? That answer should be clear before the organization takes on everything involved in making the switch.”

What Will Migration Really Require?

Moving from one system to another can involve considerably more than purchasing new software.

Organizations may need to migrate years of information, rebuild integrations, test workflows, update internal processes, and determine how the new system will interact with other technology.

Fields says these requirements should be considered during the buying process rather than after a contract is signed.

A new platform can offer significant advantages and still create a difficult transition. Understanding that transition helps businesses compare the potential benefits with the actual work required to achieve them.

“The purchase is one decision, but implementation is where the organization has to live with that decision,” Fields said. “I want to know who owns the transition, what other systems are affected, and what happens if the migration takes longer than expected.”

How Much Training and Behavior Change Will Be Needed?

Technology adoption also depends on people.

Employees may have spent years working with an existing system. They know its strengths, its weaknesses, and often the workarounds required to get their jobs done. A replacement can eliminate those limitations while simultaneously requiring employees to learn an entirely different way of working.

Fields believes businesses should consider that learning curve when evaluating potential improvements.

The question is not only whether the new technology is easier or more capable. Businesses should also consider how quickly employees can become comfortable with it and what support will be necessary during the transition.

“You can have a better system and still have a difficult implementation if people do not understand how it fits into their work,” Fields said. “Adoption does not happen simply because the technology has been installed.”

What Does the Existing System Already Do Well?

Fields also encourages companies to make an honest assessment of the technology they are considering replacing.

Older systems can become inefficient or restrictive, but established technology has advantages that are easy to ignore. Employees understand it. Processes have been designed around it. Integrations have already been established. The organization knows how the system behaves under normal and unusual conditions.

That familiarity has value.

Fields does not believe that means companies should remain with outdated technology indefinitely. Instead, he argues that the advantages of a replacement should be significant enough to justify giving up the stability the organization already has.

“Proven technology can be boring, and sometimes boring is useful,” Fields said. “If something works every day and supports the business reliably, that should be part of the evaluation. You need a reason to introduce disruption.”

What Happens If the Business Waits?

The cost of changing technology deserves attention, but so does the cost of waiting.

An organization can become overly comfortable with an existing system. Employees may gradually build manual workarounds around its limitations. Maintenance costs can rise. Security concerns can increase. A system that once supported the business may eventually prevent it from improving.

Fields says this is why the decision should not be framed as simply choosing between new and old technology.

Instead, businesses can ask what is likely to happen under both scenarios.

“If we replace the system, what do we gain and what disruption do we create?” Fields said. “If we keep it for another year or two, what problems are likely to become more expensive or difficult? I think both sides of that question matter.”

Is the Improvement Worth the Disruption?

After years working with enterprise technology and newer solutions, Fields says he has become more deliberate about separating innovation from improvement.

New capabilities can create real opportunities. Artificial intelligence, automation, security technologies, and other emerging tools are changing what organizations can accomplish. However, adopting those technologies still requires a practical business case.

For Fields, the objective is not to keep every system forever or to adopt every new platform quickly. It is to understand when the improvement is substantial enough to make change worthwhile.

“The goal should not be to have the newest technology,” Fields said. “The goal should be to have technology that supports what the business is trying to accomplish. Sometimes that means changing. Sometimes it means recognizing that what you already have is still doing its job.”

About Clayton Fields

Clayton Fields is a go-to-market professional based in Woodstock, Georgia, with extensive experience in enterprise technology. He spent nearly 10 years with a major technology company working across commercial sales, client services, infrastructure, storage, and business applications. For more than 13 years, he has worked with security software and services startups, including approximately a decade helping bring AI-enabled solutions to market.

Fields holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration with honors. His professional interests include technology, entrepreneurship, artificial intelligence, customer adoption, and go-to-market strategy. Outside of work, he enjoys real estate remodeling, construction, hiking, and traveling, and he has volunteered with Habitat for Humanity.

Media Contact

Company Name:-Clayton Fields
Company Website:-https://www.clayton-fields.com/

  • Following Stanford’s AI Executive Education Program, the Founder and Managing Partner of Ardenwood Advisors shares observations on evaluating artificial intelligence while maintaining appropriate human oversight, privacy, security, and professional judgment.

PALO ALTO, Calif., Aug 30, 2026, ZEX PR WIRE  As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly prominent across financial services, advisory firms are considering how the technology may fit within existing workflows while addressing questions involving oversight, information security, privacy, accuracy, and professional responsibility.

For Flora Dong, Founder and Managing Partner of Ardenwood Advisors, those questions became a particular focus after attending the three-day AI Executive Education Program at Stanford. One concept she found especially relevant to wealth management was the distinction between using technology to automate human work and using it to augment human capabilities.

“AI has introduced capabilities that are worth understanding, but I do not think the conversation should begin with how much work a technology can automate,” Dong said. “For me, the more useful starting point is understanding the problem a firm is trying to address and determining what level of human involvement remains appropriate.”

Dong believes that distinction is particularly relevant for registered investment advisers because evaluating new technologies may involve considerations beyond efficiency. Depending on the application and how it is used, firms may need to consider their own policies and procedures, regulatory obligations, information-security practices, privacy considerations, recordkeeping requirements, supervisory processes, and methods for reviewing technology-generated information.

“Being able to perform a task more quickly is different from determining whether a particular use of technology is appropriate,” Dong said. “Firms have to consider the information involved, how an output will be reviewed, and who remains responsible for the work.”

Rather than viewing artificial intelligence as a single category of technology with a uniform role, Dong believes individual applications should be evaluated based on their purpose and circumstances.

AI tools may assist with activities such as organizing information, supporting preliminary research, or performing certain administrative functions. However, the capabilities, limitations, security characteristics, and appropriate uses of individual systems can differ considerably.

That makes human review an important part of the discussion, according to Dong.

“An AI system may produce information quickly, but speed does not eliminate the need to evaluate that information,” she said. “The appropriate level of review will depend on the particular application, the information involved, and the way the technology is being used.”

Dong also points to privacy and information security as considerations when financial services firms evaluate AI. Advisory firms may work with confidential or sensitive information, and introducing third-party technology can raise questions about how information is accessed, processed, retained, and protected.

For that reason, Dong does not believe firms should assume that a technology appropriate for one workflow will necessarily be appropriate for another.

“There is understandable excitement around AI, and I share that interest,” she said. “At the same time, I think firms need to understand the technology they are evaluating and consider how its use fits within their existing responsibilities, policies, and controls.”

The Stanford program also prompted Dong to think more carefully about what happens when technology assists with tasks that have traditionally required significant employee time. While increased efficiency is frequently discussed as a potential benefit of AI, Dong believes firms still have to decide how any resulting capacity would be used.

She cautions against assuming that additional technological capability necessarily translates into a particular business or client outcome.

“Efficiency can be useful, but it is only one consideration,” Dong said. “If a process changes, I think it is important to understand what has actually changed and how the firm will evaluate whether the new process is appropriate for its intended purpose.”

That perspective reflects Dong’s broader view that AI should be evaluated as a tool rather than as a substitute for professional responsibility.

In wealth management, professionals regularly encounter circumstances in which information must be considered within the context of an individual client’s objectives, needs, and circumstances. Dong believes technology may assist with portions of that work without eliminating the need for people to evaluate information and exercise appropriate professional judgment.

“The more capable these technologies become, the more important it may be to clearly define where the technology is assisting and where the person remains responsible,” Dong said. “I do not see exploring AI and maintaining human judgment as competing ideas. The challenge is determining how they can appropriately coexist.”

Dong expects artificial intelligence to continue evolving, making it difficult to predict precisely how the technology will ultimately affect wealth management. Rather than making broad predictions about automation or the future of the advisor’s role, she believes firms can benefit from approaching individual applications deliberately and evaluating them within their own circumstances.

“We are still learning what these technologies can and cannot do,” Dong said. “For me, that makes thoughtful evaluation more important. The question is not simply whether AI can perform a task. It is why we are using it, what risks and limitations need to be considered, how its work will be reviewed, and where human judgment remains necessary.”

As AI capabilities continue to develop, Dong expects those questions to remain part of the broader conversation about technology in financial services.

About Flora Dong

Flora Dong is the Founder and Managing Partner of Ardenwood Advisors, an independent registered investment advisory firm based in Palo Alto, California. With more than 25 years of experience in wealth management, she works with individuals, families, entrepreneurs, and business owners, including many with financial interests across multiple countries. Her work may include investment advisory services, wealth planning, family office support, and coordination with clients’ other professional advisors, depending on each client’s circumstances.

Dong has been recognized by Forbes among America’s Top Wealth Advisors, Top Women Advisors, and Best-In-State Wealth Advisors. Any third-party rankings or recognitions should be considered in accordance with the methodology, eligibility criteria, and time period applicable to the particular recognition and are not indicative of future performance or client experience.

Important Disclosure

This commentary reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints and analyses of the Arden Global Family Offices employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded as a description of advisory services provided by Arden Global Family Offices or performance returns of any Arden Global Family Offices client. The views reflected in the commentary are subject to change at any time without notice. Nothing in this commentary constitutes investment advice, performance data or any recommendation that any particular security, portfolio of securities, transaction or investment strategy is suitable for any specific person. Any mention of a particular security and related performance data is not a recommendation to buy or sell that security. Arden Global Family Offices manages its clients’ accounts using a variety of investment techniques and strategies, which are not necessarily discussed in the commentary. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

No advice may be rendered by Arden Global Family Offices unless a client service agreement is in place.

Post Oak Group, recognized as the top middle-market investment bank in Texas, weighs in on what private credit’s expanding role means for middle-market financing.

Houston, Texas, United States, 29th Aug 2026 – As traditional bank lending has grown more selective, private credit has moved from the margins of the financial system to become a core source of capital for middle-market companies. According to PwC’s 2026 Global Private Credit Survey, the asset class now manages more than $2 trillion globally and is projected to reach $3.4 trillion by 2030, underscoring its growing importance in how businesses finance growth, acquisitions, and recapitalizations. Post Oak Group, recognized as the top middle-market investment bank in Texas, is highlighting what this shift means for business owners evaluating their financing options.

“Private credit isn’t a niche alternative anymore; it’s become a mainstream financing tool that middle-market companies need to understand,” said David Chua, co-founder and Managing Partner at Post Oak Group. “As banks have pulled back from certain types of lending, private credit lenders have stepped in with more flexible, bespoke structures. For business owners, that means more paths to capital, but also more complexity in figuring out which path fits their situation, which is exactly where the right advisory relationship matters most.”

A Broader Set of Financing Options

Private credit’s growth has been driven by several converging factors: banks retrenching from certain lending categories, borrowers increasingly seeking customized structured solutions rather than standardized bank products, and investors’ ongoing search for yield in a higher-for-longer interest rate environment. What began as primarily direct corporate lending has since expanded into asset-backed finance, infrastructure debt, real estate debt, distressed debt, and specialty finance, giving companies liquidity solutions across a much wider range of risk profiles than were available even a few years ago.

For middle-market business owners, this expansion translates into real optionality. Growth capital, acquisition funding, debt refinancing, and recapitalizations that might once have required a straightforward bank term loan can now be structured through private credit relationships that offer more flexibility on terms, timelines, and structure, often without requiring owners to give up operational control or dilute ownership the way an equity raise would.

The PwC survey also found that sentiment among private credit portfolio managers remains strongly positive: more than 80% expect to receive increased capital allocations over the next 12 months, with nearly half anticipating growth of more than 20%. That continued inflow of capital into the asset class means middle-market companies are likely to see private credit remain a readily available, and increasingly competitive, financing option going forward.

Access Is the Differentiator

“The businesses that benefit most from this shift are the ones that work with advisors who actually have relationships across the private credit landscape, not just a list of lenders,” said Sunny Basra, Executive Director of Post Oak Group’s Capital Markets practice. “As one of the most connected firms to family offices and venture capital firms globally, we’re able to bring clients directly to the capital sources that fit their situation, rather than running a generic process and hoping something sticks.”

Post Oak Group‘s Private Credit Advisory practice works with middle-market companies and investment funds to identify, structure, and secure capital from institutional sources, including private credit lenders, private equity firms, family offices, and strategic investors. That network, spanning family offices and venture capital relationships across North America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, combined with the firm’s standing as Texas’s top middle-market investment bank, is central to how the firm approaches every private credit mandate.

As private credit continues to expand its footprint in middle-market finance, Post Oak Group is encouraging business owners evaluating growth capital, acquisition financing, or refinancing to consider the full range of alternatives now available to them, and to work with advisors who can help them navigate an increasingly complex capital markets landscape.

About Post Oak Group

Post Oak Group is the leading middle-market investment bank headquartered in Houston, Texas. With approximately 300 professionals and more than 250 years of combined leadership experience, the firm has advised on over $82 billion in transactions across 12 countries. Recognized as the top middle-market investment bank in Texas and widely regarded as one of the most connected firms to family offices and venture capital firms globally, Post Oak Group helps clients secure institutional capital through disciplined, strategic execution across the full spectrum of capital markets services, including private credit advisory, private placements, and fund placement services.

Media Contact

Organization: Post Oak Group

Contact Person: David Chua

Website: https://www.postoakgroup.co/

Email:
info@postoakgroup.co

City: Houston

State: Texas

Country:United States

Release id:48578

The post Post Oak Group Weighs In on Private Credit’s Expanding Role in Middle-Market Financing appeared first on King Newswire. This content is provided by a third-party source.. King Newswire makes no warranties or representations in connection with it. King Newswire is a press release distribution agency and does not endorse or verify the claims made in this release. If you have any complaints or copyright concerns related to this article, please contact the company listed in the ‘Media Contact’ section

file