News & Updates
The latest news and updates from companies in the WLTH portfolio.
SpaceX says it can buy AI coding tool Cursor for $60B later this year
SAN FRANCISCO -- SpaceX says it has the rights to buy artificial intelligence coding tool Cursor for $60 billion later this year as Elon Musk's space exploration and AI company looks for ways to compete with rivals Anthropic and OpenAI ahead of a planned Wall Street debut. SpaceX said that, alternatively, it could pay $10 billion to "work together" with Cursor. SpaceX announced the deal Tuesday on the social platform X, which along with the AI chatbot Grok is part of a constellation of properties that Musk has merged into his rocket company. Cursor, made by San Francisco startup Anysphere, is a popular AI coding assistant. What SpaceX describes as Cursor's wide "distribution to expert software engineers" is likely part of what makes it attractive to Musk's company, giving it access to a new customer base. Cursor said its new partnership with SpaceX subsidiary xAI will enable it to build future AI products using xAI's massive AI data center complex Colossus, based in Memphis, Tennessee. "We've wanted to push our training efforts much further, but we've been bottlenecked by compute," Cursor said in a statement on X, which didn't mention the possibility of being acquired. "With this partnership, our team will leverage xAI's Colossus infrastructure to dramatically scale up the intelligence of our models." Cursor, which started in 2022, helped sparked a trend called "vibe coding" as AI coding assistants have become increasingly capable of doing the work of computer programming. Cursor competes with other coding tools like Anthropic's Claude Code and OpenAI's Codex but also has relied heavily on partnerships with those larger AI research companies for the foundations of its technology. It was Cursor's Composer, combined with Anthropic's Claude Sonnet, that a prominent AI researcher was playing with for weekend projects when he coined the phrase "vibe coding" in early 2025.
Kraken Calls for De Minimus Exemption on Crypto Taxes after 2025 Reports
The crypto exchange advocated for two key changes to US tax law affecting crypto users to "eliminate millions of unnecessary forms." Cryptocurrency exchange Kraken called for a change in US tax policy after reporting millions of cases of transactions "worth less than $1" as part of its reporting requirements for 2025. In a Wednesday blog post, Kraken said it issued more than 56 million tax forms -- 1099-DAs -- to the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2025 as now required by law. However, the exchange said that about 18.5 million of those forms were for transactions under $1, with about 28 million for $10 or less and 75% under $50. In an effort to "eliminate millions of unnecessary forms," the exchange called for a de minimis exemption for taxes to exclude "small, routine digital asset payments from capital gains reporting." It similarly advocated for an end to "phantom" income derived from staking cryptocurrencies, requiring holders to "owe taxes on value they have not realized" by not selling their staking rewards. "This is not about helping crypto companies," said Kraken about its recommendations. "It is about 55 million Americans, spanning every state, age bracket and industry, who are navigating a tax system designed before digital assets existed. Congress should act to make taxpayers' lives easier." Reporting requirements for both holders and exchanges have changed significantly since the advent of cryptocurrencies. Although there have been proposals for a de minimis tax exemption for cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC), the most recent draft bill in the US Congress suggested that only stablecoin transactions under $200 trigger reporting to the IRS. Related: NY lawmaker proposes 'AI dividend' to address potential job losses According to a Fortune report citing data from the nonprofit Tax Foundation, individual returns cost US taxpayers $146 billion in time and out-of-pocket expenses. The Trump administration ended the IRS's free Direct File tax filing program in November 2025. The program had allowed eligible taxpayers to file their taxes online at no cost. After the crypto exchange filed for a confidential initial public offering (IPO) with the US Securities and Exchange Commission in November 2025, reports signaled that Kraken may have put its plan on hold amid volatile market conditions. However, Kraken co-CEO Arjun Sethi confirmed reports at a Semafor event in April that the company would likely go public soon.
Microsoft to integrate Anthropic's Claude Mythos into security framework By Investing.com
Investing.com -- Microsoft said Wednesday it plans to embed advanced artificial intelligence models, including Anthropic's Claude Mythos Preview, into its secure coding framework as the company strengthens its cybersecurity capabilities. The integration into Microsoft's Security Development Lifecycle will help identify vulnerabilities and develop fixes faster early in the development cycle, the Windows maker said in a blog. Mythos, announced on April 7, has found thousands of major vulnerabilities in operating systems, web browsers and other software. Its ability to code at a high level has given it a potentially unprecedented ability to analyze and devise ways to exploit security weaknesses, experts said. Anthropic said the current iteration, Claude Mythos Preview, will be first deployed to a select group of companies as part of Anthropic's Project Glasswing, a controlled initiative under which major technology companies, including Microsoft, Amazon.com (NASDAQ:AMZN) and Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL), can use it to search for cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Microsoft said it evaluated Mythos using its own open-source benchmark for real-world detection engineering tasks, and the results showed substantial improvements relative to prior models. The Trump administration, central bankers across the globe and industries are working to understand Mythos and its ability to make complex cyberattacks both easier and quicker to execute. This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.
Microsoft to integrate Anthropic's Mythos into its security development program By Reuters
April 22 - Microsoft said on Wednesday it plans to embed advanced artificial intelligence models, including Anthropic's Claude Mythos Preview, into its secure coding framework, as the company steps up its cybersecurity capabilities. Incorporating the models into Microsoft's Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) will help identify vulnerabilities and develop fixes faster, early on in the cycle, the Windows maker said in a blog. Mythos, announced on April 7, has found "thousands" of major vulnerabilities in operating systems, web browsers and other software. Its capabilities to code at a high level have given it a potentially unprecedented ability to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities and devise ways to exploit them, experts said. Anthropic has said the current iteration, Claude Mythos Preview, will be first deployed to a select group of companies as part of Anthropic's "Project Glasswing," a controlled initiative under which major technology companies, including Microsoft, Amazon.com and Apple, can use it to search for cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Microsoft said it evaluated Mythos, using its own open-source benchmark for real-world detection engineering tasks, and the "results showed substantial improvements relative to prior models." U.S. President Donald Trump's administration, central bankers across the globe and industries are racing to get up to speed on Mythos and its ability to make complex cyberattacks both easier and quicker to crack.
What Is an NFT Discord Community and Why Does It Matter?
If you have researched an NFT collection for more than a few minutes you have probably been told to check its Discord. Discord is a messaging platform built around servers, which are communities organized into channels by topic. For NFT projects, the Discord is typically where the team communicates with holders, where holders talk to each other, and where the real-time health of a community is most visible. Understanding what to look for in an NFT Discord tells you more about a collection than most other signals. What Discord Is and How NFT Projects Use It Discord servers are organized into text and voice channels. An NFT project's Discord typically includes channels for announcements from the team, general conversation among holders, channels for trading and marketplace discussion, channels for showing off specific dogs or traits, channels for events, and sometimes channels for working groups or subsets of the community with specific interests. The team uses the Discord to push information to the community. Announcements, event details, marketplace updates, responses to community questions. The community uses it to build relationships with other holders, share content, discuss the collection, and hold the team accountable when things are not going well. A healthy Discord has regular activity across multiple channels, a responsive team presence, and conversations happening between holders that are not just about price. An unhealthy Discord has sporadic activity, no team presence, and conversations that are either very quiet or dominated by price discussion and complaints. Why Discord Size Is Not the Whole Story Discord member count is easy to inflate. Airdrop campaigns, whitelist incentives, and bot activity can produce large member counts that have no relationship to genuine community engagement. A server with 100,000 members that has five messages a day in the general channel is less valuable than a server with 15,000 members that has consistent daily activity across multiple channels. What matters is engagement quality: are people actually talking to each other, are they sharing content about the collection, is the team present and responsive, and does activity continue when the floor is down? That last question is the most revealing. Activity that holds through a flat or declining market indicates a community built on something beyond price speculation. The Doginal Dogs Discord The Doginal Dogs Discord has over 15,000 members, grown organically without airdrop incentives or whitelist campaigns. Members joined because they wanted to be part of the community, not because they were incentivized to click a link. Co-founders Barkmeta and Shibo are accessible to the community through the daily broadcast on the Crypto Spaces Network, which functions as a live extension of the Discord. Holders who want to ask the founders a question directly have a mechanism for doing so every single day. That level of founder accessibility is unusual and contributes significantly to the community's trust in the project. The Discord activity has held through the quiet market periods of 2024 and the volatility of 2025. The founders' consistent broadcast presence means the community never experienced the silence that typically precedes a project going inactive. There was always something happening, always a reason to check in. What Discord Can and Cannot Tell You A Discord community can tell you how engaged the current holder base is, how accessible the founding team is, and whether community activity is tied to price or to something more durable. It cannot tell you whether the floor price will go up or down, whether the team will deliver on any future plans, or whether the collection will be relevant in five years. It is one signal among many, but it is one of the more honest signals available because it is harder to fake sustained daily engagement than it is to fake a floor price or a Twitter follower count. A free starter dog and access to the Doginal Dogs community is available at doginaldogs.com. Disclosure: This article is sponsored by Doginal Dogs. All claims about the Doginal Dogs community are sourced from documented project records. Digital assets involve risk. Nothing here is financial advice. Related Items:building engagement, NFT Discord community
Microsoft to integrate Anthropic's Mythos into its security development program
April 22 - Microsoft said on Wednesday it plans to embed advanced artificial intelligence models, including Anthropic's Claude Mythos Preview, into its secure coding framework, as the company steps up its cybersecurity capabilities. Incorporating the models into Microsoft's Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) will help identify vulnerabilities and develop fixes faster, early on in the cycle, the Windows maker said in a blog. Mythos, announced on April 7, has found "thousands" of major vulnerabilities in operating systems, web browsers and other software. Its capabilities to code at a high level have given it a potentially unprecedented ability to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities and devise ways to exploit them, experts said. Anthropic has said the current iteration, Claude Mythos Preview, will be first deployed to a select group of companies as part of Anthropic's "Project Glasswing," a controlled initiative under which major technology companies, including Microsoft, Amazon.com and Apple, can use it to search for cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Microsoft said it evaluated Mythos, using its own open-source benchmark for real-world detection engineering tasks, and the "results showed substantial improvements relative to prior models." U.S. President Donald Trump's administration, central bankers across the globe and industries are racing to get up to speed on Mythos and its ability to make complex cyberattacks both easier and quicker to crack. (Reporting by Juby Babu in Mexico City; Editing by Shinjini Ganguli)
Microsoft to integrate Anthropic's Claude Mythos into security framework By Investing.com
Investing.com -- Microsoft said Wednesday it plans to embed advanced artificial intelligence models, including Anthropic's Claude Mythos Preview, into its secure coding framework as the company strengthens its cybersecurity capabilities. The integration into Microsoft's Security Development Lifecycle will help identify vulnerabilities and develop fixes faster early in the development cycle, the Windows maker said in a blog. Mythos, announced on April 7, has found thousands of major vulnerabilities in operating systems, web browsers and other software. Its ability to code at a high level has given it a potentially unprecedented ability to analyze and devise ways to exploit security weaknesses, experts said. Anthropic said the current iteration, Claude Mythos Preview, will be first deployed to a select group of companies as part of Anthropic's Project Glasswing, a controlled initiative under which major technology companies, including Microsoft, Amazon.com (NASDAQ:AMZN) and Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL), can use it to search for cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Microsoft said it evaluated Mythos using its own open-source benchmark for real-world detection engineering tasks, and the results showed substantial improvements relative to prior models. The Trump administration, central bankers across the globe and industries are working to understand Mythos and its ability to make complex cyberattacks both easier and quicker to execute. This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.
Google Forms AI 'Strike Team' To Beat Anthropic's Claude Models | Explained | Mint
Google is in full crisis mode -- and this time the threat isn't OpenAI, it's Anthropic.The company has formed a secret AI Coding Strike Team personally led by co-founder Sergey Brin and DeepMind CTO Koray Kavukcuoglu to catch up with Anthropic's Claude in code generation.Internal teams admit Gemini is lagging badly. Anthropic now writes 100% of its code with AI, while Google uses AI for only ~50%. Brin wants AI agents that read files, understand intent, complete complex tasks -- and even improve themselves.Anthropic's revenue has exploded to a $30 billion run rate (from $9B last year) after Claude Code's major update.Is this Google's second "Code Red" moment after ChatGPT?Watch the full breakdown of the intensifying AI coding war.
SpaceX says it can buy AI coding tool Cursor for $60B later this year
SAN FRANCISCO -- SpaceX says it has the rights to buy artificial intelligence coding tool Cursor for $60 billion later this year as Elon Musk's space exploration and AI company looks for ways to compete with rivals Anthropic and OpenAI ahead of a planned Wall Street debut. SpaceX said that, alternatively, it could pay $10 billion to "work together" with Cursor. SpaceX announced the deal Tuesday on the social platform X, which along with the AI chatbot Grok is part of a constellation of properties that Musk has merged into his rocket company. Cursor, made by San Francisco startup Anysphere, is a popular AI coding assistant. What SpaceX describes as Cursor's wide "distribution to expert software engineers" is likely part of what makes it attractive to Musk's company, giving it access to a new customer base. Cursor said its new partnership with SpaceX subsidiary xAI will enable it to build future AI products using xAI's massive AI data center complex Colossus, based in Memphis, Tennessee. "We've wanted to push our training efforts much further, but we've been bottlenecked by compute," Cursor said in a statement on X, which didn't mention the possibility of being acquired. "With this partnership, our team will leverage xAI's Colossus infrastructure to dramatically scale up the intelligence of our models." Cursor, which started in 2022, helped sparked a trend called "vibe coding" as AI coding assistants have become increasingly capable of doing the work of computer programming. Cursor competes with other coding tools like Anthropic's Claude Code and OpenAI's Codex but also has relied heavily on partnerships with those larger AI research companies for the foundations of its technology. It was Cursor's Composer, combined with Anthropic's Claude Sonnet, that a prominent AI researcher was playing with for weekend projects when he coined the phrase "vibe coding" in early 2025. Download the FOX13 Memphis app to receive alerts from breaking news in your neighborhood.
Microsoft to integrate Anthropic's Mythos into its security development program
April 22 - Microsoft said on Wednesday it plans to embed advanced artificial intelligence models, including Anthropic's Claude Mythos Preview, into its secure coding framework, as the company steps up its cybersecurity capabilities. Incorporating the models into Microsoft's Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) will help identify vulnerabilities and develop fixes faster, early on in the cycle, the Windows maker said in a blog. Mythos, announced on April 7, has found "thousands" of major vulnerabilities in operating systems, web browsers and other software. Its capabilities to code at a high level have given it a potentially unprecedented ability to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities and devise ways to exploit them, experts said. Anthropic has said the current iteration, Claude Mythos Preview, will be first deployed to a select group of companies as part of Anthropic's "Project Glasswing," a controlled initiative under which major technology companies, including Microsoft, Amazon.com and Apple, can use it to search for cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Microsoft said it evaluated Mythos, using its own open-source benchmark for real-world detection engineering tasks, and the "results showed substantial improvements relative to prior models." U.S. President Donald Trump's administration, central bankers across the globe and industries are racing to get up to speed on Mythos and its ability to make complex cyberattacks both easier and quicker to crack. (Reporting by Juby Babu in Mexico City; Editing by Shinjini Ganguli)
Belarus' colossal experience of reviving radiation-polluted areas emphasized
MINSK, 22 April (BelTA) - Belarus has gained colossal experience in rehabilitating contaminated territories. The importance of this was noted by Belarusian Minister of Foreign Affairs Maxim Ryzhenkov, who took part in a Council for Sustainable Development session dedicated to the 40th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident on 22 April, BelTA has learned. The head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs drew attention to the fact that "exactly forty years separate us from the day that divided history into 'before' and 'after,' forever changing the lives of millions of people in Belarus and beyond. On 26 April 1986, the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant occurred, becoming the largest man-made catastrophe in human history and remaining so to this day. For Belarus, which bore the brunt of that accident, it is not just a paragraph in a history textbook or the name of a population center. Radiation contamination covered a quarter of the territory of the Republic of Belarus while for Ukraine that figure was about 6-7%, and for Russia it was 1.5%." He also stated: "As a result of the Chernobyl accident, Belarus, unfortunately, forever lost some of its lands from the point of view of economic use: human life over there will probably never be possible, at least in the near future for sure. Four decades ago, nearly 2.5 million of our citizens found themselves under the impact of an invisible enemy. And in essence, after World War Two and the Great Patriotic War [of 1941-1945], this was the second most severe tragedy for Belarus in terms of its impact on the economy and people's destinies. In this regard, it is quite logical that we took on the role of forced leadership in matters of eliminating the consequences of the Chernobyl accident." Belarus had to employ more of its own resources than other affected states to minimize the consequences of that catastrophe. "Looking back over the past 40 years, we are grateful for the unprecedented international assistance provided to our state, especially back then - at the beginning. It was an era when Chernobyl brought people together rather than divided them. In those difficult years Belarus did not remain alone with its misfortune. We were interested in using foreign potential to rehabilitate the affected areas and treat our citizens," said Maxim Ryzhenkov. "Today we are also grateful to various countries for the assistance and support provided. Virtually all countries of the world were among them, in different capacities, but everyone helped us." He recalled that as a university student during those years he traveled with groups of Belarusian children, accompanying them for rehabilitation, to some Eastern European countries that may not have been in the best economic situation themselves, but treated the arriving children with all warmth and sincerity. "Many of our children underwent rehabilitation far away - in Western countries - thousands and thousands of our kids," the minister continued. "We are grateful to various foreign non-governmental charitable organizations, including the American organization Ramapo Children of Chernobyl and the Irish organization Chernobyl Children International, and many others. There were many such organizations. We received the necessary humanitarian aid for displaced people, assistance with the treatment and rehabilitation of children affected by radiation as well as various types of technical assistance to reduce radiation levels and restore contaminated lands." In turn, foreign scientists received a unique opportunity to conduct research of utmost importance on the effects of radiation in real conditions in Belarus. This knowledge later proved useful to many of those states when tragedies of the same kind - perhaps not in scale, but in essence - occurred in their own territory.
SpaceX drops a massive $60 billion move on Cursor
Elon Musk's rocket empire is betting big on AI coding -- and the price tag will make your head spin The rocket company is no longer just shooting for the stars. It is now aiming squarely at the future of software itself. SpaceX announced a deal with AI coding tool maker Cursor to develop a next-generation coding and knowledge work AI -- and buried inside that partnership is a stunning provision -- an option to purchase the startup outright for $60 billion later this year. The announcement, posted on X on Tuesday, sent the tech world into a frenzy and raised a single urgent question -- just how big does Elon Musk intend to make this thing? SpaceX Makes Its Most Audacious Move Yet The deal is structured with two possible outcomes. SpaceX can either pay Cursor $10 billion for their collaborative development work, or pull the trigger on a full $60 billion acquisition later this year. That kind of dual-path flexibility is unusual at this scale -- and it signals that SpaceX is keeping its options wide open as it barrels toward a historic public offering. SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC on April 1, 2026, targeting a June listing at a $1.75 trillion valuation -- what would be the largest public offering in history. Every move between now and that roadshow carries enormous weight for investors, and the Cursor deal is no exception. Partnering with -- and potentially purchasing -- a leader in the hottest AI product category can only be seen in the context of that much-anticipated offering. Why Cursor Is Worth Every Penny Cursor is not just another coding tool. The startup's annualized revenue surged from $1 billion in early 2025 to $20 billion in early 2026, with over half of Fortune 500 companies now using its product. That kind of enterprise penetration is exactly what SpaceX's AI division -- still playing catch-up to rivals -- desperately needs. From a technical standpoint, combining Cursor with SpaceX's Colossus supercomputer -- equivalent to one million Nvidia H100 GPUs -- creates a powerful synergy neither company could achieve independently. Cursor gets the raw computational muscle to train its own models without leaning on competitors. SpaceX gets a proven, fast-growing software business with real revenue and real users. The awkward reality is that Cursor currently uses and sells access to Claude and GPT models even as both firms roll out their own competing coding tools -- an arrangement this new SpaceX partnership may be designed to eventually escape. The Race to Close the AI Gap A report by forecaster Peter Wildeford earlier this year showed that among the world's major AI developers, Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI sit in the first tier, while xAI lags behind by roughly seven months. Musk has publicly acknowledged the gap and pledged to close it by year's end. The Cursor deal is perhaps the most concrete step yet in that effort. The announcement arrives less than a week before the start of a high-profile legal trial between Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman -- whose company was, notably, an early investor in Cursor. The overlap is as tangled as it is telling. A Tech Empire Expanding at Warp Speed The SpaceX of 2026 looks almost unrecognizable from the rocket company that launched a decade ago. Musk merged SpaceX with his AI startup xAI in February in a deal he valued at $1.25 trillion -- a restructuring that transformed the company's identity almost overnight. Cursor, if acquired, would be the next domino in that relentless expansion. Cursor's $2 billion in annualized revenue and enterprise reach gives SpaceX something its xAI subsidiary currently lacks -- a proven, fast-growing software business with real enterprise distribution. For IPO investors, that is a concrete story to price in, right alongside rockets and satellite internet. Whether SpaceX ultimately writes the $60 billion check or walks away with a $10 billion collaboration, one thing is clear -- the company is no longer content to orbit the AI industry from a distance. It is going in for the landing.
I Put Perplexity vs. Claude to the Test: Here's My Verdict
If you're here, you're likely looking for a comparison of Perplexity vs. Claude that goes beyond a generic overview. The lines between a "smart chatbot" and a full-fledged AI assistant software are blurring fast. Your choice of platform will impact your workflows, your data handling, and potentially even your customer experience. This comparison will help you cut through the noise and make a call that's both strategic and scalable. As someone who has explored both tools in depth, I have put them head-to-head across real-world use cases. The short answer? Neither tool wins outright. The better choice depends on what you're actually doing. TL;DR: From what I saw, Perplexity and Claude are distinct AI tools. Perplexity is a specialized, source-cited search engine for research and real-time information, while Claude is a highly capable, large-context conversational model designed for executing tasks like reasoning, writing, and coding. * Choose Perplexity if your work is research-heavy and citation-backed answers matter. It's still the stronger pick for fast, sourced, real-time information retrieval. * Choose Claude if you need a thinking partner for writing, coding, or working through complex documents. Its conversational depth and context handling are best-in-class. I hope this comparison saves you time, effort, and a lot of trial and error when choosing between the two popular chatbots. Perplexity vs. Claude: What's different and what's not? After spending a lot of time with these two AI chatbots, I wanted to pinpoint where they diverge and where they overlap. Here's my take on the main differences and similarities between Perplexity and Claude. What are the key differences between Perplexity and Claude Below are some primary differences between Perplexity and Claude. * Context management: Claude feels more human-like and engaging in conversation. Users on G2 consistently rate Claude higher for natural conversation (93% vs Perplexity's 88%). It tends to remember context better in long chats as well. On G2, Claude scored 87% in context management vs Perplexity's 85%. If you refer back to something said 10 messages ago, Claude is less likely to get confused. Perplexity's style is more utilitarian: it gives concise answers and then often suggests a relevant follow-up question rather than carrying on a free-flowing chat by itself. It maintains context to a degree, especially when you're logged in, as it can remember your thread. However, it's more focused on answering the current query and guiding you to the next one. * AI models: Claude and Perplexity differ significantly in the AI models powering their platforms. Claude, developed by Anthropic, uses its own proprietary Claude 4 model family, including Sonnet 4.6, Opus 4.6, and Haiku 4.5, which emphasizes safety, context handling, and helpfulness. Perplexity, on the other hand, takes a multi-model approach, letting users switch between GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and its own Sonar models depending on the task. * Integrations: Perplexity has expanded significantly beyond its app and browser extension, now supporting 400+ prebuilt connectors and custom MCP integrations for Pro, Max, and Enterprise users. Claude, in contrast, is more of a platform that others integrate. Anthropic provides Claude via an API, and companies plug it into their products. G2 users rate Claude slightly higher for API flexibility (83% vs Perplexity's 80%), indicating developers still find Claude more adaptable for custom workflows, though the gap has narrowed considerably. * Support and community: According to G2 reviews, users find Perplexity's support to be more responsive and helpful. Perplexity scored 86% in quality of support vs Claude's 78%. This could be due to Perplexity being a smaller, consumer-facing company that directly engages its user community. They have an active Discord and frequent updates. What are the key similarities between Perplexity and Claude? Despite their differences in design philosophy, Perplexity and Claude have a lot in common as AI chatbots. * Information access: Both Perplexity and Claude offer web search capabilities. Perplexity has real-time web access built into every answer by default, complete with citations. Claude offers web search on its free and Pro plans, making it a more versatile research tool than it used to be. So if you need a cited, verifiable answer with traceable sources, Perplexity remains the stronger pick, but both tools can now pull from the live web. * Natural language Q&A: Both Claude and Perplexity are built to answer questions and have conversations in plain language. They both understand a user's question and respond with a coherent, contextually relevant answer. * Content summarization: Both platforms generate a wide range of text content and summarize information. Perplexity tends to lean on its integrated models, like GPT-5.2 and Claude Sonnet 4.6, to produce well-structured, fact-checked write-ups, often citing sources for factual text. Claude, on its own, can produce very fluent and structured text from scratch. Claude might give a more flowing narrative, while Perplexity gives a concise, reference-backed draft. * Knowledge and accuracy: While their methods differ, both give accurate, factual answers to minimize hallucinations. According to G2's feature ratings, content accuracy is a highly rated feature for both, with Perplexity and Claude tied at 85% satisfaction. Each has mechanisms to ground their answers: Perplexity through sources and real-time web retrieval, and Claude through extensive training, alignment, and web search. In a G2 analysis of AI hallucinations, Claude and Perplexity both had relatively fewer user complaints about incorrect information compared to some competitors. * Pricing: Both Perplexity and Claude offer a free tier for casual use and a Pro plan at $20/month for power users. Both also offer a premium Max plan at $200/month for the most demanding workflows. Curious how Perplexity holds up as a research-first AI? Read our full Perplexity AI review for a detailed analysis. How I compared Claude and Perplexity: My tasks and evaluation criteria To keep things fair and thorough, I tested both Claude and Perplexity (free versions) on a series of real-world tasks. I used Claude's latest model (Claude Sonnet 4) and Perplexity free plan. My test included the following tasks: * Text-based content creation. I asked each to write a paragraph or two. I evaluated the fluency, creativity, and correctness of their writing. * Summarization and deep research. I gave them a long article to summarize and asked multi-part questions that required synthesizing information. This tested their ability to handle large contexts and produce accurate, well-structured answers -- both tools now offer sourced responses, so I paid close attention to depth and synthesis quality. * Coding tasks. I tried a few programming-related prompts, such as asking for a sample code snippet. I looked at the accuracy of the code and its ability to handle corrections. * Conversational Q&A. I engaged in a free-form conversation with each AI, asking a sequence of open-ended questions to see how well they maintain context and simulate a natural conversation over multiple turns. For each of these tasks, I paid attention to a few key criteria: * Accuracy: Are the answers correct and trustworthy? * Creativity: Are the responses unique and engaging? * Depth: Do they provide detailed, insightful answers vs. superficial ones? * Clarity: Is the answer well-structured and easy to understand? * Efficiency: How fast and directly did they get to a good answer, and did I have to poke and prod to get something useful? Let me share what I found and how those findings line up with what real users on G2 have reported about Perplexity and Claude. Perplexity vs. Claude: How they performed in my tests Below is an overview of how Perplexity and Claude performed in my evaluation of the two AI chatbots. Conversational ability To test the conversational ability of both AI chatbots, I started a discussion about planning a trip to Japan, and asked a series of questions using prompts like, "What's the food like?" and "What temples to visit?" In a back-and-forth conversation, Claude immediately felt more "chatty" and context-aware. When I asked Claude a question, and then a follow-up that referred to something we discussed earlier, Claude consistently remembered the context. After several turns while talking about flights, food, and culture, I asked, "Oh, what was that temple you mentioned before?" Claude knew I was referring to a temple that it recommended earlier and responded correctly. Based on the tone, I found Claude's style to be more engaging. It tends to use an affable tone, which makes the conversation feel friendly. Perplexity, in a similar scenario, was more helpful but straightforward. It often responded to the last query without seamlessly weaving in the older context unless I explicitly mentioned it. Perplexity's tone was also polite and clear, and more precise than Claude's. For straightforward Q&A-style dialogues, it's highly efficient. Some of Claude's answers felt generalized, but Perplexity gave precise outputs. It's like a very knowledgeable assistant. Interestingly, Perplexity often prompts follow-up questions after an answer. I found this feature extremely useful for digging deeper into topics. Personally, I liked the overall output of Perplexity only slightly better than Claude's since it was not generalized (very precise) and suggested multiple options to dig deeper without having to come up with the right questions by myself. I personally prefer this sort of assistance when I'm using an AI chatbot for search, compared to having something nice to read in an engaging tone. Winner: Perplexity Writing and creativity In this task, I asked both Claude and Perplexity to act as science fiction authors and write a short story. I wanted to see which tool addresses my query more creatively in terms of figurative language, rhyme, tone, and diction. While it had a generic title, Claude managed to create a story with a compelling opening and contained a lot of readable prose. The story seemed to be framed as a mystery, which is what I had asked. While it's no Pulitzer prize winner, and it feels like it has borrowed a lot of elements from existing sci-fi stories, it would do the trick for a first-time reader. Perplexity's attempt was much more basic. I felt like I was a summary of a story rather than the story itself. There was no prose or an air of mystery, which Claude had managed to add. For structured content like article or report writing, both are useful, but in different ways. I had them each write a paragraph describing the biggest cybersecurity threat to small businesses. Claude's paragraph came out narrative and engaging, almost like an opener, hooking the reader with a scenario. Perplexity's paragraph was straightforward: it listed a couple of key points for data protection and financial risk with clarity and even cited statistics about cyberattacks on small businesses. If I were writing a fact-based piece, I'd love those citations handy. However, if the task is more on the side of narrative or copywriting (like drafting a personal blog or marketing tagline), I'd lean on Claude. Winner: Tie; Claude for creative writing, Perplexity for report writing Coding and technical assistance Going into this test, I had a hunch Claude would outperform in coding, and that turned out to be true by a significant margin. I gave both a couple of real programming tasks, and the results were pretty telling. One was a debugging question: I provided them with a short Python function that had a bug and asked for help. I was impressed by Perplexity's response. It was to the point, with explanation, and a solution to fix it. Claude performed equally well and returned a similar output while explaining the error and suggesting alternative ways to fix it. However, the difference became clearer in the following coding test, where I asked the tools to write a function to generate a random password in JavaScript. Claude not only wrote a function, but also explained each step in comments, explained the core logic, and even mentioned a best practice like including a mix of characters. And the best part? It simultaneously executed the code and showed me output, which was a fully functioning password generator that I could actually test and use. All this on the free version! Perplexity's answer gave a code snippet too; however, there was limited in-line explanation within the output. It also could not run and execute the code. Here's what I got with Perplexity: At the end of the day, I have to conclude that Claude is currently better than Perplexity when it comes to coding or offering technical support. Winner: Claude Research and information retrieval In my line of work, up-to-date research holds a lot of weight. Curious to know which tool would perform better, I asked both AI tools the same question: What are the latest trends in renewable energy adoption in 2026? Perplexity blew me away and differentiated itself. It was dramatically more useful for research and used more sources in the local geographic area. Perplexity automatically took data about renewable energy adoption based on the country I was querying. For academic or report-style research, the value of Perplexity's approach is immense. It lets you access quality papers, relevant sources listed, and even videos suggested for whatever you wanna search. On the other hand, here's what I got from Claude: Claude gave a more generalized overview based on global data. The answers were more generic compared to Perplexity, without any precise details about local data on renewable energy trends. I liked Perplexity's output better since I didn't have to over-specify to get the output I needed. Claude felt more static when it came to research. Winner: Perplexity Here's an overview of my tests: Perplexity vs. Claude: Key insights based on G2 Data The qualitative experience I described above echoes many of the patterns we see in G2's ratings and review comments. Here are some key insights drawn directly from G2 data: Satisfaction ratings * Perplexity leads on ease of setup (96%) and ease of use (94%), with a quality of support score of 86%. * Claude matches Perplexity on ease of use (92%), ease of setup (91%), and ease of doing business (91%), but trails on quality of support at 78%. Industries represented * Perplexity sees the strongest adoption in information technology and services, marketing and advertising, computer software, consulting, and higher education. * Claude has a strong presence in marketing and advertising, computer software, information technology and services, hospital and health care, and higher education. Highest-rated features * Perplexity excels in no-code conversation design (94%), multi-step planning (89%), and natural language understanding and intent inference (89%). * Claude stands out for natural conversation (93%), creativity (89%), and complex query handling (85%). Lowest-rated features * Perplexity struggles with fallback responses for unknown queries (75%), web widget and SDK embedding (79%), and API flexibility (80%). * Claude struggles with error learning (78%), software integration (81%), and customizability (83%). Perplexity vs. Claude: Frequently asked questions (FAQs) Let's address a few frequently asked questions that potential users or buyers often have when comparing Perplexity and Claude: Q1. Is Perplexity or Claude better for research and writing? It depends on the type of work you're doing. For research, Perplexity has the edge, since it pulls real-time information from the web and provides direct source citations for every answer. For writing, Claude is the better choice, producing fluent, narrative-driven content with a conversational tone and a strong creativity score of 89% on G2. Many users rely on Perplexity for research and fact-gathering, then turn to Claude to shape that information into polished content. Q2. How does Perplexity AI compare to Claude? Perplexity and Claude are both powerful AI tools built for different primary use cases. Perplexity is an AI-powered search engine that prioritizes real-time, citation-backed answers, leading in ease of setup (96%) and quality of support (86%) on G2. Claude is a large-context conversational model designed for reasoning, writing, and coding, scoring higher for natural conversation (93%) and context management (87%). Both offer a free tier and a Pro plan at $20/month, with Max plans at $200/month for power users. Q3. What is the difference between Perplexity AI and Claude? The core difference is in how they approach information. Perplexity is built around real-time web search with citations, making it ideal for research and fact-checking. Claude is built around deep reasoning and conversation, excelling at coding, long-document analysis, and creative writing. Claude uses its own proprietary Claude 4 model family, while Perplexity takes a multi-model approach with GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and Gemini 3.1 Pro. Both tools now offer web search and a free tier, which makes them more similar than they used to be, but their core strengths remain distinct. Perplexity vs. Claude: My final verdict I'm a writer by profession. Both fact-checking and writing style and tone are equally important for my work. Given a choice, I'd rely on Perplexity to perform my secondary research, letting it scan the breadth of the Internet to collect relevant data and examples that I can use in my work. For narratives, rewriting, summarization, and finding tone varieties, Claude would be a preferable choice. Ultimately, it depends on what kind of support we need from the AI chatbot. The choice would stem from the individual use case. Exploring chatbots? Go through the detailed comparison of ChatGPT vs. Claude.
Microsoft to integrate Anthropic's Mythos into its security development program
April 22 - Microsoft said on Wednesday it plans to embed advanced artificial intelligence models, including Anthropic's Claude Mythos Preview, into its secure coding framework, as the company steps up its cybersecurity capabilities. Incorporating the models into Microsoft's Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) will help identify vulnerabilities and develop fixes faster, early on in the cycle, the Windows maker said in a blog. Mythos, announced on April 7, has found "thousands" of major vulnerabilities in operating systems, web browsers and other software. Its capabilities to code at a high level have given it a potentially unprecedented ability to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities and devise ways to exploit them, experts said. Anthropic has said the current iteration, Claude Mythos Preview, will be first deployed to a select group of companies as part of Anthropic's "Project Glasswing," a controlled initiative under which major technology companies, including Microsoft, Amazon.com and Apple, can use it to search for cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Microsoft said it evaluated Mythos, using its own open-source benchmark for real-world detection engineering tasks, and the "results showed substantial improvements relative to prior models." U.S. President Donald Trump's administration, central bankers across the globe and industries are racing to get up to speed on Mythos and its ability to make complex cyberattacks both easier and quicker to crack.
Kraken Submits 56M IRS Forms for 2025, With Majority Covering Micro‑Transactions - Crypto Economy
The exchange Kraken filed a total of 56 million Form 1099-DA forms with the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for fiscal year 2025. Of that total, 18.5 million covered transactions below one dollar, and more than half corresponded to operations under ten dollars. Only 8.5% exceeded $600, the threshold that in most other areas of the tax code triggers the reporting obligation. The exchange published the data alongside a clear position: the problem is not the technology, but the tax code. Each form issued implies a reconciliation task for the taxpayer, and standard tax software does not process cryptocurrency transactions. Kraken estimated that an active holder may spend between $250 and $500 annually on specialized tools alone, not counting the hours spent reconciling transactions. The Tax Foundation calculates that individual filings already cost Americans $146 billion in time and expenses. The company identified two specific problems. The first is the absence of a de minimis exemption for everyday payments with cryptocurrencies. Under current rules, buying a hamburger with Bitcoin generates a taxable event that requires the taxpayer to calculate the cost basis of the fraction of currency used and report the gain or loss on the corresponding form. The Cato Institute noted that paying for a daily coffee with BTC can translate into more than one hundred pages of tax filings. The second problem is the treatment of staking. Rewards are considered ordinary income at the moment of receipt, valued at the market price of that day. If the token falls in value before the filing, the taxpayer may owe taxes on an amount exceeding the current value of the asset, which Kraken calls phantom income. A significant portion of the sub-dollar forms issued corresponded precisely to staking distributions. Legislation currently before Congress includes a de minimis provision, but limited to payment stablecoins. Kraken is asking for it to be extended to all digital assets, indexed to inflation, and accompanied by safeguards against abusive structuring. The exchange also requests that taxpayers be able to choose when to pay taxes on staking rewards: upon receipt or at the time of sale. The exchange's systems already support both reporting methods; Congress only needs to authorize the option.
Anthropic's Mythos rollout has missed America's cybersecurity agency
Lauren Feiner is a senior policy reporter at The Verge, covering the intersection of Silicon Valley and Capitol Hill. She spent 5 years covering tech policy at CNBC, writing about antitrust, privacy, and content moderation reform. Several US federal agencies are taking up Anthropic's new cybersecurity model to find vulnerabilities, but one is reportedly not getting in on the action: the nation's central cybersecurity coordinator. On Tuesday, Axios reported that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) didn't have access to Mythos Preview, which Anthropic has touted as a powerful tool for finding and patching security vulnerabilities. Meanwhile, other agencies like Commerce Department and National Security Agency (NSA) are reportedly using the model, and President Donald Trump's administration has been negotiating broader access, Axios wrote last week. In a blog post, Anthropic said it's "been in ongoing discussions with US government officials about Claude Mythos Preview and its offensive and defensive cyber capabilities," and an unnamed Anthropic official told Axios that CISA was among the agencies briefed. Anthropic declined to comment and CISA did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Combined with other actions to limit CISA's workforce and funding, the report signals that CISA's operations still haven't been prioritized by the administration, possibly putting digital security at risk. The agency, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, is meant to serve as the central coordinating body for cybersecurity information, helping state and local officials that run elections and public utilities stay apprised of vulnerabilities and respond to attacks when they occur. But the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have launched political attacks on it, particularly after it declared the 2020 election that President Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden the "most secure in American history." Trump later fired the official who led that agency in his first administration. Since returning to office last year, the Trump administration has made a series of decisions that further limit the agency's remit. Like other federal agencies, CISA lost talent during the Department of Government Efficiency's cost-cutting efforts, and some staff was also reassigned to work on immigration priorities under DHS. Its acting director told Congress that its resources to detect hacks were limited amid the current DHS shutdown, yet the Trump administration is seeking to trim hundreds of millions more from the agency's budget. CISA's reported lack of access to Anthropic's Mythos Preview raises further questions about why an agency tasked with protecting critical infrastructure from cyberattacks isn't able to test a tool that's found security issues "in every major operating system and web browser," according to Anthropic. Anthropic is giving restricted access to the tool to give key institutions a "head start" on cyber defenses, Anthropic's frontier red team cyber lead Newton Cheng told The Verge. But it seems that at least for now, CISA won't be getting that opportunity.
SpaceX says unproven AI space data centers may not be commercially viable, filing shows - BusinessWorld Online
NEW YORK -- SpaceX warned investors that its ambitions to build space-based artificial intelligence (AI) data centers, as well as human settlements on the moon and Mars, rely on unproven technologies and may not become commercially viable, according to a company filing. The business risks laid out in SpaceX's pre-IPO filing, which have not been previously reported, present a far more cautious assessment of the rocket maker's future than the vision laid out publicly by billionaire CEO Elon Musk in recent weeks, as the company gears up for what could be the largest initial public offering (IPO) in history. Risk factors in a prospectus are required by US securities law and are designed to inform investors of potential pitfalls while also shielding companies from future legal liability. "Our initiatives to develop orbital AI compute and in-orbit, lunar, and interplanetary industrialization are in early stages, involve significant technical complexity and unproven technologies, and may not achieve commercial viability," SpaceX said in an excerpt from the S-1 filing, which was seen by Reuters. Any future AI orbital data centers will operate "in the harsh and unpredictable environment of space, exposing them to a wide and unique range of space-related risks that could cause them to malfunction or fail," the document said. MUSK SAYS AI IN SPACE IS A 'NO-BRAINER' Companies use the S-1 registration document to disclose their finances and risks before going public. SpaceX is targeting a listing in the coming months at a valuation of roughly $1.75 trillion with a $75 billion raise, which would make it the largest initial public offering in history. Mr. Musk said at the World Economic Forum in January that building AI data centers in space was "a no-brainer" and that it would be the cheapest place to put AI within two to three years. In February, after announcing a merger between SpaceX and his social media and artificial intelligence firm xAI, he said "space-based AI is obviously the only way to scale." SpaceX did not immediately respond to a request for further comment. SpaceX also highlighted its heavy dependence on Starship, its next-generation fully reusable rocket, which has suffered several delays and testing failures. "Any failure or delay in the development of Starship at scale or in achieving the required launch cadence, reusability and capabilities thereof would delay or limit our ability to execute our growth strategy," the filing said. Starship is designed to loft far larger payloads than SpaceX's workhorse Falcon 9 rocket, aiming to dramatically reduce launch costs for Starlink satellites, spacebased data centers and human missions to the moon. -- Reuters
Banking industry scrambles for Anthropic's Mythos as global regulators review risks - BusinessWorld Online
FRANKFURT/NEW YORK -- The emergence of Anthropic's Mythos is setting up a scramble from the banking industry to gain access and test the technology as regulators rush to examine the cybersecurity risks the new artificial intelligence model raises and how prepared financial firms are to tackle them. Mythos is viewed by cybersecurity experts as posing significant challenges to the banking industry and its legacy technology systems, prompting a series of warnings from regulators and policymakers gathered at last week's International Monetary Fund spring meeting in Washington. A string of US banks have so far been given access to Mythos -- while the rest of the industry tries to catch up. "It's certainly not something that's causing panic or setting off any alarm bells on our end right now, but it's definitely something we need to keep in mind in our day-to-day risk management -- and that's exactly what we're doing," Deutsche Bank CEO Christian Sewing, who leads Germany's biggest bank, told journalists. Mr. Sewing said banks were in close contact with European watchdogs about Mythos. "The banks are prepared for this and have their own responses. So this is something we have to live with, and of course everyone is trying to gain access, but I also think it's right that access is limited for now," he said, adding that a German banking association would discuss the issue on Monday. Anthropic has so far restricted access to the model to partners in its Project Glasswing initiative and about 40 additional organizations that build or maintain critical software infrastructure. JPMorgan, which is part of Glasswing, was the only bank Anthropic has publicly said has access, although Bank of America has been part of Glasswing since the start and has been testing the Mythos technology internally, according to a source familiar with the matter. Other US banks have more recently said they have been given access to Mythos. Morgan Stanley CEO Ted Pick told analysts during the bank's earnings call last week that the bank has been discussing cyber risks within the Financial Services Forum. "And yes, we are permissioned on Claude Mythos Preview," he said, adding that cyber risk is an increasing threat. "So we will, I imagine, collectively get better via that, and then there will be other competitive products." Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon also confirmed during the bank's earnings last week that it had access. "We're aware of Mythos and its capabilities," Mr. Solomon said on the call. "We have the model. We're working closely with Anthropic and all of our security vendors to kind of harness frontier capabilities wherever it's possible." Citigroup also has access to Mythos and is using it for internal tests, one person with knowledge of the matter said. Some banks without access have questioned whether there should be broader access to Mythos and whether JPM received an advantage, a topic that is likely to be raised with the US Treasury, a source familiar with the matter said. JPM declined comment. The Treasury and Anthropic did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Multiple senior banking and regulatory sources in Europe told Reuters they were not aware of any European financial institution with access to Mythos yet. 'SUBSTANTIALLY MORE CAPABLE AT CYBER OFFENSE' The British government wrote an open letter to Anthropic leaders on April 15 saying that testing by its AI Security Institute had shown Mythos to be "substantially more capable at cyber offense than any model we have previously assessed." Some Asian regulators said on Monday they were also monitoring the development. South Korea's Financial Supervisory Service said it met with information security officials from financial firms last week to review Mythos-related risks. Mythos was a key topic on the sidelines of the IMF meetings last week. European supervisors are not yet overly concerned and for now are assessing it through their existing cyber resilience processes, three European supervisory sources told Reuters. One banking source said the ECB and other regulators have been in contact with European banks to assess their preparedness for new cybersecurity risks. Supervisors have asked about banks' awareness of the threat and their ability to respond, the source said. The capabilities of Mythos to code at a high level have given it a potentially unprecedented ability to identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities, experts say, prompting greater scrutiny from regulators globally. Barclays CEO C.S. Venkatakrishnan said on Friday in Washington that Mythos was a serious threat to the global banking system and likely to be followed by similar, more powerful cyberthreats. -- Reuters
Today Is the Day Anthropic Promised That Fully Autonomous Employees Would Be Tearing Through the Business World
A year ago today, AI giant Anthropic's Chief Information Security Officer, Jason Clinton, made a bold pronouncement: within the next year, AI-powered employees will begin traipsing around the virtual innards of big companies around the world. Speaking to Axios in 2025, Clinton said these AI entities would have their own "memories," as well as specialized roles within companies, which of course would come with a company ID number and login credentials. "In that world, there are so many problems that we haven't solved yet from a security perspective that we need to solve," the CISO told Axios. Clinton's forecast was obviously meant as a warning to the information security world. But as the last year has shown us, it's also dead wrong, and Clinton is far from the only tech executive to "warn" us about the rise of autonomous AI. Today, agentic AI -- the buzz term for Clinton's AI-powered virtual employees -- is struggling to rise to the challenge, as critical security failures and pointless PR stunts have piled up. One study which surfaced earlier this year argued that AI agents could "never" be reliable or accurate tools. If true, this means their ability to deliver productive returns to the economy as a whole has been and continues to be vastly overstated, or dare we say: overhyped. The CISO's prognostication follows a pattern emerging with Anthropic. In March of last year, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei predicted that in six months AI would be "writing 90 percent of code." Six months later, it was clear that bold prediction had failed utterly, as studies began to show AI coding tools actually slow software engineers down with their often shoddy output. Given the glowing fiscal incentive these executives have to glaze their AIs' near-term trajectory, it's clear that tech industry elite are not good-faith messengers with valuable insights to share, but desperate PR men scrambling to keep the AI train chugging along as any profits on massive investments remain a distant fantasy. More on Anthropic: Claude Leak Shows That Anthropic Is Tracking Users' Vulgar Language and Deems Them "Negative"
Mumbai woman blasts BJP MLA over traffic chaos caused by 'Nari Shakti' rally on western express highway; Congress reacts
The incident occurred when Mahajan was addressing reporters at the 'Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam' rally, organised to target opposition parties over the defeat of the Constitution amendment bill. A woman was on Tuesday seen confronting Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Girish Mahajan in Mumbai over severe traffic disruption caused by a protest rally led by him in the Worli area. The incident took place when Mahajan was addressing reporters during a rally organised around the 'Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam', aimed at targeting opposition parties over the defeat of the Constitution amendment bill that sought to fast-track 33 per cent reservation for women in legislative bodies in the Lok Sabha. Videos of the confrontation quickly went viral on social media, drawing mixed reactions and criticism of the BJP's protest tactics. In the clips, the woman can be seen angrily confronting the MLA, saying, "Did you not understand? What is wrong with you? There are hundreds of people waiting." When a police official tried to intervene, she refused to engage and demanded that no one speak to her. Another video purportedly showed long queues of vehicles stuck due to the traffic jam caused by the rally. In one of the viral clips, the woman is heard telling the MLA to "get out," blaming the protest for the chaos. "Get out of here. You are causing a traffic jam," she said, questioning why the rally could not have been held at an open ground instead of disrupting traffic. Reacting to the incident, several social media users criticised the protest. One user wrote on X that if the BJP was keen on holding a rally, it should have been organised at places like Varsha Bungalow or areas where ministers reside, instead of causing inconvenience to the public. Vice president of the Maharashtra unit of the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar faction), Yogesh Sawant, also shared the video, alleging that the protest led to massive traffic congestion. He claimed that the woman, who had reportedly been stuck for hours, confronted BJP leaders and questioned them over the inconvenience caused. Former Maharashtra Congress president Nana Patole also shared the video, saying that ordinary citizens were being harassed due to the BJP's "drama." He added that the woman's reaction reflected growing public frustration. Congress calls out BJP's 'drama' Maharashtra Congress president Harshwardhan Sapkal also shared the clip, alleging that the ruling party's campaign on women's reservation had exposed its "real face." He accused the BJP of misleading women for political gains and using the issue to push a "false narrative." Sapkal further claimed that the opposition alliance had already thwarted what he described as the BJP's attempt to alter constitutional and electoral processes under the guise of reservation. He added that the party was now resorting to rallies and public campaigns to revive the issue.
