DKC

The sanctions may finally be doing what they were designed to do. And Putin will need more than a year for the economy to recover.

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-economy-oil-exports-war-funding-collapse-sanctions-ukraine-war-2025-12

FTA:

The revenue collapse stems from a combination of a stronger ruble and sagging Brent prices, widening discounts on Russian crude as buyers demand steeper price cuts to offset the risk of sanctions.

The divergence between stable exports and collapsing revenue has major implications for Moscow's ability to finance its war in Ukraine.

Oil and gas revenues have historically accounted for more than a third of Russia's federal budget, and energy remains one of the country's most significant sources of funding.

But even as Russia boosts weapons production and ramps up defense spending, the money flowing in to support that buildup is shrinking.

Moving up a couple of points. It's in the news at Stanford:

https://fsi.stanford.edu/news/health-policy-forum-possible-peril-engineered-mirror-life

IMHO makes it slightly more likely to be formally addressed in a major meeting.

FTA:

While such “mirror life” is unlikely for at least a decade and would require substantial funding and major breakthroughs, it’s the kind of risk we should anticipate now, according to David Relman, MD, a professor of medicine and of microbiology and immunology and a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

“For me, it was two years of gradually coming to grips with the possibility that, now, for the first time, there was something that could conceivably threaten much of life on the planet,” said Relman, a founding member of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity and a former senior advisor in the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy at the White House.

Relman was a headliner at the recent Stanford Health Policy Forum: Engineered Threats to Global Health, in conversation with Hank Greely, JD, a law professor who focuses on ethical, legal, and social issues in the biosciences and director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford Law School. The talk was moderated by Paul Costello, an adjunct professor in the Stanford Department of Medicine.

In 2024 there were no seed round funding awarded in December. I expect that may not be unusual, so I'm thinking we are probably at the total for 2025. As I expect the world to continue with it's volatile path for the next year, I'm thinking by doubling what we have for this year, we wind up in the lowest bin.

Spreading out to some of the higher bins. The rationale of  @JonathanMann makes a lot of sense to me.

Affirming. This has a longer timeline, but the bar is higher IMHO. Since mirror products aren't expected this soon, this seems about right.

Moving a bit higher on this based on what could be a very public pushing of the issue as the world moves toward space travel and exploration. IMHO.

This article describes an unlikely, but possible risk:

https://thebulletin.org/2025/11/mirror-life-on-black-swans-from-the-red-planet-could-nasa-bring-back-mirror-life-from-mars/amp/

Edging a bit more into higher bins based on the idea that AI will lead to more cost-effective biotech research that may be attractive to seed grant money.

https://www.benzinga.com/markets/biotech/25/11/49069551/biotech-stocks-ai-artificial-intelligence-analysis-sector-outlook-eli-lilly-moderna

FTA:

The iShares Biotechnology ETF (NYSE:IBB) has risen for six straight months, notching its longest winning streak since 2012. But it's not just about consistency—the strength of the move is historic.

The sector is up 40% in that stretch, making it the best 6-month rolling return for biotech since September 2003.

Biotech has been a long-underperforming sector that is now finally getting a structural narrative: AI is beginning to solve the cost and efficiency challenges that have plagued pharmaceutical R&D for decades.