Plex is starting to enforce its new rules, which prevent users from remotely accessing a personal media server without a subscription fee.

Previously, people outside of a server owner’s network could access the owner’s media library through Plex for free. Under the new rules announced in March, a server owner needs to have a Plex Pass subscription, which starts at $7 per month, to grant users remote access to their server. Alternatively, someone can remotely access another person’s Plex server by buying their own Plex Pass or a Remote Watch Pass, which is a subscription with fewer features than a Plex Pass and that Plex started selling in April for a $2/month starting price.

Plex’s new rules took effect on April 29. According to a recent Plex forums post by a Plex employee that How-To Geek spotted today, the changes are rolling out this week, with a subscription being required for people using Plex’s Roku OS app for remote access. The Plex employee added:

This requirement change for remote streaming will come to all other Plex TV apps (Fire TV, Apple TV, Android TV, etc.) and any third-party clients using the API to offer remote streaming in 2026.

Plex started as a Mac port of the Xbox Media Center project in 2009 before evolving into a media server company and, more recently, a streaming service provider. Its new remote access rules will be a test for the company, which has been challenging long-time users with numerous changes over the past year, including a Plex Pass price hike, a foray into renting out officially licensed movies, and the introduction of social features and a mobile app redesign.

Plex has previously emphasized its need to keep up with “rising costs,” which include providing support for many different devices and codecs. It has also said that it needs money to implement new features, including an integration with Common Sense Media, a new “bespoke server management app” for managing server users, and “an open and documented API for server integrations,” including custom metadata agents,” per a March blog post.

In January 2024, TechCrunch reported that Plex was nearing profitability and raised $40 million in funding (Plex raised a $50 million growth equity round in 2021). Theoretically, the new remote access rules can also increase subscription revenue and help Plex’s backers see returns on their investments.

However, Plex’s evolution could isolate long-time users who have relied on Plex as a media server for years and those who aren’t interested in subscriptions, FAST (free ad-supported streaming TV) channels, or renting movies. Plex is unlikely to give up on its streaming business, though. In 2023, Scott Hancock, Plex’s then-VP of marketing, said that Plex had more people using its online streaming service than using its media server features since 2022. For people seeking software packages more squarely focused on media hosting, Plex alternatives, like Jellyfin, increasingly look attractive.

Read full article

Comments

The popularity of GLP-1 weight-loss medications continues to soar—and their uptake is helping to push down obesity rates on a national scale—but a safe, evidence-based way off the drugs isn’t yet in clear view.

An analysis published this week in JAMA Internal Medicine found that most participants in a clinical trial who were assigned to stop taking tirzepatide (Zepbound from Eli Lilly) not only regained significant amounts of the weight they had lost on the drug, but they also saw their cardiovascular and metabolic improvements slip away. Their blood pressure went back up, as did their cholesterol, hemoglobin A_1c (used to assess glucose control levels), and fasting insulin.

In an accompanying editorial, two medical experts at the University of Pittsburgh, Elizabeth Oczypok and Timothy Anderson, suggest that this new class of drugs should be rebranded from “weight loss” drugs to “weight management” drugs, which people may need to take indefinitely.

Some studies have found that about half of people who start taking a GLP-1 drug for weight loss stop taking it within a year—for various reasons—and many people think they can stop taking anti-obesity drugs once they’ve reached a desired weight, Oczypok and Anderson write. But that’s not in line with the data.

“It may be helpful to compare them to other chronic disease medications; patients do not stop their anti-hypertensive medications when their blood pressure is at goal,” they write.

In the trial, researchers—led by Eli Lilly scientists—followed 670 participants with obesity or overweight (but without diabetes) who were treated with tirzepatide for 36 weeks. Then the participants were split into either continuing with the drug for another 52 weeks (88 weeks total) or getting a placebo for that period of time. Both groups were told to continue a reduced-calorie diet and an exercise plan.

In all, 335 participants were randomized to switch to a placebo, and the researchers monitored changes in their weight and cardiovascular health metrics after the switch. Not everyone in the first phase of the trial lost significant amounts of weight on the drug. So, the researchers only closely tracked the 308 of the 335 who lost at least 10 percent of their body weight on the drug.

Of the 308 who benefited from tirzepatide, 254 (82 percent) regained at least 25 percent of the weight they had lost on the drug by week 88. Further, 177 (57 percent) regained at least 50 percent, and 74 (24 percent) regained at least 75 percent. Generally, the more weight people regained, the more their cardiovascular and metabolic health improvements reversed.

Data gaps and potential off-ramps

On the other hand, there were 54 participants of the 308 (17.5 percent) that didn’t regain a significant amount of weight (less than 25 percent.) This group saw some of their health metrics worsen on withdrawal of the drug, but not all— blood pressure increased a bit, but cholesterol didn’t go up significantly overall. About a dozen participants (4 percent of the 308) continued to lose weight after stopping the drug.

The researchers couldn’t figure out why these 54 participants fared so well; there were “no apparent differences” in demographic or clinical characteristics, they reported. It’s clear the topic requires further study.

But, overall, the study offers a gloomy outlook for patients hoping to avoid needing to take anti-obesity drugs for the foreseeable future.

Oczypok and Anderson highlight that the study involved an abrupt withdrawal from the drug. In contrast, many patients may be interested in slowly weaning off the drugs, stepping down dosage levels over time. So far, data on this strategy and the protocols to pull it off have little data behind them. It also might not be an option for patients who abruptly lose access or insurance coverage of the drugs. Other strategies for weaning off the drugs could involve ramping up physical activity or calorie restriction in anticipation of dropping the drugs, the experts note.

In addition to more data on potential GLP-1 off-ramps, the pair calls for more data on the effects of weight fluctuations from people going on and off the treatment. At least one study has found that the regained weight after intentional weight loss may end up being proportionally higher in fat mass, which could be harmful.

For now, Oczypok and Anderson say doctors should be cautious about talking with patients about these drugs and what the future could hold. “These results add to the body of evidence that clinicians and patients should approach starting [anti-obesity medications] as long-term therapies, just as they would medications for other chronic diseases.”

Read full article

Comments

Guest Commentary written by

Ellie Cohen

Ellie Cohen is CEO of The Climate Center, a California-based climate and energy policy nonprofit.

Governor Gavin Newsom stood before global leaders in Brazil recently at COP30, the annual United Nations climate conference, and introduced himself to the world as the new face of U.S. climate ambition. 

The scene raised a question back home in California: Why did Newsom recently veto climate solutions that would have made electricity cleaner and more affordable for Californians?

For decades, California has shown the world that states and regions can drive climate and economic progress, even when national governments lag. 

Now the world’s fourth-largest economy, our state has paired consistent cuts in emissions with sustained economic growth and set a standard for clean car rules that is copied worldwide. It also built the nation’s first economy-wide “Cap and Invest” program, the cap-and-trade energy credit program recently reformed and extended under Newsom’s watch.

Yet as the climate crisis escalates, even that legacy faces scrutiny. While Newsom was preparing for COP30, his administration was delaying or diluting key domestic reforms and quietly expanding in-state oil and gas drilling.

In Brazil, Newsom urged fellow Democrats to start framing climate as an affordability issue — of course, it is. This rhetoric earned him praise abroad. 

But Newsom has balked at several recent opportunities to address climate and cost-of-living challenges together. 

Just weeks ago, the governor vetoed three bipartisan bills that would have advanced virtual power plants, which are systems that deliver clean power back to the electrical grid during peak hours by aggregating power from devices many of us already have in our homes — such as smart thermostats, rooftop solar panels, home and electric vehicle batteries and electric heat pumps. 

Managing strain on the grid with virtual power plants helps avoid blackouts, reduces reliance on gas powered plants and saves electricity customers money on their utility bills, including those not participating in a virtual power plant program. 

One recent study predicted virtual power plants could save Californians up to $13.7 billion on electricity over the next five years. That is the kind of climate-forward and affordability-focused policy that California voters and global climate champions want. 

But all three bills were doomed because investor-owned utilities like PG&E continue to work against local-scale electricity solutions like virtual power plants, and they know they can count on Newsom as an ally.

It’s time for Newsom to start treating climate like a winning issue here in California — not just on the international stage in the lead-up to the 2028 presidential race. Investing in solutions like virtual power plants creates jobs, lowers electricity bills and builds resilience to wildfires and floods. 

Californians pay twice the national average for electricity and yet still endure frequent planned blackouts. We want solutions that work, protect our families and save money, and we want our governor to champion them.

Newsom is right to emphasize affordability as a pillar of climate progress, creating further contrast between himself and President Donald Trump. That’s good politics and good policy — but it’s also puzzling when his administration vetoes the most cost-effective clean energy solutions available today.

After his time in Brazil, Newsom needs more than rhetoric to cement his legacy as a true climate champion. In his final months as governor, he should advance policies that combat the climate crisis and provide economic relief to hardworking Californians. Here are two ways he can show the world how to tackle climate change while lowering the cost of living.

First, knock down state barriers to local, clean, affordable energy. Newsom must stop deferring to corporate utilities like PG&E and mobilize the state to support rooftop solar, virtual power plants and other clean, decentralized electricity solutions. 

Second, eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and make corporate polluters pay for climate disasters. California hands billions to the oil and gas industry while communities bear the costs of extreme weather and fossil fuel pollution. Making polluters pay their fair share would help finance the transition to a cleaner economy, improve public health and take the burden off taxpayers. 

These solutions can be replicated around the world. And, thanks to Newsom’s strong showing in Brazil, the world will be watching. 

The website tied to Argentinian President Javier Milei’s Viva La Libertad Project, which supposedly provided the utility case for the controversial LIBRA token, has been taken down while millions of dollars from LIBRA-connected wallets continue to move.

The Viva La Libertad Project site allowed small Argentinian businesses to apply for funding that would supposedly be raised via profits from the LIBRA token.

Milei publicly endorsed the token on February 18 and since then, its market capitalization has crashed 99%. The project is now mired in numerous lawsuits and links to corruption, with investigators working to discover exactly what happened and recoup victims’ funds.

Programmer Maximiliano Firtman noted that the Viva La Libertad site lasted nine months before its disappearance and suggests that the individuals running it have either intentionally shuttered it or are now no longer able to pay for Weglot, the third-party service keeping it online.

Read more: Hayden Davis sent millions in crypto weeks before LIBRA promo

He ruled out the possibility of a temporary server error, such as an SSL issue, causing the website’s demise, or the scenario where a prepaid plan might’ve run out. 

Firtman also claims that the form businesses used to apply for funding is still online, and that Hayden Davis, one of the individuals accused of orchestrating the LIBRA token, once knew how many people had applied.

This is despite the fact, Firtman says, that no one has claimed to be the administrator of the site during any legal proceedings.

LIBRA funds move as courts decide freezing order

Earlier this week, crypto analysts reported that a “Milei” multisig wallet started moving funds, including $9 million worth of SOL.

This crypto was converted into the stablecoin USDC and bridged to another blockchain. Blockworks analyst Fernando Molina says the funds are now sitting in a TRON wallet as USDT. 

This happened days after multiple wallets tied to LIBRA began to convert $61.5 million worth of  USDC into SOL. Burwick Law, a crypto law firm leading a US case on behalf of LIBRA victims, suspected these transactions were the “the ‘staging’ phase for anonymization,” and applied for a freezing order. 

The order is still being debated by both the defendants and plaintiffs and would prohibit the defendants from using anonymization-enhancing mechanisms to move the crypto.

A hearing has been scheduled today that should decide the outcome of the proposed order. 

Read more: Hayden Davis hit with asset freeze as LIBRA investigation deepens in Argentina

As for the LIBRA investigations in Argentina, this month an Argentine congressional committee released a final report into the scandal that called for Congress to evaluate whether Milei carried out misconduct within his office.  

It also advocated for criminal charges to be filed against various executive branch officials for refusing to cooperate with the investigation, including the country’s Minister of Justice, head of the Anti-Corruption Office, and the former head of the LIBRA investigation unit that was disbanded by Milei in May. 

An Argentinian judge has already ordered this month the freezing of property and financial assets belonging to Davis and two other cryptocurrency “intermediaries” tied to the LIBRA token.

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

The post LIBRA website vanishes with millions in project funds on the move appeared first on Protos.

Long before the collapse in stock prices of crypto companies this year, executives protected themselves with spectacular paydays detailed in Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings.

With lavish pay packages that paid out even during the horrible bear market, the fine print tells an entirely different tale than their public storytelling.

Consider the executive compensation package for David Bailey, Donald Trump ally and CEO of bitcoin (BTC) treasury company Nakamoto.

Despite its 98% stock price decline, Nakamoto filed exhibit 10.15 to its August 11 form 8-K in which it admitted to paying a company that Bailey controls, BTC Consulting LLC:

• A $250,000 signing bonus
• A monthly consulting fee of $58,333
• An initial grant of 5 million NAKA stock options
• $1 million in restricted stock units
• Eligibility for $2.1 million in annual cash-based incentive bonuses
• Free use of a private jet

Shares of NAKA, which closed at $14.28 on August 11, are now worth less than $0.45 apiece. Worse, Bailey has led the company since its all-time high of $34.77 in May — and remained in charge as shares collapsed 98.7%.

Read more: Could a hostile takeover be the end of the line for Nakamoto?

Michael Saylor keeps his billions no matter how low Strategy falls

As egregious as Bailey’s pay package is, it pales in comparison to the compensation of Michael Saylor, founder of the largest crypto company trading on US exchanges besides Coinbase.

Down 60% from a peak market capitalization of $124.7 billion on July 17 to $49 billion today, Saylor has still made billions of dollars personally from leading Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy).

Thanks mostly to a special type of Class B stock that grants him 10:1 voting rights, plus awards from his founder-friendly board of stock options and convertibles, Saylor’s personal net worth is probably north of $5 billion.

He’s kept those billions despite a 61% decline in the company’s common stock over the last 12 months.

Consider another example of Anthony Pompliano’s $400 million executive compensation package from ProCap. That payday sparked a hostile shareholder letter by Paul Glazer.

Shares of Columbus Circle Capital Corp. I, a SPAC that would have taken Pompliano’s ProCap public, briefly rallied above $16 in June on initial optimism about the podcaster and media influencer.

As shares fell back to their $10 pre-merger announcement, Glazer gobbled up a 7.7% stake and publicized his staunch objection to Pompliano’s proposal.

Indeed, Pompliano structured his compensation to exit with at least $50 million personally — even if the stock price halved from $10 to $5.

He even added a $10 million cash payout for himself for any early termination without cause.

Crash-proof compensation for crypto execs

Additional examples are plentiful. During the peak of the bubble in crypto treasury companies in May, DeFi Development Corporation agreed to pay CEO Joseph Onorati an annual salary of $574,000 plus a 200% bonus possibility if the company achieved ‘WAGMI Tier’ milestones.

WAGMI is a crypto acronym for “We’re All Gonna Make It.” His stock price is down 48% since that press release.

In 2024, Core Scientific increased CEO Adam Sullivan’s personal compensation to $41.9 million, a 47x increase from 2023.

Despite this staggering increase, the company’s stock price has stagnated in 2025, trading exactly flat year to date.

At Solana treasury company Upexi, CEO Allan Marshall’s personal salary is $840,000, plus a six-month restricted stock grant of 75,000 shares and extra warrants to purchase 500,000 shares at a $2.28 strike over five years.

Despite all of this supposed motivation, Upexi’s share price collapsed to less than the value of its Solana holdings.

Like Glazer’s activist opposition to Pompliano, some shareholders have realized that they can vote against these incredible pay packages. Already, shareholders of BTC mining companies have opposed 36% of recent executive pay proposals — an oppositional voting rate that is 29% higher than the S&P 500 average.

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

The post Top crypto execs cash in as stocks collapse appeared first on Protos.