Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez are tying the knot this week. Here's what to know about their wedding.
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and former journalist Lauren Sanchez are set to tie the knot in Italy this week, even as local frustrations mount over the multi-million dollar event.
Here's what to know about the three-day wedding celebration, as well as the protests unfolding in the background.
Where and when is the wedding?
Bezos, 61, and Sanchez's wedding extravaganza kicks off in Venice this Thursday, with the ceremony scheduled to take place Saturday at an undisclosed location.
The nuptials will mark Bezos' second marriage, after his first marriage to philanthropist Mackenzie Scott ended in 2019. Sanchez, 55, was previously married to Patrick Whitesell, the executive chair of talent firm Endeavor, with their marriage also ending in 2019.
The wedding ceremony is likely to be held on San Giorgio Maggiore, according to CNN. One of the islands that make up Venice, San Giorgio Maggiore is known for the Church of San Giorgio Maggiore, designed by the architect Andrea Palladio in the 1500s.
A picture shows The Giorgio Cini Foundation on the island of San Giorgio in Venice, which according to Italian media could be one of the locations for the wedding between Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and journalist Lauren Sanchez.
ANDREA PATTARO/AFP via Getty Images
A protest group called "No Space for Bezos" declared victory this week, saying that the couple has moved their planned post-wedding party on June 28 to a shipyard on the outskirts of Venice rather than the 14th-century Grande Scuola Misericordia in central Venice, CNN reported.
How much will the Bezos-Sanchez wedding cost?
The three-day event could cost between about $64 million to $76 million, Luca Zaia, president of the Veneto regional government that comprises Venice, told reporters on Tuesday, according to The Globe and Mail.
About 80% of the wedding provisions will be sourced from Venetian vendors, the Associated Press reported, citing people close to the couple. These products include locally made pastries and hand-blown glass from Murano, an island known for its long history of glassmaking.
Who is attending?
Bezos and Sanchez invited about 200 guests to celebrate with them in the Italian city, according to media reports. The event is expected to draw plenty of star power, with guests said to include Leonardo DiCaprio, Mick Jagger, Kim Kardashian, Oprah Winfrey, Orlando Bloom and President Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump.
According to the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, at least 95 private planes have requested permission to land at Venice's Marco Polo airport.
Who is Lauren Sanchez?
Jeff Bezos, the Amazon founder and owner of The Washington Post, is marrying Lauren Sanchez, a former journalist turned children's book author. The couple went public with their relationship in 2019 and became engaged in 2023.
Sanchez recently participated in Blue Origin's first all-women's space flight, which included "CBS Mornings" anchor Gayle King and singer-songwriter Katy Perry. A licensed pilot, Sanchez pitched the idea for a female-led flight to Bezos, the founder of Blue Origin, shortly after he completed his own trip to space in 2021.
Sanchez's bachelorette party in Paris last month included Perry, Kardashian, Kris Jenner and Eva Longoria, according to AFP.
What are the wedding protests about?
Some Venice locals are expressing frustration over the city's decision to welcome wealthy tourists while failing to meet residents' needs.
This comes amid a broader pushback against tourism in parts of Europe. Last week, protestors gathered in Venice and other popular European destinations to protest a flood of visitors, who some critics blame for driving up housing costs and pushing out local residents. For the second year, Venice is requiring people visiting the city for a day to pay a tax to enter on certain summer dates.
Among those protesting the wedding are the organizers of the "No Space for Bezos" campaign, which has the backing of a dozen different local organizations including housing advocates and university groups.
People gather to protest against the wedding of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and journalist Lauren Sanchez in Venice, on June 13, 2025. Poster campaigns and stickers have spread throughout the city, including one with images of the internet entrepreneur reading "No space for Bezos," with some local residents claiming the city is catering to billionaires.
ANDREA PATTARO/AFP via Getty Images
Greenpeace joined the mix on Monday, with a handful of activists unfurling a giant banner in Venice's St. Mark's Square with a photo of Bezos and text that read: "IF YOU CAN RENT VENICE FOR YOUR WEDDING YOU CAN PAY MORE TAX." Local police folded up the banner and took it away.
Venetian officials have stood their ground, even as criticism of the event escalated. In March, the city issued a statement denying reports that there would be any major disruption to daily Venetian life, even with hundreds expected to descend on the city this week for the wedding.
Venice and the surrounding metropolitan area has a population of roughly 250,000, according to Statista. But fewer than 50,000 people live in the city's historic district, which is composed over 100 islands connected by Venice's famous canals and footbridges.
and contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Stablecoins Are a Monetary Revolution in the Making
We may be on the verge of a revolution in monetary finance that is the century-long dream of many prominent economists. Financial innovation is laying the foundation for their dream just as the U.S. political economy is shifting to support it. This revolution, if it proceeds, has major implications for global finance, economic development, and geopolitics, and will create many winners and losers. The shift I'm referring to is 'narrow banking' built on stablecoins. If those are unfamiliar concepts to you, let me review 800 years of financial innovation in 500 words. Our current financial system is built on the concept of fractional-reserve banking. In the 13th and 14th century, Italian money changers cum bankers began to figure out that because depositors (rarely) demand their money back at the same time, they could hold only a fraction of the coin needed to back their deposits. Not only was this more profitable but it also facilitated payments across great distances: rather than send gold coins over dangerous roads, a Medici in Florence need only sent a letter to his agent in Venice instructing him to debit one account and credit another. Though highly profitable and effective for payments in normal circumstances, fractional reserve banking has a downside. Its inherent leverage makes the system unstable. A downturn in the economy might cause more depositors to withdraw savings at once, or worse, generate rumors that the loans backing banks' deposits are going to default, causing a 'run' on the bank. A bank unable to meet its depositors' demands collapses into bankruptcy. But more than just depositors' wealth is lost when banks fail in a fractional reserve system. Because banks both generate credit and facilitate payment, economic activity is severely constricted when banks fail since payment for goods and services is impaired and lending isn't available for new investment. Over the centuries, as banks became simultaneously more leveraged and more critical to economic functioning, governments stepped in to try to reduce the risks of banking crises. In 1668, Sweden chartered the first central bank, the Riksbank, to lend to other banks experiencing runs. The Bank of England followed 26 years later. While that helped solve liquidity problems (banks with good assets but insufficient cash), it didn't stop solvency crises (banks with bad loans). The U.S. created deposit insurance in 1933 to help stop solvency-based bank runs, but as illustrated by the many banking crises since, including the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis in 2008, neither deposit insurance nor bank capital regulations solved fractional reserve banking's endemic fragility. Government intervention reduced only the frequency of crises and shifted their costs from depositors to taxpayers. Around the time that the Roosevelt Administration was introducing deposit insurance, some of the era's top names in economics at the University of Chicago were hatching a different solution: the so-called Chicago Plan, or 'narrow banking.' During the U.S. savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and '90s the idea had a resurgence among economists. Narrow banking solves the central problem of fractional reserve banking by separating the critical functions of payments and money creation from credit creation. Many people think that central banks create money. But that's not true in a fractional reserve system: banks do. Central banks manage the rate at which banks manufacture money (by controlling their access to reserves), but money is created by banks whenever they lend money, magically generating corresponding deposits in the process. This system – and its chaotic unwind – ties money growth to credit growth, and through banks' network effects, to payments. The Chicago Plan separates the critical functions of money creation and payments from credit by splitting banking functions in two. 'Narrow' banks that accept deposits and facilitate payments are required to back their deposits one for one with safe instruments like T-bills or central bank reserves. Think of them like a money market fund with a debit card. Lending is done by 'broad' or 'merchant' banks that fund themselves with equity capital or long-term bonds, hence aren't subject to runs. This segmentation of banking makes each function safe from the others. Deposit runs are eliminated because they are fully backed by high-quality assets (as well as access to the central bank). Since narrow banks facilitate payments, their safety removes the risk to the payments system. Because money is no longer created by credit creation, bad lending decisions at merchant banks don't affect the money supply, deposits or payments. Conversely, neither natural fluctuations in the economy's demand for money – booms or recessions – nor concerns over loan quality affect merchant banks' lending because it is funded with long-term debt and equity. You may be asking yourself now, 'If narrow banking is so wonderful, why don't we have it today?' The answer is twofold: the transition is painful and there has never been a political economy to support legislation to make the change. Because narrow banking requires 100% backing of deposits by either T-bills or central bank reserves, the transition to narrow banking would require existing banks to either call in their loans, shrinking the money supply dramatically, or if they could find non-bank buyers, sell off their loan portfolios to buy short-term government paper. Both would precipitate a massive credit crunch, and the former would create liquidity shortages and payments problems. As to the political economy, fractional reserve banking is extremely profitable – 'a license to steal' as my father calls it (admiringly) – and generates a lot of jobs. Economists, in contrast, are a small group that are questionably employed themselves. As anyone in Washington, DC will tell you, the American Bankers Association (ABA) is among the most powerful lobbies in town. The same play with different actors runs in London, Brussels, Zürich, Tokyo, et cetera. Hence the continuance of fractional reserve banking is not a banking conspiracy; it's just been good politics and cautious economics. That may no longer be so. Both the costs of transition and the political economy have changed, particularly in the U.S. Developments in decentralized finance – a.k.a. 'DeFi' or 'crypto' – and the coincident evolution of the U.S. political economy, national interests, and financial structure have generated conditions that make a shift to narrow banking in the U.S. not only feasible, but increasingly likely in my view. Let's start with the critical DeFi development: the rapid growth of stablecoins. Stablecoins are decentralized 'digital dollars' (or euros, yen, et cetera). Unlike central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) that are issued, cleared and settled centrally by central banks, stablecoins are privately created 'digital tokens' (electronic records). Like cryptocurrencies, ownership and transactions are stored and cleared through blockchain technology on distributed ledgers (decentralized registries). The combination of blockchain immutability and universally replicated registries facilitates trust between unknown parties without a government guarantee. Stablecoins differ from cryptocurrencies in being pegged to fiat currencies, gold or other stores of value that are more 'stable' than bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. They were designed to be on- and off-ramps between the traditional world of fiat money and the blockchain-based world of DeFi and cryptocurrencies, and to provide a steady 'on-blockchain' unit of account to facilitate DeFi trading. But stablecoins' use case has evolved significantly amid spectacular growth in acceptance and usage. Stablecoin annual transaction volumes through March totalled $35 trillion, more than doubling the prior 12-month period, while users have increased more than 50% to over 30 million, and the outstanding value of stablecoins has hit $250 billion. More than 90% of stablecoin transactions still involve either on/off-ramping or DeFi trading, but an increasing share of transaction growth involves 'real world' uses. Person-to-person and business transactions in countries with unstable local currencies, like Argentina, Nigeria and Venezuela, have been a key source of growth, but one of the largest has been increasing use in global remittances by migrant labor, over a quarter of the total according to one estimate. Stablecoins' increasingly rapid acceptance and growth as an alternative payments system is coming just as the Trump Administration and Congress are moving to institutionalize them. How do stablecoins maintain their value versus a particular currency like the dollar? In theory each stable coin unit is backed one for one with the currency it is pegged to. In practice, this hasn't always been the case. But the U.S. legislation defines what are acceptable high-quality, liquid assets (HQLA), mandates one-for-one backing and requires regular audits to establish compliance. Thus, Congress is creating the legal basis for entities that (1) take deposits; (2) are required to fully back deposits by HQLA; and (3) facilitate payments in the economy. Does that sound familiar to you? Isn't that a narrow bank? There are a few missing pieces. Most notably that neither the GENIUS nor STABLE Acts grant stablecoin issuers access to the Federal Reserve and neither defines stablecoins as money for tax purposes. The omission of access to the Fed likely reflects both necessary prudence to avoid undermining the fractional reserve banking system (too quickly) with a direct competitor and the ABA's lobbying efforts to protect banks' monopoly. But even here there are intriguing breadcrumbs that hint banks' protection may be temporary and only long enough to transition to a narrow banking model: among the approved HQLA for stablecoin issuers in both bills are reserves at the Federal Reserve, currently accessible only by banks. Both the Trump campaign's pivot to crypto last year and both houses of Congress moving to normalize stablecoins reflects a profound shift in America's domestic political economy and its sense of national interests. Bipartisan populist anger at banks and their relationship with Washington hasn't dissipated since the Global Financial Crisis. The Fed's QE and recent inflationary policy errors have only increased populist fury. This is just as much a part of the crypto phenomenon as FOMO. But crypto also has generated immense new wealth and opportunities for business, creating a well financed rival to the ABA. Even institutional asset managers now are diverging with their traditional allies in banking, salivating at the opportunities they see in DeFi. The combination of popular base and economic muscle is creating, for the first time, a political economy supportive of narrow banking. Further, the U.S. now has compelling national interests in developing stablecoins. First, in a world where China (and other U.S. rivals) increasingly seek to displace U.S. payment systems like SWIFT with their own, an independent, third-party payment system that prevents countries from being 'trapped' in a Chinese payments system is appealing. The other national interest is the one that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent keeps mentioning: a systemic shift towards stablecoin-based narrow banking creates 'one of the largest buyers of U.S. T-bills.' U.S. financial structure has become far more conducive to a non-disruptive transition relative to any time in its history, or relative to other countries today, giving it an advantage over rivals. While the U.S. has long been less bank dependent for credit than other major economies due to its greater use of corporate bond markets and securitized mortgages, the growth of so-called 'shadow' banking in the last two decades has made it even more so. Bank credit in the U.S. is little more than a third of total credit to the private non-financial sector. The rest is provided by bond markets and the shadow sector that are in fact the broad or merchant banks envisioned under the Chicago Plan. The economic, geopolitical and financial implications of a shift to stablecoin-based narrow banking in the United States are huge. It would create significant winners and losers both within the U.S. and around the world. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Is the Rise of Stablecoins the End of Mastercard as We Know it?
Mastercard Incorporated MA appears well-equipped to navigate the potential disruption posed by stablecoins. Although major retailers such as Walmart and Amazon are considering launching their own stablecoins to reduce dependence on traditional payment networks and avoid interchange fees, the immediate threat to Mastercard's core business remains limited. While stablecoins offer advantages like faster settlement and lower transaction costs, particularly in cross-border payments, they lack essential consumer benefits such as credit access, fraud protection and reward programs, areas where Mastercard holds a distinct competitive edge. In addition, widespread adoption of stablecoin-based payment systems faces considerable barriers, including trust deficits, infrastructure gaps and regulatory uncertainty. Importantly, Mastercard is not standing idle amid these changes. The company has already introduced initiatives like its Multi-Token Network and has piloted USDC settlements to integrate blockchain technology into its payment infrastructure. These efforts indicate that Mastercard aims to evolve its business model to incorporate stablecoin transactions rather than be displaced by them. Past technological shifts, such as the rise of mobile wallets, ultimately complemented rather than replaced traditional card networks, and a similar outcome may occur with stablecoins. Nevertheless, there are potential revenue risks if merchant-led stablecoin platforms gain faster traction than anticipated, especially in high-fee or cross-border segments. Overall, while stablecoins introduce new pricing pressures, Mastercard's proactive innovation strategy and well-established consumer advantages suggest that the company is more likely to adapt and thrive alongside this emerging technology than face existential decline. Visa Inc. V and PayPal Holdings, Inc. PYPL are actively incorporating stablecoins into their operations to stay competitive in the evolving digital payment landscape. In 2020, Visa launched pilots using USDC for settling transactions on its network, enhancing cross-border payment efficiency by reducing costs and processing times. Visa is partnering with crypto wallets to enable stablecoin payments across its merchant network. Similarly, PayPal has launched its own stablecoin, PYUSD, built on the Ethereum blockchain, enabling users to buy, sell, and transfer the token directly within its platform and on some external wallets. This move enhances transaction speed and reduces costs while strengthening PayPal's presence in the blockchain and digital asset ecosystem. Shares of Mastercard have gained 3% year to date, outperforming the broader industry's decline of 0.1%. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research From a valuation standpoint, Mastercard trades at a forward price-to-earnings ratio of 31.42X, higher than the industry average. Mastercard carries a Value Score of D. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Mastercard's fiscal 2025 earnings implies a 9.5% rise year over year, followed by 16.7% growth next year. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research The stock currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Mastercard Incorporated (MA) : Free Stock Analysis Report Visa Inc. (V) : Free Stock Analysis Report PayPal Holdings, Inc. (PYPL) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research
Business Insider
2 hours ago
- Business Insider
Amazon (AMZN) Receives a Rating Update from a Top Analyst
In a report released today, Justin Post from Bank of America Securities reiterated a Buy rating on Amazon (AMZN – Research Report), with a price target of $248.00. The company's shares closed today at $212.77. Confident Investing Starts Here: Post covers the Communication Services sector, focusing on stocks such as Alphabet Class A, Meta Platforms, and Alphabet Class C. According to TipRanks, Post has an average return of 22.6% and a 67.88% success rate on recommended stocks. The word on The Street in general, suggests a Strong Buy analyst consensus rating for Amazon with a $242.48 average price target, a 13.96% upside from current levels. In a report released today, MoffettNathanson also maintained a Buy rating on the stock with a $253.00 price target.
