Authored by danny (@agintender) via WuBlockchain’s Aki Chen,

Why is derivatives trading the exchange’s money printer? Why do some venues dare to take the other side of their customers’ trades? By unpacking the funding-rate mechanics of Bitcoin perpetual futures (perps) and the surrounding market dynamics, we show how traders are led—step by step—into a fatal trap meticulously engineered by the exchange.

The so-called “0.01% equilibrium” in perps – akin, in spirit, to the 0.618 Fibonacci motif – operates as a razor-fine instrument for surgical rent extraction.

Introduction

In the realm of crypto derivatives, Bitcoin (BTC) perpetual futures have become one of the most liquid and influential instruments. Active traders often note a distinctive pattern: across most market conditions, the funding rate on BTC perpetuals appears to gravitate toward about 0.01%. This figure is neither random nor a direct proxy for market sentiment; it is the product of the instrument’s deliberate financial-engineering design.

Based on Coinglass’s recent historical data, the distribution of BTC perpetuals’ funding rate shows a clear clustering pattern. For the vast majority of the past year, the rate hovered tightly around +0.01% as its central tendency. Material deviations typically appeared only during brief bouts of acute market volatility, providing strong quantitative support for the observation that “0.01% is the norm.”

How to Read This Article

From the underlying architecture of perpetuals and the funding-rate formula to arbitrageurs’ behavior and regime shifts in extreme markets, this article attempts to unpack—and demystify—the deeper logic and market dynamics behind the 0.01% equilibrium.

• For beginners or readers seeking theoretical foundations: read Sections I–II in order to understand the core mechanisms and formulas.

• For professional traders and arbitrageurs: focus on Sections III and V for details on arbitrage mechanics, venue differences, and actionable strategies.

• For risk managers: Section IV—the analysis of extreme market conditions—is essential.

I: Architecture of Perpetual Futures and the Funding-Rate Mechanism

To understand the origin of the 0.01%, one must first grasp the design intent and core mechanics of perpetual futures themselves. Perpetuals aim to deliver a futures-like trading experience while cleverly sidestepping the chief complexity of conventional futures—expiry and settlement at maturity.

1.1 The No-Expiry Problem

Traditional futures have a fixed expiry date. As expiry approaches, arbitrage by market participants naturally forces the futures price to converge toward the spot price of the underlying, such that the two are effectively aligned at settlement. In this sense, the expiry date serves as a powerful price anchor.

However, by removing the expiry date, perpetual futures allow traders to hold positions indefinitely. This convenience introduces a serious financial-engineering problem: without the terminal anchor of expiry, how can one ensure that the perpetual’s price does not drift persistently and materially from that of its underlying (e.g., BTC spot)?. Absent an effective anchoring mechanism, the price of a perpetual could wander indefinitely under speculative sentiment, undermining its fundamental roles as a price-discovery and hedging instrument. This design stands in sharp contrast to traditional finance, where interest rates are set by central banks and the interbank market; here the adjustment is endogenous to the market, operating as a peer-to-peer regulatory mechanism.

1.2 Funding Rate: The Core Solution for Price Anchoring

To solve this problem, exchanges designed the funding-rate mechanism. The most important point to understand is this: funding is not a fee charged by the exchange; it is a periodic payment exchanged directly between longs and shorts. In essence, the mechanism is a dynamic, deviation-based compensation system whose sole objective is to anchor the perpetual’s market/mark price to the underlying asset’s spot index price.

Mechanics:

• When the perpetual price > spot price: market bias is bullish and longs dominate. Funding is typically positive, so longs pay shorts. This raises the cost of holding longs and incentivizes traders to sell the perpetual and/or buy spot, pulling the perp back down and/or spot up toward parity.

• When the perpetual price

This design reflects a nuanced governance philosophy: instead of directly intervening in prices, the exchange sets incentive rules that prompt market participants—especially arbitrageurs—to correct price deviations through their own profit-seeking behavior. The result is a system with greater resilience and incentive-based self-correction. Accordingly, the funding rate is not merely a feature of perpetuals; it is the core engine that enables them to function properly.

This design reflects a nuanced governance philosophy: instead of directly intervening in prices, the exchange sets incentive rules that prompt market participants—especially arbitrageurs—to correct price deviations through their own profit-seeking behavior. The result is a system with greater resilience and incentive-based self-correction. Accordingly, the funding rate is not merely a feature of perpetuals; it is the core engine that enables them to function properly.

II: Deconstructing the Funding-Rate Formula — Interest and Premium Components

To answer precisely “why 0.01%,” we must examine the mathematical makeup of the funding rate. The observed 0.01% is not a number directly set by supply–demand; it is chiefly determined by a fixed parameter preset by the exchange.

Most major venues—such as Binance and OKX—use a broadly standardized formula:

Funding Rate = Premium Index + clamp(Interest Rate − Premium Index)

This makes clear that the funding rate comprises two core parts: the Premium Index and the Interest Rate.

2.1 Premium Index: A Direct Readout of Market Sentiment

The Premium Index is the fully market-driven component of the funding rate. It directly measures the gap between the perpetual’s mark/market price and the underlying spot index price. Its calculation is typically more intricate, aiming to reflect genuine buy/sell pressure while deterring manipulation. For example, venues often use depth-adjusted “Impact Bid/Ask Prices” (the average execution price for a reasonably large order, better capturing order-book depth) and apply a moving average over a lookback window to smooth short-term noise. Methods and sampling intervals vary across platforms; traders should consult each exchange’s documentation for exact definitions.

● Premium Index > 0: the perpetual trades above the index price, indicating buy/long demand outweighs sell/short pressure.

● Premium Index

In essence, the Premium Index is a barometer of leveraged directional demand.

2.2 Interest Rate: The Source of 0.01%

This section answers the question directly. The 0.01% figure comes from the “Interest Rate” term in the funding-rate formula—a parameter pre-set by the exchange, not an immediate outcome of supply and demand.

Binance, OKX, and Bybit state in their documentation that the interest rate is effectively 0.03% per day (Binance specifies a fixed 0.01% per 8-hour interval). Because funding is settled every 8 hours (i.e., three times per day), the per-interval interest component is 0.03% ÷ 3 = 0.01%.

Why do exchanges set a fixed positive rate? This component is intended to proxy the cost of carry in the real world. For a BTC/USDT perpetual, it represents the interest-rate differential between the quote currency (USDT) and the base asset (BTC). In traditional-finance terms, a 0.03% daily rate translates to roughly 10.95% on a simple annual basis, which corresponds to a relatively elevated USD funding cost and reflects the risk premium inherent in holding highly volatile crypto assets.

Put differently, if you hold a perpetual position you effectively pay ~10% annualized on your levered capital—much like borrowing to buy the asset and paying interest on the funds.

This design has an important structural implication:

1. In a perfectly balanced market—where long/short sentiment offsets—the Premium Index should be ~0.

2. The funding formula collapses to: Funding Rate = 0 + clamp(0.01% − 0), yielding 0.01%.

3. Hence even with no price dislocation, longs still pay shorts 0.01% per funding interval.

This setup is not neutral. It imposes a small but continuous cost of carry on long positions while providing baseline carry income to shorts. On one hand, it gently discourages indefinite, idle, high-leverage longs; on the other, it supplies market makers—who are often net short perps for hedging—with stable base revenue, thereby incentivizing them to supply liquidity.

III: The Invisible Hand of Arbitrage — Forcing the 0.01% Equilibrium

Given that 0.01% is a preset benchmark rate, the next question is: why doesn’t market pressure (i.e., the Premium Index component) typically overwhelm this benchmark and push funding into wide swings? The answer lies in a powerful, efficient market force: arbitrage.

Because the market hosts a large cohort of professional arbitrageurs who relentlessly eliminate opportunities embedded in the Premium Index, the interest-rate term becomes the dominant driver of funding. As a result, 0.01% tends to prevail as the baseline norm.

3.1 Emergence and Removal of Arbitrage Opportunities

Whenever a material divergence arises between the perpetual’s price and the spot/index price, a theoretical risk-free profit opportunity is created. Arbitrageurs, via automated (often co-located) trading systems, detect and execute these trades in milliseconds, rapidly compressing the basis dislocation.

Note 1. Delta-neutral means the portfolio’s value is insensitive to small changes in the underlying asset’s price (i.e., portfolio delta ≈ 0).

Note 2. If, at the time of entry, no spot is purchased for hedging, the position is colloquially called a naked short/long.

This arbitrage flow is also one of the important bridge use-cases connecting CeFi and DeFi: arbitrageurs frequently shuttle assets between the two to capture superior interest-rate or basis opportunities (e.g., Wintermute, DWF Labs, Jump Crypto).

3.2 Evidence of Market Efficiency

Today’s crypto markets are highly institutionalized, saturated with quantitative trading firms deploying sophisticated algorithms. Fierce competition among these firms means any meaningful basis dislocation (i.e., a significant Premium Index) is identified almost instantly and arbitraged away.

Accordingly, the persistent observation that funding hovers around 0.01% is itself strong evidence of a highly efficient market. Behind this stable figure lies continuous high-frequency arbitrage, executed by innumerable arbitrage bots, the “invisible hand” that keeps the Premium Index compressed within a narrow band near zero.

IV: Departures from the Norm — When Funding Moves Away from 0.01%

The 0.01% equilibrium characterizes markets under “normal weather.” Once sentiment turns extreme or stress rises, the supply–demand for leverage can temporarily overpower arbitrage, making the Premium Index the dominant driver of funding and pushing it far from the benchmark.

4.1 Bull-Market Euphoria (High Positive Funding)

● Mechanism. In a strong bull run, large numbers of retail and institutional traders pile into high-leverage long positions. This speculative fervor creates heavy buy pressure in perpetuals, lifting their prices well above spot.

● Outcome. The Premium Index becomes large and positive, far exceeding the 0.01% interest benchmark. The total funding rate can surge to 0.1% per funding interval (e.g., per 8-hour period) or higher, rendering the cost of holding longs extremely expensive.

4.2 Bear-Market Panic (Negative Funding)

● Mechanism. During crashes or panic selling, the dynamic reverses. Traders rush to short perpetuals to hedge risk or chase downside momentum, pushing perp prices well below spot.

● Outcome. The Premium Index turns large and negative. Funding flips to deeply negative, so shorts pay longs substantial fees. Functionally, this “rewards” those willing to catch the falling knife by going long perps amid extreme fear.

Schematic (caption). Cascading Liquidation Risk Pathway — “Long/Short” Position Fuel

4.3 The Role of the “Clamp” Mechanism

To prevent the funding rate from swinging excessively in extreme markets—thereby triggering liquidation cascades and undermining stability—exchanges impose upper and lower bounds on funding. This is the “clamp” (cap/floor) mechanism.

● Purpose. A key risk-control tool designed to ensure the funding rate itself does not become a catalyst for market breakdown.

● Implementation. The function clamp(x, min, max) restricts a variable x to the interval [min, max]. In the funding formula, clamp(Interest Rate − Premium Index, −0.05%, +0.05%) means that whatever value (Interest − Premium) produces, the term used in the formula is forcibly limited to between −0.05% and +0.05% per funding interval. (BTC is used here as an example; for many altcoins the bounds are wider than ±0.05%.)

In effect, the clamp represents the exchange’s trade-off between pure market incentives and system stability—a built-in circuit breaker (or, if you like, a measure of prudential restraint).

V: Strategic Implications for Traders and Investors

A rigorous grasp of the funding-rate mechanism is not mere theory; it can be converted into practical edge.

5.1 Funding Rate: A Real-Time Quantitative Gauge of Market Sentiment

The extent to which funding deviates from the 0.01% benchmark is among the purest, most real-time indicators of leverage sentiment.

● Persistently high positive funding: typically signals extreme greed, excessive leverage, and an overheated market.

● Persistently negative or deeply negative funding: typically signals extreme fear, short crowding, and capitulation.

5.2 Calculating the “Carry Cost” of Long-Term Positions

For investors intending to hold leveraged long positions over time, the 0.01% benchmark funding rate is a direct cost that must be quantified.

Cost calculation.

For a BTC long with 5× leverage on $100 of collateral

the funding payment per 8-hour interval is Funding per interval = 5×$100×0.01% = $0.05

That implies a daily cost of $0.05×3 = $0.15 and a simple annualized cost of $0.15×365 = $54.75

(This assumes funding is +0.01% and that longs pay shorts on that interval; if funding turns negative, the direction of payment reverses.)

Strategic considerations.

This carry erodes P&L for extended holds. The impact falls primarily on overnight/swing and longer-term positions. Intraday traders who flatten before the funding timestamp can avoid the charge entirely.

5.3 Cash-and-Carry (Basis) Arbitrage: A Delta-Neutral Way to Earn Funding

The funding-rate mechanism itself can be used to create a relatively low-risk yield strategy—namely the cash-and-carry (basis) arbitrage referenced earlier.

Execution.

1. Buy 1 BTC on the spot market;

2. Short 1 BTC notional in the perpetuals market.

The combined position is delta-neutral.

Profit source.

All P&L comes from the funding payments collected on the short-perp leg. In “normal” conditions, this approximates the 0.01% benchmark per funding interval (e.g., every 8 hours). In bull-market euphoria, the inflow can become materially larger.

5.4 Using Extreme Funding as a Contrarian Signal

Extremes revert. Extreme funding-rate levels can warn that a trend is overextended and that the probability of reversal is rising.

High-funding alert. When funding reaches historical highs, it implies longs are paying a steep carry for leverage and positioning is exceptionally crowded.

Negative-funding opportunities & case study. When funding turns deeply negative, it signals peak pessimism. A canonical example is May 19, 2021, when Bitcoin fell by nearly 40%, driving funding to deep negative readings not seen for months. For contrarian investors, this marked an extreme in panic and served as an early indicator of the subsequent bottom-and-rebound.

Conclusion

In this high-frequency arena, 0.01% is not an isolated rate parameter but the product of a dynamic balance between market efficiency and capital incentives.

It originates from the exchange-set benchmark rate and is maintained by an efficient arbitrage ecosystem, ultimately serving—under stress—as a valuable, real-time gauge of market sentiment.

It is not static; it is a harmonic produced by countless bots and human traders across billions of executions. A deep understanding of this mechanism is required coursework for any serious market participant—from first principles to proficiency. May we always approach the market with humility and respect.

Authored by Tom Gantert via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump’s anti-fraud efforts have brought renewed focus on issues plaguing the welfare system, including the millions of dollars in food stamps that are being sent to dead recipients.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a report last month stating that 185,986 deceased people in 29 states were receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits as of July 1, 2025, at an annual cost of $419.6 million. It also reported an additional $3 billion in potential fraud, waste, and abuse.

On May 21, a federal jury convicted a man who stole the identity of Carlos Ramon Obregon, who was killed in a 1977 Los Angeles drive-by shooting. Decades after the 14-year-old’s death, the defendant used the dead teen’s identity to collect about $283,000 in government benefits, including SNAP benefits, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and COVID-19 payments.

That’s just one example that the administration has outlined to highlight the issue. Here’s what to know about the problem of dead recipients, which has been lingering for decades.

Renewed Focus by Trump Admin

Trump directed federal agencies via executive order in March 2025 to ensure “unfettered access” to data from federally funded state programs such as SNAP, also known as food stamps.

In response, the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service told state agencies on May 6, 2025, that all records associated with SNAP must be made available to the federal government.

“For years, this program has been on autopilot, with no USDA insight into real-time data,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins wrote in a letter to states.

Following the USDA’s demand for detailed information on food stamp recipients to review for fraud, a coalition of 21 states and the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit against the USDA, accusing the agency of unlawfully demanding massive amounts of sensitive SNAP recipient data.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington on Feb. 17, 2026. The department reported in May that millions of dead people were receiving food stamp benefits. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

The July 2025 lawsuit, led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, argued that the USDA was seeking unprecedented access to five years of personal information tied to millions of food assistance applicants, including Social Security numbers, home addresses, immigration status, and grocery transaction records.

The lawsuit led to an October 2025 court order allowing the opposing states to withhold the data requested by the federal government.

“Let’s be crystal clear: The president is trying to hijack a nutrition program to fuel his mass surveillance agenda,” Bonta said in a statement announcing the ruling.

He said that his state will “continue to vigorously litigate this lawsuit and defend [California] communities, protect privacy, and ensure that SNAP remains a tool for fighting hunger—not a weapon for political targeting.”

The USDA sent follow-up letters to 21 states that had not turned over state data on SNAP, asking them to comply.

The agency’s preliminary assessment, based on data provided by compliant states, indicated that “billions of dollars in federal funds may have been lost due to fraud or other errors undetected by States in their administration of SNAP,” the November 2025 letter states.

A USDA spokesperson told The Epoch Times that “by not sharing data, noncompliant states continue to prioritize criminals over the American taxpayer.”

“By simply sharing data, states can protect those most in need, get the criminals out, and save their hardworking taxpayers millions of dollars,” the spokesperson said.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta speaks in Los Angeles on April 15, 2024. A July 2025 lawsuit led by Bonta pushed back on a USDA request for state information on millions of SNAP recipients. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

How Dead People End Up on Food Stamps

A 1998 Government Accountability Office report stated that agencies historically “rely primarily on unverified information on household membership” from food stamp applicants and participants.

That 1998 report found nearly 26,000 deceased individuals tied to SNAP benefits in four states in 1995 and 1996. The states reviewed were California, New York, Florida, and Texas. Estimated improper payments totaled $8.5 million.

According to the report, states did not always match recipients against Social Security death records. In multiperson households, deceased members sometimes remained on food stamp rolls after their demise, increasing benefits. In other cases, an individual continued fraudulently using the dead person’s identity.

Now, states have been told to check SNAP beneficiaries against death records.

A “We Accept (Food Stamps)” sign hangs in the window of a grocery store in Miami on Oct. 31, 2025. A new federal SNAP integrity team will analyze state data with the aim of ending fraud. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The USDA estimated that even after a state determined that a person receiving SNAP benefits had died, it could take an additional six to 12 months before benefits were discontinued. Commonly, states identify SNAP recipients as being on the Social Security Administration’s death master file, but they must conduct further research before they act on that information. Therefore, they wait several months until the dead recipient’s next recertification period to discontinue the benefit.

The USDA created its own SNAP integrity team in May 2025 to analyze data it receives from the states, along with all other available information, to end indiscriminate welfare fraud.

Rachel Sheffield, research fellow in welfare and family policy with The Heritage Foundation, told The Epoch Times that states need to take more accountability.

“Federal taxpayers fund SNAP, but states administer the program,” Sheffield said. “The chain of accountability is broken because states aren’t financially responsible when individuals remain on the rolls who shouldn’t be there.

“In fact, states receive more federal funding for every additional person enrolled. States should be held accountable for how they administer SNAP. Providing their data allows for transparency to taxpayers.”

Sheffield said the SNAP program should be reformed so that states are required to share in the cost.

A Houston resident holds a card identifying her as a SNAP beneficiary while she waits to get supplies from the Houston Food Bank Program at NRG Stadium in Houston on Nov 1, 2025. About 39 million people receive food stamps benefits each month, according to the USDA. Moisés Ávila/AFP via Getty Images

Long-Running Problem

Benefits fraud sometimes goes undetected for years or even decades.

In another high-profile case, federal prosecutors alleged in April that a Worcester, Massachusetts, man fraudulently collected SNAP benefits for years by using the identity of a deceased U.S. citizen from Puerto Rico.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the suspect—believed to actually be a citizen of the Dominican Republic—allegedly assumed the identity of a Puerto Rican man who died in 2006 and used it to obtain state identification documents, a Social Security card, and public benefits.

Prosecutors said the man collected more than $12,000 in SNAP benefits between 2022 and 2026, despite internal concerns raised by a state employee noting a possible “death match” tied to the Social Security number.

The case involving Obregon was used by the Trump administration to highlight the work of the National Fraud Enforcement Division, which was created on April 7 by the Department of Justice.

Hurricane survivors receive food and water being given out by volunteers and municipal police in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, in Toa Baja, Puerto Rico, on Sept. 28, 2017. Dead people in the commonwealth received 150 million in Nutrition Assistance Program benefits between 2017 and 2024, Puerto Rico’s comptroller recently reported. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The Justice Department on May 27 announced reforms to speed up the review of False Claims Act whistleblower complaints involving fraud in federally funded, state-run benefits programs.

The Civil Division will prioritize initial reviews within 60 to 120 days. Its aim is to quickly identify major fraud schemes, recover taxpayer money, and coordinate with criminal prosecutors and federal agencies under the administration’s broader anti-fraud enforcement initiative.

The federal government continues to take action against fraud.

The USDA Office of Inspector General is reviewing findings that Puerto Rico improperly paid about $150 million in Nutrition Assistance Program benefits to deceased individuals between 2017 and 2024. Those findings were reported in April by Puerto Rico’s comptroller.

Puerto Rico participates in the Nutrition Assistance Program, or NAP, which differs from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program because it operates as a federal block grant rather than a traditional SNAP entitlement program.

Vice President JD Vance has raised some eyebrows in Washington after responding to a Fox News question about pervasive Israeli spying on top Trump administration and US intelligence officials.

NBC reported days ago that the Pentagon has officially elevated Israel’s counterintelligence threat level to its highest possible category, driven by surging internal alarm that this primary Mideast regional ally is aggressively ramping up espionage operations targeting senior US officials – even Trump’s own top Iran negotiator.

While the White House has officially denied the report and major allegations of egregious levels of ally on ally spying, Vance did not echo that rejection, interestingly enough. Watch:

🚨 MUST WATCH: ISRAEL WAS JUST CAUGHT SPYING ON THE PENTAGON AND TRUMP’S TOP NEGOTIATOR… VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE REACTS 🚨

“Israel may like that, they may not like that… this is in the BEST INTEREST of the United States of America” 🇺🇸🔥 pic.twitter.com/JkNc0rDjqE

— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) June 9, 2026

Asked by reporter Jesse Waters “how concerned” he was about “Israel spying on the United States” – Vance acknowledged the following:

“Well look, obviously the Israelis and I – excuse me, the Israelis and the United States have a lot of shared interests, but we also have some situations where our interests diverge,” Vance told Waters.

“The president has been very clear that while Israel obviously has some objectives that it has, the United States’ main objective in Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and we’ve actually created the space necessary where the president believes that we can get the long-term settlement to Iran’s nuclear deal.”

One source reacted to the response from the White House number two as follows: “The White House vehemently denied a report last Friday about a heightened counterintelligence threat, but on Monday night, Vice President JD Vance appeared to undercut that denial with a blatant but indirect admission.”

According to prior reporting, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has been broadcasting an internal alert raising Israel’s specific threat designation to “critical”. According to details revealed over the weekend:

The designation stems from concerns within the Pentagon that Israel is making a particular effort to surveil top U.S. officials to get information on the Trump administration’s internal deliberations and decision-making on the conflicts in the Middle East, the officials said.

The DIA assessment includes a seven-page document and features a chart, according to one of the current U.S. officials. The document says the assessment of Israel is that its ability to conduct human espionage and technical collection is at a “critical level,” according to the official.

And parallel to this, a report by the NY Times lists out names that are very high level within the Trump administration. Israel has allegedly focused its electronic and human efforts to eavesdrop on the following officials (likely among others):

• Steve Witkoff, Trump’s premier regional negotiator.
• Elbridge A. Colby, the Pentagon’s top policy official.
• Michael P. DiMino IV, one of Colby’s primary deputies.

The Israeli embassy in Washingtons has slammed the reports as ‘completely false’: “This entire story is false and sourced to someone who doesn’t have any knowledge of what’s going on,” it said in a statement.

But the major US media reports highlight American intel officials who don’t try and tone down or couch their words. Instead they speak of “unhinged” Israeli spying on US government officials.

Vance also said in the fresh Tuesday comments that a pending peace deal between Washington and Tehran was a “home run for the American people,” whether or not Israel liked it.

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

India is scrambling to contain the economic and financial impact of the worst oil supply disruption in history as analysts say the high oil prices would continue to weigh on the Indian currency, economic growth, and public finances as long as supply is choked at the Strait of Hormuz.

More than three months after the Iran war began, investment banks, brokerages, rating agencies, and even India’s central bank are lowering economic growth forecasts, while the government intervenes to stop the cash bleed from the balance of payments that has surged with the oil prices.

India, which imports more than 85% of the oil it consumes, received about half of all its imports from the Middle East before the war. Now, state-owned and private refiners are looking to diversify imports, including by taking in record volumes of Russian oil, and turning to Venezuela and Brazil for additional crude to offset the lost Middle Eastern supply.

Yet, the high import prices, with oil up by about $30 per barrel compared to pre-war levels, are weighing on India’s economic prospects and public finances.

“India is set for a series of supply shocks,” Michael Langham, emerging markets economist at Aberdeen Investments, told Reuters.

India on Friday introduced measures to protect its currency, the rupee, which had plunged to an all-time low versus the U.S. dollar amid the energy crisis.

Yet, the world’s third-biggest crude importer has seen its growth prospects diminished as its high import dependence and the high price refiners pay weigh on inflation and GDP growth.

India’s economy remains resilient to the external shocks, but the oil price surge poses near-term downside risks to economic growth and upside risks to inflation, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) said at the end of May.

Indian wealth and asset manager 360 ONE Capital last week said that India’s inflation is set to accelerate to 4.8% in the fiscal year 2027, if oil prices average $90 per barrel through March next year. 

“A further $10/bbl increase in crude prices above our base assumption could push inflation to 5.6 per cent (assuming a partial pass-through of around 5 per cent to retail fuel prices), lower GDP growth by an additional 40 bps to 5.9 per cent, widen the current account deficit to 2.5 per cent GDP, and increase the fiscal deficit to 4.8 per cent of GDP,” analysts at 360 ONE Capital wrote in a report.

Summary:

• Karmelo Anthony was found guilty of murder after a Collin County jury deliberated for less than three hours.
• Earlier Tuesday, jurors began deliberating after closing arguments in the Karmelo Anthony murder trial.
• The jury was asked to decide between three possible outcomes: murder, manslaughter, or not guilty.
• The trial resumed at 9 a.m. local time, with closing arguments expected to conclude by the end of the day.​​​​​​

Karmelo Anthony Convicted of Murder in Fatal Stabbing of Austin Metcalf

Shortly before 3:30 p.m. ET, Judge John Roach told the courtroom in Collin County, Texas, “We’re about to get a verdict. I know it’s emotional. I will hold you in contempt if you express your emotions in here.”

The jury deliberated for less than three hours on Tuesday before reaching a unanimous verdict, finding Karmelo Anthony guilty of murder in the stabbing death of Austin Metcalf during a school track meet in April 2025.

Local news outlet NBC DFW reports:

Karmelo Anthony, a Frisco teenager who admitted to fatally stabbing a student during a confrontation at a high school track meet on April 2, 2025, has been found guilty of murder. A Collin County jury deliberated for less than three hours on Tuesday before reaching its unanimous verdict.

The same jury will now decide Karmelo Anthony’s sentence. Texas law says a murder conviction is punishable by five to 99 years in state prison.

During the sentencing phase, the defense can argue that the murder was committed under the immediate influence of “sudden passion.” Prosecutor Dewey Mitchell mentioned sudden passion during voir dire and explained that it was “a situation when someone is in such a state of emotion, based on something that just happened, that they don’t have time to cool off.” If the jury agrees, the charge is reduced to a second-degree felony, which lowers the punishment range to 2 to 20 years in prison.

Karmelo Anthony remained emotionless when the verdict was read. He was escorted out shortly thereafter.

NBC 5’s Maria Guerrero, who is inside the courtroom, reported that Anthony’s family and supporters were tearful as the jury handed down their verdict. His mother was seen weeping in the gallery.

Hunter Metcalf leaned forward in his seat as Anthony was found guilty of murdering his twin brother.

NBC DFW continued in a separate update:

Judge John Roach called for a brief recess at 2:37 p.m. The trial is expected to resume shortly. When the jury returns to the courtroom, the sentencing phase will begin, and jurors will decide if Anthony will spend between 5 and 99 years in prison.

🚨 BREAKING: KARMELO ANTHONY FOUND *GUILTY* OF MURDERING AUSTIN METCALF — faces up to LIFE IN PRISON

The jury deliberated for just a few hours. PREPARE FOR RIOTS. LOCK HIM UP!

JUSTICE for Metcalf and his family 🙏🏻

Murderers SHOULD be getting the death penalty, but at least… pic.twitter.com/ipfZYvXFKP

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 9, 2026

The question now is whether far-left nonprofit networks will mobilize activists and attempt to riot in response to the ruling.

🚨 NOW: BLACK PANTHERS are attempting to launch a RACE WAR outside the Collin County Courthouse after Karmelo Anthony was found GUILTY

“We got to tell our kids the truth that this is a RACIST-ASS COUNTRY We gotta tell them the truth.”

“THIS IS A WAR”

“Don’t NOBODY want to hear… pic.twitter.com/MoCQSQRQlE

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) June 9, 2026

Eyewitness Testimony Undercuts Self-Defense Claim In Austin Metcalf Killing

Via American Greatness,

Testimony from multiple eyewitnesses cast doubt on Karmelo Anthony’s claim that he acted in self-defense when he fatally stabbed 17-year-old Austin Metcalf at a track meet.

Several student witnesses described a confrontation in which Anthony, 19, allegedly refused repeated requests to leave a tent occupied by students from Frisco Memorial High School before the encounter turned deadly.

One 17-year-old student-athlete testified that Anthony did not appear to be acting in self-defense.

According to the witness, Anthony kept his hands inside his backpack until Metcalf shoved him, at which point he allegedly pulled out a knife and stabbed the teen in the chest.

“That’s lethal force against non-lethal,” the witness told the court.

The testimony directly challenged a central argument advanced by Anthony’s defense team. Anthony has claimed that Metcalf and his brother, Hunter, confronted him together, forcing him to use the knife to protect himself.

However, the 17-year-old witness testified that he never observed the brothers ganging up on Anthony.

Other witnesses described an escalating confrontation after Anthony entered the Frisco Memorial team tent.

According to testimony, students repeatedly asked Anthony to leave, with one witness estimating that the requests were made as many as 15 times.

A 15-year-old witness told the court that Anthony “tried to provoke us” after being asked to leave. The witness later stated, “He committed murder.”

A 16-year-old student recounted that Anthony sat down inside the tent and attempted to start a conversation, allegedly saying, “Crazy weather, huh?”

Witnesses testified that members of the Memorial team then asked Anthony to leave. Instead, they said, he became increasingly agitated and refused to go.

According to testimony, Anthony responded by saying, “F–k y’all. I’m not going to leave.”

Witnesses further alleged that Anthony taunted the students, saying, “Y’all are a bunch of p–sies. Y’all not going to do anything. Touch me and see what happens.”

Several witnesses also testified that Metcalf sought to avoid a physical confrontation.

According to their accounts, Metcalf told Anthony, “I’m not going to fight you.”

One student offered a different version of events, testifying that Anthony had been invited into the tent by a teammate. However, the witness also stated there was no apparent reason for someone to bring a knife to a track event.

May saw multiple significant milestones and announcements in the Western nuclear industry. One of the biggest achievements was in the US last week when microreactor developer Antares brought their pilot design critical for the first time. 

There were other major wins with Constellation clearing a path to bring their Three Mile Island reactor plant back to the grid years ahead of schedule, new partnerships with data centers and reactor developers including NANO and Supermicro, and Westinghouse owner Cameco stating there are as many as 20 new large reactors in the pipeline, to be formally announced in the near future. 

Unfortunately, that’s all the West really has to show over these past few weeks: proposals and R&D milestones. 

Looking at the only scoreboard that really matters, China is now building 40 grid-scale nuclear reactors.   

Goldman Sachs analyst Brian Lee reviews headlines across the nuclear industry for May. 

New reactor progress and announcements

North America

5/15/2026 – United States – The US DOE has awarded ~$94m to eight companies to support near-term SMR deployment, targeting licensing, site preparation, and supply-chain gaps to accelerate Gen III+ SMRs in the 2030s.

Europe

5/13/2026 – Belgium and Netherlands – Belgium and the Netherlands signed an MoU to strengthen nuclear cooperation, focusing on R&D, knowledge sharing, supply chains, and workforce development, while leveraging Belgium’s operating experience and Dutch new-build/SMR plans.

Asia and other

5/11/2026 – China – Construction has begun on Unit 4 at China’s Taipingling nuclear plant, with first concrete poured on 10 May, marking the start of full-scale build for the fourth of six Hualong One (HPR1000) reactors planned at the site.

5/11/2026 – Iran – Rosatom is continuing construction of Bushehr Units 2 and 3, with Unit 2 now over 60% complete and steam generators ~50% complete. Work remains focused on site construction and workforce ramp-up, with key equipment shipments expected from next year and manufacturing ongoing for Unit 3.

5/12/2026 – India – India has approved the restart of Tarapur Unit 2 after major refurbishment, allowing another 10 years of operation, while NTPC is advancing feasibility studies for its first nuclear project, marking progress toward private sector involvement in new builds.

5/13/2026 – Indonesia – Russia and Indonesia have discussed cooperation on nuclear energy, with Rosatom offering a full-scope partnership covering large reactors, SMRs, and floating plants, alongside support for infrastructure, localisation, and workforce development.

5/21/2026 – China & Russia – China and Russia signed three nuclear MoUs covering workforce development, fusion, and advanced science cooperation, reinforcing collaboration in future nuclear technologies.

5/22/2026 – Kazakhstan – Kazakhstan approved a localisation plan to build a domestic nuclear supply chain, aiming to raise local content to ~30% and support local firms’ participation in upcoming nuclear projects.

5/22/2026 – Argentina – Argentina has granted Atucha II a 10-year operating licence extension, allowing the plant to run until May 2036, following regulatory inspections confirming it meets safety and operational requirements for continued service.

5/28/2026 – Kazakhstan – Russia and Kazakhstan have signed an agreement to build Kazakhstan’s first nuclear power plant, setting out project terms, financing (including a Russian export loan), and long-term cooperation.

5/29/2026 – South Korea – Construction has begun on Shin Hanul Unit 4 in South Korea, with first concrete poured for the reactor building, marking the official start of works. The APR1400 unit is targeted for completion in 2033, alongside Unit 3 (2022–33 timeline).

SMR announcement tracker

5/13/2026 – India – Tata Power’s CEO confirmed the company is advancing SMR plans, preparing detailed project reports with NPCIL for two 220 MWe reactors, while conducting site studies across three Indian states to support potential deployment.

5/14/2026 – United States – FANCO and AtkinsRéalis have formed a strategic alliance to deploy the EAGL-1 SMR, combining capabilities to develop, test, and license the reactor and associated fuel facilities, with AtkinsRéalis serving as exclusive EPCM provider in North America and supporting scalable deployment targeted by 2033.

5/18/2026 – Sweden – Blykalla has applied to build a six-reactor SEALER SMR plant in Norrsundet, Sweden, with ~330 MWe total capacity, marking Sweden’s first application for a commercial advanced reactor park and initiating the formal government approval process.

5/19/2026 – United States – The US NRC has completed its environmental assessment for the proposed Long Mott SMR plant in Texas, finding no significant environmental impact, marking a key licensing milestone that allows the project, featuring four X-energy Xe-100 reactors at Dow’s Seadrift site to progress further through the regulatory approval process.

5/20/2026 – Rwanda – Rwanda and the US have signed an MoU on civil nuclear cooperation, establishing a framework to strengthen collaboration on nuclear energy development, with a focus on safety, security, and non-proliferation standards.

5/20/2026 – United States – Deep Fission is targeting a ~$1.66bn valuation via a planned Nasdaq IPO, aiming to raise ~$156m to fund R&D, licensing, and construction of its first pilot reactor. The company is developing 15 MWe borehole SMRs deployed ~1 mile underground, targeting applications such as data centres and large power users.

5/21/2026 – United States – The US NRC has accepted the application for a KRONOS microreactor at the University of Illinois for formal review, confirming it contains sufficient information to begin detailed safety, environmental, and technical evaluation.

5/21/2026 – South Korea – TerraPower has partnered with HD Hyundai and Hyundai Engineering to support Natrium deployment, including manufacturing, supply chain, and construction of multiple units.

5/26/2026 – France – Newcleo has installed the main vessel for its non-nuclear PRECURSOR demonstrator in Italy, a key step in developing its lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR) technology. The 10 MW test system, due for completion in 2026, will simulate reactor operations and support progress toward the company’s 30 MWe demonstration reactor.

5/26/2026 – Sweden – Studsvik has submitted a third application in Sweden to build an SMR plant, proposing 2–4 light-water reactors (~600–1,400 MWe total) at its Nyköping site, with a target for first operations in the 2030s (subject to approvals).

5/26/2026 – United States – Deployable Energy has received DOE approval of the PDSA for its Unity microreactor, establishing the initial safety basis for testing and enabling the project to move into final preparations for demonstration, commissioning, and startup under DOE oversight.

5/27/2026 – Russia – Rosatom has completed the first RITM-200C reactor unit for a floating nuclear power plant, marking the start of series production for its planned fleet. The ~58 MWe reactor will be installed (two per unit) on floating plants to supply power to a copper mining cluster in Chukotka, supporting low-carbon energy for remote industrial use.

5/28/2026 – UK – Rolls-Royce SMR has selected Škoda JS and Doosan Enerbility for pre-production of key reactor components, supporting design, manufacturing readiness, and early project delivery.

6/4/2026 – United States – The DOE announced that Antares Nuclear’s Mark-0 advanced reactor became the first reactor under its Reactor Plot Program to successfully complete a zero-power fueled criticality demonstration. This achievement occurred a month ahead of the July 4th deadline set by President Trump’s Executive Order, and represents the first reactor in more than four decades to achieve criticality in the US.

Global reactor critical updates

In the month of May, there have been few changes to new reactor construction starts, grid connections, shutdowns, or restarts.

Global reactor construction tracker

Fuel announcements

5/6/2026 – United States – BWXT has secured its first customer for its $500m TRISO fuel plant in Gillette, with Kairos Power expected to both purchase fuel and partner on production, marking early external demand for the facility beyond BWXT’s own needs. The plant is currently in development with construction targeted around 2028 and operations expected by 2030–31.

5/13/2026 – Czech Republic – Framatome and Czech Research Centre Řež have signed a cooperation deal to develop innovative fuels for research reactors, focusing on supporting the safe, flexible use of different fuel types at the LVR-15 and LR-0 reactors and advancing fuel design, core modelling, and optimisation work.

5/22/2026 – United States – Antares signed a long-term HALEU supply deal with Urenco, securing fuel for its microreactors (expected online ~2031) and marking the first multi-year HALEU contract.

5/22/2026 – United States – The US NRC has begun an accelerated review of Orano’s Project IKE uranium enrichment plant, targeting completion of the technical licensing review within ~12 months (by April 2027) after formally accepting the application.

5/27/2026 – United States – Oklo has been selected by the US DOE for advanced negotiations under its Surplus Plutonium Utilization Program, which aims to convert surplus plutonium into fuel for advanced reactors, with Oklo expected to lead utilization efforts (with Newcleo support).

6/4/2026 – United States – XE’s 1Q26 earnings results included an update on its fuel manufacturing build out, with its TX-1 facility now 56% complete and operations expected to commence by 1H28. This facility can support 11 reactors at steady state, with its TX-2 facility, which is still in the planning and design phase, expected to support another 44 reactors.

6/4/2026 – United States – SOLS held a webinar on its uranium conversion business, including a market overview, key competitive advantages, adj. EBITDA growth targets, opportunities within non-conversion capabilities, and thoughts on potential capacity expansion.

Uranium pricing and volume trackers

Spot pricing remained broadly range-bound. Spot U₃O₈ prices were largely stable through early May in the mid $80s (~$86/lb), before softening in the second half of the month and briefly declining to ~$83/lb. Prices subsequently rebounded into late May and early June, recovering to ~$85–86/lb as buying interest re-emerged. Market activity remained intermittent throughout the period, with trading flows largely episodic and driven by traders, while financial participation, including SPUT, appeared opportunistic rather than sustained.

Term pricing firm, supported by tightening fundamentals. Term uranium pricing remained resilient, with long-term indicators holding around ~$90/lb and rising toward ~$93/lb into late May, reinforcing the view of a structurally higher pricing band. Market backdrop continued to point to tightening supply-demand fundamentals, with 2026 primary production expected to fall short of base demand, implying a need for secondary supplies and supporting longer-term price signals. Overall, term market conditions remain constructive, though execution continues to be selective.

Via The College Fix,

Higher education is not what it used to be.

Gone are the days when students were required to study the classics. Nowadays it seems like any gibberish can pass for scholarly study.

The examples are myriad, write Daniel Buck, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Garion Frankel, incoming editor at the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.

“Oregon State University offers ‘Disney: Gender, Race, and Empire.’

Students at Indiana University can attend the course, ‘Having it All: Postfeminist Media After Sex and the City,’” the two wrote in The Hill on June 2.

“How about ‘Bad Bunny: Musical Aesthetics and Politics’ at Yale University? The Bad Bunny Syllabus that inspires this course — which lists topics such as ‘LGBTQ Activism,’ ‘Gender and Sexuality in Reggaeton’ and ‘Political Protests of Summer 2019’ for study – is also in use at Wellesley College and Loyola Marymount University.

Both Swarthmore College and the University of Chicago offer courses on ‘Queering God.’”

The scholars go on to note these classes are no outliers:

Harvard offers an English course, “Taylor Swift and Her World.”

At UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, students can take “Artistry, Policy, and Entrepreneurship: Taylor’s Version” through the Department of Economics.

Penn State Berks offers a course titled, “Taylor Swift, Gender, and Communication.”

Another unofficial sub-genre of courses focuses on Korean pop music — “Lights, Camera, Action: The Visual Culture of K-Pop” at Columbia University, “K-Pop and Human Rights” at Binghamton University, “Kangnam Style: K-Pop and the Globalization of Korean Soft Power” at Stanford University, or “K-Pop and J-Pop Culture” at Florida International University.

The scholars point out that at a time when the return on investment for a four-year degree is plummeting and trust in higher education is at an all-time low, colleges and universities should return to their true purpose.

“A student who can tell you all about Swift’s entrepreneurship but cannot write a five-paragraph essay is not educated, but entertained,” the duo wrote.

“Why attend college in the first place? Universities were once places where students and faculty alike pursued higher aims — truth, beauty, ethics and even the divine.

What are they now? Too often, they resemble four-year summer camps, designed to make students comfortable with a participation diploma at the end.”

Authored by Martin Young via CoinTelegraph.com,

Artificial intelligence agents that have autonomous access to crypto wallets could become unstoppable if deployed maliciously or if they escape from sandboxes, experts from a leading academic research consortium warned.

“Unstoppable Autonomous Agents” (UAAs) pose a clear threat if they are deployed to persist automatically and have access to digital assets, according to a June 8 industry review written by 25 academics and experts from top US universities for the Initiative for Cryptocurrencies and Contracts (IC3).

“When combined systematically, crypto tools can channel AI’s fluid power into secure, reliable, and highly autonomous systems,” the researchers wrote.

However, this combination could have “far-reaching consequences for users and the financial system,” they added. 

UAAs may also be equipped with access to cryptocurrency wallets, social media accounts, APIs, and other external tools, said the researchers.

“The capabilities enabling such agents are already emerging and improving rapidly.” 

The warning comes as crypto projects and executives have been pushing the agentic payment and micropayment economy narrative this year, suggesting it could be the biggest use case for decentralized digital assets. 

AI self-replication alarm bells

The paper also revealed that existing models can already “surpass self-replication red lines” in local environments, by autonomously creating a live, separate copy of themselves on the same machine, “a capability that could let a system evade shutdown and proliferate.”

Because reward signals used in training often fail to perfectly capture the intended objectives, “UAAs deployed for benign purposes may inadvertently cause harm,” or pursue resource acquisition as a default strategy, they said. 

However, the authors noted that models have yet to replicate themselves onto external infrastructure.

Potential AI agent insider trading advantages 

A fleet of self-replicating, resource-acquiring agents could also create unpredictable demand and liquidity dynamics in crypto markets. 

“AI-powered trading systems could enable collusion between autonomous agents and create unfair insider advantages through opaque strategies.”

The tech sector is already dealing with difficult questions about the threat of unmitigated AI. 

Models such as Anthropic’s Claude Mythos have already been shown to be capable of finding and exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities in major operating systems. 

Professor Ari Juels, IC3 co-director and Chainlink Labs chief scientist, presents the paper at ETHConf. Source: IC3

Meanwhile, Gartner warned in late May that governance failures around autonomous AI agents could trigger widespread enterprise failures, predicting 40% of companies will be forced to decommission their agents by 2027. 

“The harms that could follow from fully autonomous agents of this kind are severe,” the researchers said, suggesting circuit breaker guardrails.