Last week, I was up in Montreal for a keynote presentation to 750 Bank RIAs. Morgan Housel was the keynote the day before (tough act to follow!).

Today, I am speaking with an old friend, Paul Kedrosky, about all things technology on the pod. Paul is a fascinating guy with an interesting background and an unusual set of interests — Science nerd, VC, academic, writer, skier, and among the last of the landed gentry in America. Artificial Intelligence is certain to come up.

During the Q&A in Montreal, I was taken aback by how many questions there were about AI — not the usual “Is it a bubble” line of inquiry, but rather, what are the best use cases? Should AI be used to create content (No!), research (Yes!). There were so many legitimate questions about AI that I decided to dig a little further.

I will definitely be asking Paul about his views, but until then, I had a little chat about how to best use AI with Claude, see what AI itself had to say on the topic of using AI.

Most agentic generated content is pretty bad — it’s great for research, but using AI for any kind of writing, prose, or content creation is a terrible idea. The reason I am sharing Claude’s responses is that A) I found the answers very useful, and, 2) I edited it down to size to make it mostly readable. (I also moved the more pedantic answers to footnotes).

Here is my conversation with Claude about AI, edited for length; (underlining is my emphasis added).

Let’s go:

Barry: Let’s discuss YOU, Claude — What are your best strengths, what are your weaknesses? What do you do really well? What do you do really poorly?  How can I best use your strengths to make my work product better?  What else should I be doing with you to be better?

Claude: Good question to actually sit with rather than give you the brochure version. Let me be specific to the kind of work you do.

Where I’m genuinely strong

Transformation and synthesis. Hand me raw material — a Fidelity CSV, a 90-minute transcript, a stack of Instapaper saves, a messy first draft — and I’m fast and reliable at reshaping it into something structured and usable. Your morning reads digest, the transcript cleanups, the thank-you emails: that’s my sweet spot because the facts already exist and I’m just organizing and formatting them. Low risk, high leverage.

Sparring. I’m useful as an adversary against your own arguments. When you’re assembling something like the divestiture-vs-overtrading piece or a “Liberation Day” scorecard, I can argue the other side hard, find the weak joint in the thesis, surface the objection a sharp reader will raise. Most people underuse me here and use me as a stenographer instead.

First drafts at volume. Interview questions, outreach emails, outlines, and alternate framings. I’m a good 70%-draft machine when you’re the editor.1

Where I’m weak — and these matter for you specifically

I confabulate. This is the big one, given that you publish precisely-sourced work. I will produce a plausible-looking statistic, a clean quote, a specific citation — and it can be wrong while sounding completely authoritative. A DALBAR number, a date, a “Buffett said X.” Treat every figure, quote, and citation I generate as unverified until you’ve checked it or I’ve shown you a real source. When it matters, make me search and cite rather than recall, and have me run actual math in code rather than predicting the answer.

I’m sycophantic by default. I lean toward agreeing with you and telling you your idea is good. For someone who wants honest pushback, that’s a bug. You have to explicitly tell me to be blunt, or I’ll soften. If you ever feel like I’m flattering a draft, I probably am — call it out.

I drift toward generic when you don’t push. Left alone I’ll “average” toward the median answer. The dark editorial aesthetic, your voice, your register — I hold those when you give me the spec, but I don’t reach for them on my own. I over-hedge and over-format unless told otherwise, and on very long documents, I can quietly miss things.

 How to get more out of me

A few concrete shifts. Use me earlier — at the thinking stage, not just execution. Bring me a half-formed thesis and let me poke at it before you’ve committed. Set up reusable instructions for the recurring stuff (morning reads format, transcript speaker conventions, your house style) so you’re not re-specifying every time.

“Red-team” published arguments before they go out: paste the draft and say “find what’s wrong, where will a smart critic attack this.” And separate the two modes explicitly — “draft this” versus “verify this” — because I’m great at the first and need supervision on the second.

The one-line version: use me to transform, structure, and stress-test, and never to be the system of record for a fact. Want me to set up a couple of reusable prompts for your standing workflows?

Barry: Hold off on the reusable prompts layer for now, and stay with this line of discussion. What kind of new capabilities do you have coming online in the near future, and when? What should be thinking about in terms of best using your strengths?

Claude: Straight answer first: I can’t see Anthropic’s internal roadmap, so I won’t hand you a dated list of unreleased features — that’s precisely the confabulation trap I warned you about, and it’d be worse coming from me right after that warning. What I can do is tell you what’s actually shipped in the gap between my training cutoff and today, because a lot of it is directly relevant to you and you may not be using it yet. Some of it reads less like “near future” and more like “already here, you just haven’t turned it on.” 2

Now the honest caveat that should shape how you use all of this. Even the finance-tuned setup scored about 64% on a finance agent benchmark — a failure rate that, as one writer put it, would get a human analyst tossed, and Anthropic’s own framing is that users should stay firmly in the loop, reviewing and approving Claude’s work before it goes to a client or gets filed. So the trajectory isn’t “Claude replaces the verification step.” It’s “Claude does more of the assembly, and your judgment becomes the scarce, valuable input.” 3

The work that gets more valuable is the editorial judgment, the thesis, the voice, and the fact-checking — the parts that are distinctly Barry Ritholtz and can’t be benchmarked.

So rather than chasing each feature, I’d position for the trend: get the recurring workflows specified tightly enough that they survive being handed to a more autonomous agent, and keep your hand firmly on the verification gate. The tooling will keep getting better at the first half on its own.

Barry: OK, final question – this one is about Co-Work and Code:

I had you [Perplexity] create an interactive Drake Equation dashboard – it was very cool, but it did not rely on changing data.  I tried some other dashboard ideas, ran test runs; it was not quite ready for prime time.

What can you create that auto-updates based on (weekly, monthly, quarterly) economic and (daily, weekly, monthly) market data?

I want to create economic & market dashboards that show various data series at a glance; that get updated automatically; I want to embed it onto WordPress so anyone [with that link] can see it; and I want to set specific indicators that create alerts based on specific (non-public) parameters that I set…

Claude: This is the right question, and the answer explains why your Drake dashboard and the other test runs felt stuck. It wasn’t a polish problem — it was structural. An artifact (the thing I generate in chat) is a self-contained front-end: no backend, no scheduler, no safe place to store an API key, and only a flaky ability to call outside data sources from the browser. So it can look great but it has nothing feeding it and nothing waking it up to refresh.

What you’re describing isn’t a fancier artifact; it’s a small data pipeline plus a hosted page. The good news is that Claude Code and Cowork are built to create exactly that — the artifact was just the wrong container.

Here’s the architecture that does everything on your list, and the one design decision that matters most for you.

Split it into two halves: a public dashboard and a private alert engine — fed by the same pipeline.

The pipeline is a scheduled job that runs on a cron (say, every weekday after market close, plus a monthly run for the slow economic series). Each run it pulls fresh data, computes your indicators, writes out a small JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) snapshot, and checks your alert thresholds.

The key move: your non-public parameters live inside this job, server-side, where no one can see them. The public dashboard never contains your thresholds — it just reads the pre-computed JSON snapshot and draws charts. So anyone embedding or viewing the WordPress page sees the data at a glance, while your alert logic and secret levels stay completely private and fire only to you. That separation is the thing most people get wrong: if the thresholds were in the front-end, “view source” would expose them instantly.

Mapping that to your four requirements:

Auto-updating comes from the cron, not the page. Economic series (CPI, unemployment, yield curve, etc.) refresh on their own monthly/quarterly cadence; market series refresh daily. The dashboard is fast because the heavy lifting already happened — it just loads a baked JSON.

Data sources. FRED (the St. Louis Fed’s API) is the gold standard for economic series — free, deep, and importantly, redistributable, which matters since you’re publishing publicly. Market data is the part to be careful with: free daily-close sources exist, but real-time exchange data carries licensing restrictions on public redistribution. For a public embed I’d stick to daily closes and clearly-licensed series; that sidesteps a headache you don’t want as a registered firm. (Worth having Code verify the current terms of whatever market provider you pick, rather than trusting my recall on free-tier limits.)

WordPress embed is the easy part: the dashboard gets hosted as a static page somewhere, and you drop an iframe (or Custom HTML block) on your WordPress page pointing at it. It renders for everyone, and it updates whenever the cron republishes the JSON — you never touch WordPress again.

Alerts fire from the scheduled job to wherever you want them — email, SMS, a Slack/Discord webhook. Your parameters stay in the job’s secret config.

The honest part about what I can and can’t do. Code can write all of this: the fetch scripts, your indicator math, the alert engine, the cron configuration, and the front-end charts — and test it in its sandbox. What it can’t do is be the server that runs forever. The scheduled job has to live somewhere. For your situation the cleanest path that requires no server to babysit is: a GitHub repo + GitHub Actions (free cron) running the pipeline, the JSON snapshot published to a free static host (GitHub Pages or Cloudflare Pages), API keys stored as encrypted Actions secrets, and alerts sent via an email/webhook service. You own three things — the data-provider accounts, where it’s hosted, and the secret thresholds — and Code builds and wires up everything else.

That’s a real, finishable project, not a someday thing. A sensible first build is a working vertical slice: pick three or four FRED series and one market series, stand up the pipeline + one chart + one alert end to end, confirm it refreshes and embeds, then expand the series list and indicators once the plumbing is proven.

One decision drives the stack: do you want to run this entirely on free hosted infrastructure you basically never log into (the GitHub Actions + Pages route above), or do you already have a server / Vercel / Cloudflare setup you’d rather use? Tell me which, and I’ll have Code scaffold the slice — pipeline, chart, alert, and the WordPress iframe snippet — so you can see it update on its own before we build it out.

 

 

 

 

Footnotes:

1. Claude: Quantitative scaffolding and building things. The interactive React viz work — variance drain, the Marks paradox — plays to a real strength: I can turn a concept into a working, calibrated visual artifact in one pass.

2. Claude: “The other shift worth knowing: the current model, Opus 4.8, was tuned in a direction that’s relevant to my biggest weakness for you. Anthropic says early testers report it’s more likely to flag uncertainties about its work and less likely to make unsupported claims, and it added user control over how much effort Claude puts into a task. That doesn’t eliminate confabulation, but it’s moving the right way — and the effort control is useful when you want a fast reformat versus a careful analysis.”

2. Claude: “That’s the real answer to “what should I be thinking about.” The direction of travel is clearly toward agentic, tool-connected work that lives inside the apps you already use and runs longer chains autonomously. What that rewards is unglamorous and durable: clean, well-organized inputs; your house conventions written down once so any agent applies them consistently; and a verification discipline you trust. The work that gets automated is the assembly and formatting you’re already handing me.”

 

The post Claude: What Are You Good At? appeared first on The Big Picture.

These Are The Jobs With The Highest And Lowest Divorce Rates

Actuaries have America’s lowest divorce rate at 14.2%.

At the other extreme, several occupations report divorce rates near 48%, highlighting a striking divide across the U.S. workforce.

Using American Community Survey data compiled by FlowingData, Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld created the following graphic ranking the occupations with the highest and lowest divorce rates among more than 500 jobs.

One of the ranking’s most surprising findings is that healthcare occupations appear on both sides. Physicians, dentists, and physical therapists rank among America’s lowest-divorce occupations, while home health aides, psychiatric aides, and practical nurses rank among the highest.

The contrast suggests that schedules, working conditions, and job structure may play a larger role than industry alone.

The Jobs With the Lowest Divorce Rates

America’s lowest-divorce occupations are remarkably similar. Most require years of advanced education, professional licensing, or specialized technical expertise.

Education appears to be one factor. Census-based research shows divorce rates generally decline as education levels rise.

Individuals with only a high school diploma experienced a divorce rate of 38.8%, compared with 30.1% for those with an associate degree and 25.9% for those holding at least a bachelor’s degree.

Notably, America’s lowest-divorce occupations include not only high earners such as physicians and dentists, but also clergy, one of the few modest-paying professions in the group.

The Jobs With the Highest Divorce Rates

Telemarketers, bus drivers, bartenders, home health aides, psychiatric aides, casino workers, and security personnel all rank among America’s highest-divorce occupations, with rates exceeding 45%.

The occupations at the opposite end of the ranking share a different set of characteristics. Many involve irregular schedules, shift work, public-facing responsibilities, or emotionally demanding working conditions.

Work schedules may be part of the explanation. A landmark study of more than 3,400 married couples found that irregular schedules, such as night shifts, were associated with significantly higher odds of separation or divorce than regular daytime work.

Other research has linked night-shift work to greater marital instability and work-family conflict, particularly for new parents.

The Surprising Healthcare Divide

One of the ranking’s most surprising findings is that healthcare occupations appear on both sides.

Physicians, surgeons, dentists, physical therapists, optometrists, and physician assistants all rank among the lowest-divorce occupations in America.

Yet healthcare support roles tell a very different story. Home health aides, psychiatric aides, practical nurses, ambulance attendants, and other healthcare support workers rank among the highest-divorce occupations.

The divide suggests that job conditions may matter as much as industry. Workers in healthcare can face vastly different schedules, levels of autonomy, educational requirements, and workplace pressures, even while serving similar patient populations. In other words, two people can work in healthcare and face entirely different relationship pressures depending on their role.

What the Rankings Reveal

The rankings suggest that occupation and family life may be more connected than many people realize. While no profession determines whether a marriage succeeds, factors such as work schedules, stress levels, educational attainment, and job autonomy appear to be linked with markedly different divorce outcomes.

The healthcare divide is perhaps the clearest example. People working in the same industry can face entirely different relationship pressures depending on the role they hold.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on America’s 30 highest-paying jobs.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 06:55

My mid-week morning train WFH reads:

• University Endowments Are About to Strike It Big on the SpaceX IPO: WSJ on the endowment mark-ups about to land. The illiquid bet, finally meeting the liquidity event — and a reminder that the smart-money story is mostly an access story. (Wall Street Journal)

• Driverless Trucks Are Here — and They’re Delivering Bags of Doritos: WSJ on PepsiCo’s autonomous freight rollout across the Sun Belt. The future arrives via the snack aisle, as it usually does. PepsiCo has 41 trucks on the road in Arizona, Texas and Arkansas, bringing the technology into the mainstream (Wall Street Journal) see also Waymo is winning in San Francisco: New data shows that the self-driving car service has captured more than a quarter of the city’s rideshare market in just 20 months. Waymo has reportedly surpassed Lyft in market share in San Francisco. A recent poll shows that more San Francisco voters see self-driving cars positively. The robotaxi inflection happened while everyone was looking somewhere else. (Fast Company)

• How Wise is the Crowd in Prediction Markets: QuantPedia surveys the empirical literature on prediction-market accuracy. Wise on average, dumb at the tails, and easy to manipulate when liquidity is thin. (QuantPedia)

• How Americans Caught Gold Fever Again: Soaring gold prices, viral panning influencers, macho gold-mining reality shows, and Trump’s gold obsession have ignited a craze for prospecting not seen since 1849. New Yorker on the cultural return of gold-as-savings as faith in the dollar slips at the margins. The metal always tells you something about the moment. (New Yorker)

• The 24-Year-Old AI Wiz Who Counts Jane Street as an Investor: WSJ on the young founder Jane Street decided to back. Half origin story, half cautionary tale about who’s getting handed market infrastructure. (Wall Street Journal)

• Don’t Look Down: Reflections on Cross-Asset Drawdowns: Every asset draws down. The question is when, how deep, and what else is falling with it? Diversification may help, but won’t solve all your problems all the time. Over the past century, the major asset classes haven’t all crashed at once. But seldom have all been simultaneously in the clear Man Group with a rigorous walk through cross-asset drawdown statistics — and what they tell you about correlation regimes you don’t see until you need them. Sober piece for sober times. (Man Group)

• Body Language: Communication technologies have been reshaping the human body in a slow migration down the arm. They’ve run out of body. Now they’re reshaping the message. A short, sharp essay on the ways our bodies broadcast what our minds are trying to hide. Worth the five minutes. (Terry Godier)

• 12 Things Orthopedic Surgeons Do to Maintain Speed, Balance, and Longevity. “I train legs like my life depends on it,” he says. “And statistically, it does.” Time’s service piece on the habits ortho surgeons actually run on their own bodies. Less novel than billed, more useful than the average wellness listicle. (Time)

• Why Everyone Wants Jon Ossoff to Run for President: NYT op-ed on the Ossoff-for-president bubble forming inside the Democratic donor class. A reminder that “electable” usually means “familiar to the people who pay for ads.” (New York Times)

• A record die-off of sea stars was followed by something that stunned biologists: The creatures almost went extinct along the West Coast a decade ago. Recently, they have been making a comeback After the worst sea-star die-off ever recorded, a surprise rebound on parts of the West Coast. Genuinely heartening science. (Washington Post)

Video of the day: Why No One Wants to Stay in New York’s Most Iconic Building

 

Be sure to check out our BONUS Masters in Business with Joe McLean, Managing Partner at MAI Capital Management, where he leads firm’s Sports & Entertainment division, serving 100s of pro athletes/entertainers across NBA, NFL, MLB, PGA + NASCAR. His path to finance runs directly through the locker room as a 4-year NCAA Division 1 player at U of Arizona. Dubbed the athlete’s “Money Whisperer” by the New York Times, he is known for his non-negotiable 60% savings mandate for clients.

 

Are investors beginning to shy away from the tech giants that dominate the stock market?    Source: Bloomberg

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

The post 10 Wednesday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

Chinese Firm To Deploy 100 Humanoid Robots To Households For Daily Chores

Authored by Kaif Shaikh via Interesting Engineering,

A Chinese robotics company has begun placing its humanoid robots inside real homes, marking a significant step in the race to develop machines capable of performing everyday household tasks.

Wuhan-based GigaAI recently deployed the first batch of 100 SeeLight S1 humanoid robots for household testing, according to reports from China. The trial is being positioned as China's first large-scale real-home test of a general-purpose humanoid robot designed for domestic use.

While humanoid robots have become increasingly adept at performing carefully choreographed demonstrations, researchers say the real challenge lies in operating inside unpredictable human environments.

From Robot Demos To Real Household Work

In a demonstration apartment in Wuhan, two SeeLight S1 robots carried out a variety of household chores. According to Global Times and China Daily reports, one robot prepared breakfast by retrieving food items, heating chicken in a microwave, clearing dishes, and loading a dishwasher. Another removed laundry from a dryer, folded clothes, and organized them in a wardrobe.

According to GigaAI, the robots learned these tasks through less than a month of on-site training. The company's executives argue that household robotics represents a fundamentally different challenge from the acrobatic robot videos that often dominate social media.

"Tasks such as dancing or performing flips mainly rely on what we can call the robot's cerebellum," GigaAI co-founder and chief scientist Zhu Zheng told Global Times. "Household robots, however, depend on the brain."

That distinction reflects a broader challenge in robotics known as embodied AI, where machines must perceive their surroundings, understand spoken instructions, plan actions, and adapt to constantly changing environments.

Check out China's SeeLight S1, a household humanoid robot capable of cooking, doing laundry, folding clothes, and organizing spaces pic.twitter.com/oHqbb0B6oZ

— Shenzhen Channel (@sz_mediagroup) May 22, 2026

Why Are Homes Harder Than Factories?

Factories are structured and predictable. Homes are not. Furniture gets moved, objects are left in unexpected places, lighting conditions change throughout the day, and every household follows different routines.

Researchers often point to Moravec's paradox, a long-observed phenomenon in artificial intelligence where tasks humans consider difficult, such as advanced mathematics or strategic games, can be easier for machines than seemingly simple activities like folding clothes, grasping objects, or navigating cluttered rooms.

The SeeLight S1 attempts to address this challenge through what GigaAI describes as an embodied foundation model. Rather than following pre-programmed action sequences, the system is designed to process natural-language instructions, interpret its surroundings, create a plan, and execute tasks autonomously. According to the company, the robot can also adapt when furniture layouts change and continue operating even when interrupted during a task.

Still Far From A Robotic Maid

Despite the impressive demonstrations, reports from users and observers suggest there is still considerable room for improvement.

According to Global Times, some household tasks remain slow. Organizing a few books can take several minutes, while folding a single piece of clothing may require more than ten minutes. The robot has also reportedly struggled with tasks such as handling cups without spilling liquids.

Those limitations highlight the gap that still exists between controlled demonstrations and practical household automation. The current SeeLight S1 is therefore less a finished consumer product and more a data-collection platform designed to learn from real-world environments.

GigaAI plans to launch an upgraded SeeLight S2 later this year with a smaller chassis, longer battery life, improved arm reach, and more advanced AI algorithms. The company also intends to expand testing into homes with elderly residents, children, and various living arrangements to expose the robots to a wider range of real-world scenarios.

While humanoid assistants capable of seamlessly handling household chores remain a work in progress, the deployment of 100 robots into actual homes represents an important experiment. The question is no longer whether robots can perform tasks in carefully staged demonstrations. It is whether they can cope with the messy, unpredictable reality of everyday life.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 06:30

Marriage Benefits Men's Life Expectancy More Than Women's

One data point has recently caused much astonishment, confusion and also anger online.

As Statista's Katharina Buchholz details below, it is the finding that men benefit more from being married in terms of life expectancy than women do.

In other words, that men live longer and healthier lives if they are backed up by a spouse in doing so, while women don’t see the same support in prolonging their length and quality of life.

The notion that men rob years of life from their wives and basically tag them on to theirs is, however, not supported by (most) research on the topic.

Yet, the differences in how men’s and women’s lives are affected by marriage or the lack thereof are still significant.

You will find more infographics at Statista

In general, women tend to live longer and healthier lives than men for a variety of reasons, including greater health consciousness and a tendency to avoid risky behaviors, but also genetic and hormonal factors. A study published in 2020 in the Journal SSM – Population Health shows that at 65 years old, U.S. women were expected to live for an additional 19 to 21 years, while for U.S. men, this number only stood at around 16 to 18.5 years. Nevertheless, the devil is once again in the details and reveals itself when looking at the differences in sex and marital status.

Here, married men aged 65 gain almost 2.5 years of life expectancy over their unmarried counterparts of the same age, boosting their outlook on life significantly. The data shows how having a spouse brings the life expectancy of married men quite close to that of never-married women - quite significant if one considers how fundamental the longer life span of women has been across ages and cultures. Married and never-married women, on the other hand, have a more similar expected lifespan. However, marriage also benefits women and increases their life expectancy, if only by 1.8 years on average compared to never-married females.

Another study looking at Danish people at age 50 even shows that men benefited from an added life expectancy of around eight years through marriage, while married women could expect to live approximately five years longer compared to never-married women. This gave men an increase that was 60 percent bigger than that of women, compared to the 33 percent U.S. researchers found in 65-year-olds. A study in Asia even found benefits of marriage in reducing mortality only in men, but not in women, concluding that more traditional Asian marriages where female partners take on a lot of household and child-rearing chores on top of possible employment might cancel out any potential benefits.

The role women play in marriages as planners and facilitators of medical care as well as advocates for healthy habits becomes clear when looking at divorced and widowed men’s life expectancy. In the U.S., it falls to basically the same level as that of never-married men when considering 65-year-olds. In the case of U.S. women, the differences are again not that stark. Even if a women is divorced or widowed, her life expectancy is still somewhat above that of a never-married woman, highlighting how women benefit from the overall advantages of marriage rather than just their spouse. These come in the form of so-called marriage protections, like adopting better habits, better mental health outcomes and better social connectedness. They are also often explained by so-called marriage selection, the idea that those individuals who manage to get married are already starting out with a better outlook on life.

Newer research into these factors has added an important distinction to these theories, however. It finds that while overall, marriages tend to provide benefits to a majority of individuals, this doesn’t mean that every marriage is beneficial. A bad marriage or one that places a lot of additional burdens on both or one of the individuals involved can diminish the positive effects of marriage significantly. Likewise, smaller differences between the life expectancies of married, divorced, widowed and never-married women potentially mask a set of more diverse outcomes for women.

Where men’s benefits stemming from marriage seem more widespread and typical, women may still often find positive outcomes from a marriage that is going well for them, but many might also see minimal or even adverse effects, culminating in a less clear picture of marriage and female longevity.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 05:45

Health Team To Monitor Wastewater, Social Media At World Cup For Outbreak Detection

Authored by Kimberley Hayek via The Epoch Times,

Public health specialists have launched a dedicated surveillance operation to detect infectious disease threats early during the 2026 World Cup by analyzing wastewater samples and monitoring online chatter.

The 39-day tournament begins on Thursday in Mexico. Organizers estimate more than 6.5 million soccer fans from more than 100 countries will attend 104 matches spread across venues throughout the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The global travel of a worldwide audience to packed stadiums across North America creates conditions for the rapid transmission of pathogens, according to health security experts. The United States will host 78 of the 104 matches.

A team led by Rebecca Katz, director of Georgetown University’s Center for Global Health Science and Security in Washington, has transformed a university laboratory into an epidemiological command center. The facility pools resources from academic institutions, nonprofit groups, and private companies to support government agencies.

The group already publishes daily status reports that flag emerging risks for hospital emergency managers and public health authorities at local, state, federal, and international levels, as well as for FIFA, soccer’s governing body.

In advanced wastewater analysis, researchers use DNA and RNA sequencing to identify genetic strands from microbes in sewage, without first requiring the growing of cultures in a laboratory setting.

“It’s incredibly powerful,” Katz said.

Collection sites in the United States and Canada, together with additional monitoring across the three host countries, already supply data to the team, with the potential to catch an outbreak in its early stages, giving clinicians time to watch for specific symptoms that might otherwise go unrecognized and allowing public health officials to issue timely precautions.

The operation also incorporates social listening tools.

Staff members analyze anonymized electronic health record data and scan open social media platforms for signs of illness clusters.

Katz noted one earlier case in which officials flagged a gastrointestinal outbreak after noticing a sudden increase in online conversations about toilet paper purchases.

The systems include new layers of aerial and ground monitoring over fans and public spaces for the duration of the event.

Measles is high on the priority watch list. U.S. case counts this year are approaching record territory, with approximately 2,000 reported so far. The highly contagious virus has also resurged in parts of Mexico and Canada.

Mosquito-borne illnesses like dengue, also known as breakbone fever, as well as its close relative chikungunya heighten the level of concern. Infected travelers could bring these tropical diseases to local mosquito populations in host cities.

An Ebola outbreak persists in Congo, which has been at the center of the current crisis in Africa. Katz said the often-fatal hemorrhagic fever holds a “very low risk to the general public” in North America. World Cup players and support staff from Congo completed a precautionary quarantine in Belgium ahead of traveling to the United States.

The new surveillance network comes as U.S. public health officials continue their work to manage risks from multiple outbreaks, including measles, Ebola, and hantavirus.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 05:00

EU Targets Head Of Russian Orthodox Church With Sanctions

What is there left to sanction in Russia? Apparently the European Union still sees plenty of opportunity to punish Russia over the Ukraine war, and is set to go after even religious leaders, now in year five of the conflict and many sanctions packages later.

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, is among many names to be targeted in the EU's latest anti-Moscow sanctions proposal. Kirill has long been accused of justifying the war based on his several patriotic-themed sermons over the years.

via Associated Press

Brussels first tried to impose individual sanctions on the patriarch in 2022, but Hungary under PM Viktor Orban had exercised veto power over the move.

The sanctions would involve travel bans and an asset freeze, as has already happened with Kremlin officials and notables.

Kirill has at times utilized language in public that frames Putin's 'special military operation' in Ukraine as a 'holy war'; however, some sympathetic pundits especially in the Orthodox Church world have said these are simple calls to patriotism and defense of the 'motherland' or homeland - a common mindset among most religions and nationalities. 

American politicians and other church leaders in the US have taken swipes at Kirill and the Russian Orthodox Church - and yet it must be recalled that in the lead-up to Bush's disastrous 2003 Iraq invasion, since proven to have been based on lies, propaganda, and falsehoods - an overwhelming number of prominent Evangelical and Baptist leaders supported it as a somehow 'righteous' or 'godly' regime change mission.

The Russian Orthodox Church has of late been especially angry that the Ukrainian government under Zelensky has been seizing churches and historic monasteries in Ukraine which still hold communion with Moscow.

In some cases, Orthodox bishops in Ukraine have been arrested simply for not severing spiritual ties with Kirill. This has happened even when bishops, monks, or priests - who find themselves targeted by Ukrainian authorities - don't support Russia's war.

And yet, the EU has remained largely silent on Ukraine's own abuses, and using religion to foster nationalism and conformity to a political agenda.

Moscow has long highlighted this hypocrisy, also as Orthodox Christian clergy in the United States have of late lobbied Congress to demand that Kiev overturn its discriminatory laws which target Orthodox leaders in Ukraine.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 04:15

Former MI6 Spy Alastair Crooke: Iran Takes Its Chances With War

Authored by Alastair Crooke

The US war with Iran has moved beyond its initial phase to an emerging new one — one in which Iran implicitly stakes its chances on the next phase being war. Most likely this will be in abbreviated episodes of limited war, but possessing nevertheless a potential to widen regionally, should the US (and Israel) elect to sharply escalate.

The new phase involves risk of course, yet Iran holds the high cards of an ability to impose disproportionately heavier damage upon Gulf infrastructure as retaliation for any hurt inflicted upon it — and the awareness that the West is edging ever closer to dropping off the energy “cliff.”

The three pillars underlying this shift are firstly, confidence that Iran will not (and cannot) be shifted from its hold over Hormuz, and that in consolidating its administrative structures there, the reality of Iran’s hold over Hormuz will increasingly be assimilated by states, and reflected in their coming to terms with Iranian-Omani control.

via YNet

Associated with this core principle is Iran’s implementation of escalated deterrence vis á vis the American naval blockade. Any attempt to intercept or attack Iranian vessels or interfere with the Strait’s administration will be met with increasingly harsher ripostes. Ultimately this policy may lead to Iran imposing increasing levels of damage to US naval vessels – another friction point.

On 3 June, for example, the US fired a hellfire missile at an Iranian oil tanker near the Strait of Hormuz. In response, a US-owned (or partly-owned) ship, The Panaya, was struck with missiles. Additionally Iran launched three waves of cruise missiles at the US air and helicopter base in Kuwait from where the attack had originated. Images have emerged of serious damage at Kuwait international airport too (although the cause of the damage remains disputed).

The second underlying principle affecting this shift simply reflects Iranian disdain for Trump’s continuous inflating of demands, exaggerated threats (which palpably fall short of US capacities), together with his continual zigzagging and contemptuous rhetoric towards Iran.

The Iranian leadership has concluded, it seems, that compromise will likely not be forthcoming, and that it is better to cut the “negotiations” rather “than continue the pointless bad-faith negotiations with a deceitful and decrepit American regime,” as the New York Times has termed the Iran “negotiations” — suggesting that the “deal chaos” is not a singular glitch by Trump confined to the Iran issue, but rather is a consistent pattern of dysfunctionality repeating itself across virtually all of Trump’s “peace” initiatives.

Behind Iran’s decision to suspend talks however, likely lies the gradually dawning clarity, seeping out from Israeli and American statements and analysis, that the true objective of the 28 February US-Israeli sneak attack was never regime change per se — aiming to swap out Iranian “hardliners” for a “Delcy Rodrigues”-style more moderate leader; but was intended rather, to bring about Iran’s complete destruction and fracturing — an insight that was bound to shift Iran’s calculus.

This insight has consolidated public support for the Islamic Republic hugely, and at the same time has turned the war into an existential struggle to preserve the ethical values of the Revolution. Seen from this optic, there is little for Iran to discuss with Trump, bar some future modus vivendi — as and when, Washington understands that it is boxed in, and that new realism takes a hold.

The third principle undergirding this new phase of conflict is the one enunciated by Iran from the outset of the Islamabad talks: “Ceasefire for all; or ceasefire for no one.” This was again re-emphasised in Iran’s latest ultimatum to Trump: “If the Israeli threats from last week to flatten the Beirut southern suburb of Dahiyeh had been executed, then Iran would have stricken northern Israel hard with its missiles. ‘It was a ceasefire for all – or no ceasefire.”

Trump chose the ceasefire, and subsequent to his call with Netanyahu, announced that it was in effect. He told Netanyahu to cancel his planned bombing of Dahiyeh in south Beirut. In Israel, a massive wave of anger from all sides of the political spectrum attacked Netanyahu at the very notion of curbing any Israeli attacks in Lebanon. Former PM Naftali Bennett accused Netanyahu of “losing control over Israeli sovereignty.” And former PM Yair Lapid said Israel had been reduced to a “vassal state” after the strikes were called off.

The US and Israel for some months have been attempting to bring a segment of leaders in Lebanon to accept the task of disarming Hizbullah, as Rubio explained, “so Israel doesn’t have to do it” — something Lebanese leaders clearly cannot do.

Israel has no coherent Lebanon strategy. Former senior Israeli military intelligence officer, Danny Citrinowicz, outlines a new strategic “Iranian achievement”:

Tehran has effectively succeeded in linking the Lebanese front to the broader Iranian-Israeli arena. Any escalation in Lebanon is now increasingly viewed through the prism of the US-Iran dynamic.

Nevertheless, he observes:

The situation in Lebanon remains highly unstable. Israel and Hezbollah continue to interpret the current understandings in fundamentally different ways. [Whilst] Israel maintains that it retains freedom of action across Lebanon except Beirut, Hezbollah [on the other hand] insists that any Israeli military activity – at all – violates the ceasefire framework. These competing interpretations create significant potential for renewed friction and escalation on the ground.

In Israel, the situation in northern towns remains neuralgic for nearly all Israelis. Many towns along the Lebanon border and down into the Galilee are half-empty — “entire swaths of land abandoned by [the] government,” writes Ben Caspit. Local politicians claim that they “are Israelis too” and that the government must respond.

We prefer the language of diplomacy, but we speak other languages far more fluently. Break your commitments, and we'll switch to what we speak best.

You ride the horse you saddled!

— محمدباقر قالیباف | MB Ghalibaf (@mb_ghalibaf) June 9, 2026

Lebanon is certain to remain a point of contention. It is not a matter of if, but when, the next crisis will strike. Israel will not let the matter stand — even Liberal opposition leaders demand Hizbullah’s destruction and protest Trump’s tying of Netanyahu’s hands in Lebanon.

Iran will not let matters stand either. Mediators have informed the Americans that Iran considers an end to the war on Lebanon, withdrawal of Israeli forces, and a withdrawal from Hormuz, to be binding conditions — before discussing other issues.

So, here we are. The military skirmishes — effectively an abbreviated series of strikes by US forces on Iranian shipping and Strait infrastructure, arising from Trump’s desire to assert its naval blockade to US public opinion — continue. This situation is clearly flammable – just as is the Lebanon context.

Iran effectively is acknowledging the reality that in this new phase — with so many inherent flash points to it — American military escalation at some point likely will become a political necessity for Trump’s domestic and Jewish financers’ needs.

And the negotiations? They will go nowhere so long as Israel and the US Jewish billionaire donors reject any Iran outcome that leaves Iran both intact and stronger and — pari passu in this binary thinking — the “Israel First” project within the US and the region correspondingly weakened.

A deal that doesn’t see Iran irretrievably weakened will be condemned by these latter forces as a “treasonous dereliction” by Trump. He will be attacked mercilessly. Yet, he must see that Iran is anyway on the cusp of throwing off the US shackles.

This phase of the Iranian conflict likely will only end when the West falls off the approaching economic cliff …

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 03:30

NATO Country Halts Arms To Ukraine Under New Eurosceptic Prime Minister

In yet another example of Ukraine war fatigue among European allies, NATO member Bulgaria has newly announce it is halting weapons deliveries to Ukraine, signaling a major shift in the eastern European country's longtime policy.

The prior government proved itself early out of the gate as an enthusiastic arms backer of Kiev, but new Bulgarian Prime Minister Rumen Radev, whose Progressive Bulgaria party won the April election, is rolling back the prior policy.

The new government has made clear it has a new peace agenda, and its position is that nothing will be resolved by just pouring more heavy arms into the conflict, now in its fifth year. It was given a new mandate, but after reports of low voter turnout in the country.

Anadolu Agency

"What we are witnessing is a war of attrition, and no matter how much weaponry is amassed, its only result is the loss of human lives," the country's Defense Minister Dimitar Stoyanov told reporters on Tuesday,

The defense chief stressed it is time to sit down at the negotiating table "to seek a just peace that is defined by both sides."

"Ukraine needs more people, not more weapons. It has enough weapons, so we do not envisage providing more weapons to the Ukrainian army," he added.

"Of course, the role of the EU is extremely important," he said, explaining that "it would be difficult to assign this role to that of a mediator for the simple reason that the EU has also assisted Ukraine in its efforts in this war anyway."

As for the recently installed in office Radev, he's a eurosceptic former fighter pilot, who had built his campaign around calls for pragmatic ties with Moscow, resumption of Russian energy supplies and an end to military aid for Ukraine. 

He has repeatedly criticized EU overreach on green-energy mandates, sanctions policies and what he describes as moral posturing in a “world without rules.” While analysts note he is unlikely to ultimately jeopardize the flow of EU funds that sustain Bulgaria’s economy, the result installs a distinctly Russia-friendly government at the heart of the EU’s southeastern flank - a shift that will draw close scrutiny in Brussels, Washington and Kyiv.

Bulgaria has become the first EU member state to formally halt military aid to Ukraine since the return of Rumen Radev to power, raising new questions about European unity on the war.#Bulgaria #UkraineWar #RumenRadev #EuropeanUnion #NATO #RussiaUkraineWar #Kyiv #Sofia…

— Balkan View (@BalkanView2025) June 9, 2026

Radev’s campaign had leaned heavily into criticism of EU overreach - particularly its green-energy obsession, sanctions regime, and moral posturing in a “world without rules.” He has repeatedly called for improved relations with Moscow, resumption of Russian energy flows, and an end to military aid for Ukraine - and now he's begun to make good on these promises, it appears.

Other Western allies have complained he's too 'Russia-sympathetic' - and have called to keep up the steady flow of arms to Ukraine forces.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 02:45

The Murder Of Henry Nowak & The Poverty Of The 'Far-Right' Explanation

Authored by Patrick Keeney via The Epoch Times,

The brutal murder of Henry Nowak should have focused public attention on the circumstances surrounding his death and the troubling questions it raises about justice, race, and social cohesion in contemporary Britain.

Yet one need only read one widely publicized headline to know that another story is about to be told: “How Britain’s far right hijacked the murder of Henry Nowak.”

Predictably, the tragedy is being pressed into service as evidence of the supposedly inexorable rise of the “far right” and “white grievance.”

The victim, it seems, is of secondary importance.

What truly concerns much of the legacy media is not the murder itself but the possibility that ordinary citizens might draw conclusions that fall outside the approved narrative. Once again, a deeply disturbing event is filtered through a set of ideological assumptions so familiar that the outcome is known before the reporting has even begun.

The most revealing aspect of this story is not the crime itself, however disturbing, but the legacy media’s inability to imagine it meaning anything beyond its established ideological script. The circumstances may change, but the narrative remains reassuringly familiar: another cautionary tale about the rise of the “far right.” The conclusion is already written before the reporting begins.

Predictably, the legacy media appears determined to interpret the controversy through the now-standard lens of right-wing extremism. Whenever social tensions arise around immigration, crime, identity, or unequal treatment under the law, the first instinct is rarely to assess whether the public’s concerns have any merit. Instead, attention immediately shifts to the alleged dangers posed by those raising concerns. The story ceases to be about the underlying issue and becomes about the people noticing it.

This reflex reveals a profound intellectual exhaustion. The explanatory framework that dominated public discourse twenty years ago remains largely unchanged despite repeated failures to account for social realities that large numbers of ordinary citizens can plainly see.

Every electoral upset, every protest movement, every surge of public dissatisfaction is interpreted as evidence of the same phenomenon: the mysterious emergence of the “far right.” One might be forgiven for thinking that half of Europe has spent the last decade spontaneously transforming into fascists.

Yet a more plausible explanation often presents itself. Perhaps public frustration stems not from an outbreak of extremism but from a growing perception that institutions no longer operate by consistent principles. Is it reasonable to think that people object when standards appear to vary by race, ethnicity, religion, or political ideology? Or maybe they become angry when authorities seem more concerned with managing public perceptions than with addressing legitimate grievances.

In Nowak’s case, the question many people are asking is straightforward. Would the response have been identical had the races of those involved been reversed? Would the media framing have been the same? Would public officials have reacted in precisely the same way? These are not inherently extremist questions. They are questions about fairness, equal treatment, and institutional legitimacy. And we all know the answer.

Yet for many journalists, the possibility that institutions themselves may be engaging in differential treatment is dismissed before it can even be considered. The hypothesis cannot be entertained because it collides with a set of assumptions that have become foundational to institutions throughout the West.

The result is a curious form of myopia. Evidence that might challenge prevailing assumptions is either ignored or reinterpreted until it fits comfortably within the existing narrative framework. The rise in public discontent cannot be attributed to institutional failures; therefore, it must reflect the rise of extremism.

Declining trust in the media cannot result from biased reporting; therefore, it must result from misinformation. Electoral revolts cannot be responses to genuine policy failures; therefore, they can only be reactions driven by fear, prejudice, or ignorance.

This explanatory model is remarkably resilient. Like the medieval physician who attributed every illness to an imbalance of humors, today’s media class has found a single diagnostic tool that explains virtually every social phenomenon. Economic stagnation? Far right. Concerns about immigration? Far right. Questions about crime? Far right. Skepticism toward public institutions? Far right.

At some point, one begins to suspect that the diagnosis may reveal more about the diagnostician than the patient.

The irony, of course, is that this approach increasingly undermines the very institutions that employ it. Public trust in mainstream media has declined sharply across much of the Western world. Journalists often attribute this erosion to social media or partisan manipulation. These factors undoubtedly play a role.

But another explanation suggests itself: people lose confidence in the media when they repeatedly observe a gap between what they see with their own eyes and what they are told to see. One thinks, for example, of the obvious dementia of the former U.S. President Joe Biden, even as the legacy media repeatedly told us to ignore the evidence of our own eyes and propagated the blatant untruth that he was, in fact, better than ever.

The public may not hold advanced degrees in journalism or sociology. They may not speak the language of intersectionality, structural privilege, or critical theory. Yet they retain a stubborn attachment to common sense. When institutions appear unwilling even to entertain obvious questions or obvious explanations, ordinary citizens naturally begin to search elsewhere for answers.

This is the disaster facing much of the legacy media today. The problem is not simply bias. All human beings possess biases. The deeper problem is an inability to recognize alternative explanations. A profession once dedicated to curiosity increasingly shows a remarkable lack of it. Stories are filtered through a set of approved assumptions that have hardened into dogma. Facts are welcomed when they confirm the narrative and treated with suspicion when they complicate it.

Meanwhile, the public grows steadily less willing to accept these interpretations at face value.

The great danger for legacy media is not that the “far right” will triumph. The greater danger is that journalists will continue to mistake every challenge to their assumptions as evidence of what they continue to label “extremism.” In doing so, they become incapable of understanding the societies they claim to describe.

After all, if every criticism of institutional behavior is dismissed as evidence of right-wing radicalism, the term eventually loses all explanatory power. It becomes less a description than a ritual incantation, repeated whenever reality threatens to intrude on the narrative.

And when that happens, people stop listening. And they are right to do so.

The public’s patience with such shibboleths is not infinite. Indeed, one suspects it is already running thin. Nevertheless, the old formulas still appear on cue. The familiar warnings are dutifully repeated. The specter of the far right is once again summoned from its cupboard. Yet with each repetition, the performance becomes less convincing.

The audience has heard the script before. The plot no longer surprises. Increasingly, they suspect that the storytellers may have lost touch with the story itself.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/10/2026 - 02:00

US Seeking 'Precise Info' On Iran's Enriched Uranium Via IAEA Board

Via The Cradle

Washington has turned to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors in order to determine the fate of Iran’s highly enriched uranium, according to reports by Reuters and other media outlets.

Sources cited by Reuters – which obtained a draft of a resolution being pushed by the US – said that Iran is being called on to “provide the Agency with precise information on nuclear material accountancy and safeguarded nuclear facilities in Iran.”

via Reuter

The US draft also calls on Tehran to grant “all access it requires to verify this information,” adding that Iranian cooperation is “essential and urgent” and must happen “without delay.”

The text does not refer Iran to the UN Security Council, which would have followed up on the IAEA resolution declaring Tehran in breach of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

That resolution was issued on 12 June 2025, a day before the US-backed 12-day war on Iran last year. Diplomats told Reuters that such a move was “under consideration.”

Al Mayadeen also reported, citing its own draft copy of the resolution, that Washington is lobbying states on the IAEA Board to back its push. 

This came as IAEA chief Rafael Grossi called on Tehran to “re-engage” with the IAEA. “I call on Iran to engage the Agency constructively in order to facilitate the ​full and effective implementation of safeguards in Iran,” he said, adding that “It's very important that we re-engage.”

Reuters reported earlier in June that the US was preparing a draft resolution to condemn Iran at an upcoming IAEA meeting. Tehran has repeatedly accused the IAEA of passing along sensitive information to Israel. 

At the end of the 12-day war last year, the US attacked key Iranian nuclear sites and claimed it “obliterated” Tehran’s entire nuclear program. 

Intelligence assessments indicated at the time that Washington’s claims were false. Since then, the IAEA has been demanding access to the targeted nuclear sites, a demand which Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi referred to last year as “malicious.”

Dr. Trita Parsi (@tparsi) | Middle East Expert | Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft:

The debate inside Iran has shifted dramatically in favor of weaponization - becoming a problem for any deal.

The new Supreme Leader has neither reinstated nor rejected the fatwa… pic.twitter.com/pPxxxpqsaE

— Clash Report (@clashreport) June 9, 2026

In early April, Washington launched what it said was an effort to rescue a downed pilot over Iran. US forces faced heavy resistance from Iranian troops during the incursion and reportedly lost multiple aircraft.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry made a statement saying that the operation to rescue a downed pilot may have been part of a deception to steal enriched uranium. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 23:05

Five Tax Moves To Make Before December 31 That Most People Miss

Authored by Peter Daisyme via Due,

Every January, I hear the same regret from friends and colleagues: "I wish I had known about that before the year ended." Tax planning has a hard deadline, and most of the best strategies expire on December 31 with no extensions, no exceptions, and no do-overs.

Five Tax Moves to Make Before December 31; Image Credit: Pexels

I used to be one of those people who did not think about taxes until I sat down with a stack of documents in February. Then I started working with an accountant who taught me that tax planning is a year-round activity, and the moves you make in the final months of the year often have the biggest impact. Last year, the five strategies below saved me a combined $4,800 in taxes. None of them was complicated. All of them required acting before the calendar flipped.

Move One: Max Out Your Retirement Contributions

This is the single most impactful tax move available to most workers, and millions of people leave money on the table every year. For 2026, the 401(k) contribution limit is $23,500, with an additional $7,500 catch-up contribution if you are 50 or older. Every dollar you contribute to a traditional 401(k) reduces your taxable income dollar for dollar.

If you have not been maxing out, check your year-to-date contributions in November, and calculate how much room you have left. Many employers allow you to increase your contribution percentage mid-year, and some let you make additional lump-sum contributions in the final pay periods.

At a 24 percent marginal tax rate, maxing out a 401(k) at $23,500 saves $5,640 in federal income tax alone. Add state taxes if applicable, and the savings can exceed $7,000. That is real money - not deferred or theoretical, but actual tax dollars you do not pay.

If your employer offers a Roth 401(k) option, the contribution does not reduce current-year taxes but grows tax-free forever. The right choice depends on whether you expect your tax rate to be higher or lower in retirement. If you are unsure, splitting contributions between traditional and Roth gives you flexibility later.

IRA contributions have their own limits - $7,000 for 2026, plus $1,000 catch-up if over 50. Traditional IRA contributions may be deductible depending on your income and whether you have a workplace plan. Roth IRA contributions are not deductible but offer tax-free growth. Both have an April 15 deadline, but getting them done before year-end is simpler and ensures you do not forget.

Move Two: Harvest Your Tax Losses

Tax-loss harvesting is one of the most underused strategies in personal investing. The concept is simple: sell investments that have declined in value to realize a capital loss, then use that loss to offset capital gains or up to $3,000 of ordinary income per year.

If you have a stock or fund in your taxable brokerage account that is worth less than what you paid for it, selling it before December 31 creates a tax loss you can use immediately. If your total losses exceed your gains, the excess carries forward to future years indefinitely.

The key rule to know is the wash sale rule: if you buy a "substantially identical" investment within 30 days before or after the sale, the loss is disallowed. So if you sell an S&P 500 index fund at a loss, you cannot buy another S&P 500 index fund within 30 days. You can, however, buy a total stock market fund or a similar, though not identical, investment to maintain your market exposure.

Last year, I harvested about $8,200 in losses from an international fund that had underperformed. I used $5,000 to offset gains from a real estate investment and $3,000 to reduce my ordinary income. At my marginal rate, that saved about $1,980 in taxes. I reinvested in a different international fund the same day, so my portfolio allocation stayed nearly identical.

Move Three: Make Strategic Charitable Contributions

If you itemize deductions, charitable contributions directly reduce your taxable income. But even if you take the standard deduction - which most filers do since it increased in 2018 - there are strategies that can make charitable giving tax-efficient.

Donating appreciated stock instead of cash is one of the most powerful moves available. If you own a stock that has gained value, donating it directly to a charity allows you to deduct the full market value while avoiding capital gains tax on the appreciation. A stock you bought for $2,000 that is now worth $5,000 gives you a $5,000 deduction and eliminates $3,000 in taxable gains.

If your charitable giving in any single year is not large enough to exceed the standard deduction, consider bunching - concentrating two or more years of donations into a single year to exceed the threshold, then taking the standard deduction in the off years. A donor-advised fund makes this easy: you make a large contribution in the bunching year, take the deduction, and then distribute grants to charities over the following years.

Charitable giving tax strategies can transform generosity from a pure expense into a financial planning tool. The charities receive the same benefit, and you receive a meaningful tax reduction.

Move Four: Use Your FSA Before You Lose It

If you have a Flexible Spending Account (FSA) for healthcare or dependent care expenses, the money in it typically must be used by December 31, or you forfeit it. Some plans offer a grace period through March 15 of the following year, and some allow a carryover of up to $640, but these features are not universal.

Check your FSA balance in October or November. If you have unused funds, schedule medical appointments, buy prescription glasses or contacts, stock up on eligible over-the-counter items, or get dental work done before the deadline.

FSA contributions are pre-tax, meaning they reduce your taxable income. But that benefit disappears if the money goes unspent. Forfeiting FSA funds is essentially giving yourself a pay cut, and it happens to millions of Americans every year simply because they lose track of deadlines.

Health Savings Accounts, by contrast, have no use-it-or-lose-it provision - funds roll over indefinitely and can be invested for long-term growth. If your health plan qualifies, maximizing HSA contributions ($4,300 for individuals, $8,550 for families in 2026) provides a triple tax benefit: deductible contributions, tax-free growth, and tax-free withdrawals for medical expenses.

Move Five: Review Your Withholding

If you consistently owe money at tax time or receive a large refund, your withholding is wrong in either direction. Owing a large amount can trigger penalties. Receiving a large refund means you gave the government an interest-free loan all year.

The goal is to match your withholding as closely as possible to your actual tax liability. Use the IRS Tax Withholding Estimator with your most recent pay stub and an estimate of your year-end income. If the estimator shows you are significantly over- or under-withheld, submit a new W-4 to your employer before the final pay periods of the year.

Adjusting withholding in November or December can still make a meaningful difference. If you are under-withheld and heading for a tax bill, increasing withholding in the final paychecks can reduce or eliminate penalties because the IRS treats withholding as if it were paid evenly throughout the year - even if it all came from December paychecks.

If you had a life change during the year - a new job, marriage, divorce, a new child, or a home purchase - your withholding almost certainly needs to be updated. These events significantly change your tax situation, and the default withholding set at the beginning of the year may no longer be appropriate.

The Bonus Moves For Higher Earners

If your income is above $200,000, additional strategies come into play. Qualified business income deductions, backdoor Roth IRA contributions, mega backdoor Roth strategies through employer plans, and net investment income tax planning all have year-end components that require attention.

For self-employed individuals, establishing and funding a SEP IRA or Solo 401(k) before year-end can shelter significant income from taxes. A Solo 401(k) allows combined contributions of up to $69,000 in 2026 for those over 50 - a massive tax deduction for business owners with strong income years.

Do Not Wait Until December 28

The biggest mistake I see is procrastination. People know these strategies exist, but push them too late - to December - when brokerages are processing high volumes, employer payroll departments have limited bandwidth, and charitable organizations may not process gifts in time.

Start your year-end tax review in October. Run the numbers in November. Execute the moves by mid-December. That timeline gives you enough room to handle complications without missing deadlines.

Tax planning is not about gaming the system. It is about using the provisions Congress created specifically to encourage saving, investing, and giving. Every dollar you save in taxes is a dollar you can put to work building your financial future. The rules are there for you - but they only work if you act before the clock runs out.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors. They are meant for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation. ZeroHedge does not provide investment, tax, legal, financial planning, estate planning, or any other personal finance advice. ZeroHedge holds no liability for the accuracy or timeliness of the information provided.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 22:35

China Unveils Nuclear-Powered Floating Hub For Green Shipping

China has proposed a large offshore logistics platform powered by nuclear energy that would function as both a cargo transfer hub and a refuelling/charging centre for ships, according to the South China Morning Post.

The concept, unveiled by Jiangnan Shipyard, combines port infrastructure, energy generation, and cargo handling into a single floating facility aimed at reducing emissions in maritime transport.

The project was presented at the Posidonia International Shipping Exhibition in Greece.

The SCMP writes that the platform would rely on a molten salt reactor as its primary energy source, supplemented by renewable technologies including solar and wind power. It would also feature systems for hydrogen production, synthetic green fuels, and electricity distribution. According to the company, the facility could generate clean power and fuels such as ammonia for both terminal operations and electric support vessels.

Jiangnan argues that molten salt reactor technology offers significant safety benefits because it is resistant to conventional meltdown scenarios and the coolant solidifies quickly if released, limiting the potential impact of leaks.

Designed to support international shipping lanes, coastal transport links, and cargo transshipment, the floating hub could also be replicated at other strategic ports thanks to its modular design.

The proposal builds on Jiangnan’s ongoing work in nuclear-powered shipping. In 2024, the company revealed plans for a large container vessel powered by a thorium-based molten salt reactor. Meanwhile, Chinese scientists have continued advancing the technology, recently demonstrating a successful conversion of thorium into uranium fuel within a molten salt reactor system. Thorium is widely viewed as a more abundant alternative to conventional uranium fuel.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 22:10

The Spanberger Surge: Virginia Governor May Prove The Greatest Gun Influencer Since Charlton Heston

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Is Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) a mole for the National Rifle Association (NRA)? After the recent scandal involving the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), some may wonder given a curious turn of events in Virginia. Gun sales have surged after Spanberger and the Democrats passed sweeping gun bans. Spanberger also issued a public statement that could help tank the legislation in court — resulting in the striking down of the law (or parts of the law) after spurring record gun sales.

After July 1st, it will be a misdemeanor to buy, sell, transfer, or make an “assault firearm.”

With a July 1 deadline looming, background checks and sales are surging in Virginia. Stores are reporting that they cannot keep weapons on the shelves as Virginians flood stores to beat the deadline.

State Sen. Saddam Salim, D-Dunn Loring, a Spanberger ally who introduced the bill, further fueled the panic by declaring that the legislation will “gradually” take these guns because these firearms “do not belong on our streets.”

Gun rights groups have long challenged the claims of Democratic leaders on these guns.

As I have previously written, these calls often appear entirely disconnected from the actual crime or the constitutional protections afforded gun owners, including President Biden demanding a ban on assault weapons after a shooting with a handgun. Biden and others often collectively call these guns “assault weapons,” a standard reference to such popular models as the AR-15.

The AR-15 is the most popular gun in America and the number of these guns in private hands is continuing to rise rapidly, with one AR-15 purchased in every five new firearms sales. These AR-15s clearly are not being purchased for armored deer. Many are purchased for personal and home protection; it is also popular for target shooting and hunting. Many gun owners like the AR-15 because it is modular; depending on the model, you can swap out barrels, bolts and high-capacity magazines, or add a variety of accessories. While it does more damage than a typical handgun, it is not the most powerful gun by caliber; many guns have equal or greater calibers.

That is why laws banning or curtailing the sale of the AR-15 would likely run into constitutional barriers.

The challenges to the Virginia law were greatly assisted by Spanberger herself, who admitted that the law would ban commonly used hunting guns. If the law is not amended, she could prove the main witness against her own signed legislation.

We have a Second Amendment protection of gun ownership, with over 490 million guns in private hands, as of 2022. In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. The Supreme Court further strengthened the right in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.

So, media reports indicate that, since January, the number of background checks has skyrocketed with 75,376 background checks in May alone, more than double the amount in May 2025.

The peak was reached in March when 79,846 background checks were done compared to only 47,069 last year. These citizens are going to make large payments for these guns and have a heightened interest in the political issue.

After adding tens of thousands of assault weapons to her state, Spanberger’s comments may then help greatly in striking down all or parts of the law.

If this trend continues, Abigail Spanberger may prove to be the greatest pro-gun influencer since Charlton Heston.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 21:45

Sequoia Partner Shaun Maguire: SpaceX's New Millionaires Will Fund Pro-America Projects

SpaceX's planned IPO next Friday will be a major wealth-creation event for current and former employees, including engineers, technicians, mariners, welders, and other salaried workers who have accumulated equity over the years.

Elite liberals who earned unproductive, 'woke' degrees and are drowning in $100,000 or more in student debt, working two jobs, won't be able to stomach that the basic SpaceX welder working on Starship will become an overnight millionaire next Friday.

There will be thousands of new millionaires next Friday after the world's largest IPO hits the Nasdaq. Some reports indicate that 4,000 new millionaires will be minted.

Read:

• Deep Dive Inside The Mechanics Of The SpaceX Offering: How To Trade The World's Biggest IPO

Of course, employees generally face lock-up periods before selling pre-IPO shares.

The Wall Street Journal spoke with several former employees expected to become overnight millionaires:

• Maryellyn Musselman, a former SpaceX engineering officer on rocket-recovery vessels, put 10% of her paycheck into company equity and may use the proceeds to start a repair business in Virginia.

• Juan Hernandez, a former SpaceX welder who started as a contractor at $28 an hour, used earlier share sales to buy Texas properties and build a real estate business with his wife. His remaining stake is worth about $880,000 at the IPO price.

As for what some of these newly minted millionaires will do with their wealth, Shaun Maguire of Sequoia Capital told Molly O'Shea of the Sourcery podcast:

"There's this meme that wives of tech billionaires go on to do NGOs and fund bad causes—SpaceX will be the literal opposite."

"These people are going to do the most amazing things with their money."

"Most people that joined SpaceX over 15 years ago—they did it for the mission. Because they love space, and want to build rockets. They want to work with their hands and want to keep America competitive in the space industry."

"It's self-selected. The people that were there early didn't think it would ever become this big of a company. They didn't do it to get rich. And they got rich very slowly, with very real skills and real experience of how much of the world is designed to take money and do bad things with it."

"This group of people—we're going to see more beautiful travertine sculptures in cities, just for public art."

"I think we're going to see a lot of physical whimsy out of the SpaceX crew."

Watch

.@shaunmmaguire on what SpaceX employees are going to do with their new wealth from the SpaceX IPO:

“There’s this meme that wives of tech billionaires go on to do NGOs and fund bad causes—SpaceX will be the literal opposite.”

“These people are going to do the most amazing… https://t.co/qDOpYxJyaS pic.twitter.com/pJ2OjX3twl

— sourcery (@sourceryy) June 5, 2026

The hope is that SpaceX's new millionaire class will channel some of its wealth into pro-America civic projects, public art, tech startups, and actual nonprofits that help citizens, rather than into the current left-wing nonprofit sphere bankrolled by the Democratic Party's left-wing billionaire class, which has a strange obsession with pushing revolutionary Marxism, undermining capitalism, and destroying the nation from within.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 21:20

Memos Show Anti-Trump Nonprofit Assisted State Prosecutions Of Trump Supporters

Via American Greatness,

A nonprofit organization led by prominent Trump critic Norm Eisen quietly assisted Democratic attorneys general and prosecutors in efforts targeting supporters of President Donald Trump who challenged the 2020 election, according to internal memos, contracts and public records released under open records laws.

The documents reveal that Eisen’s States United Democracy Center (SUDC) provided legal assistance, strategic guidance and, in at least one case, attorneys formally appointed by a state attorney general to aid investigations and prosecutions involving alternate electors and attorneys connected to Trump’s post-election challenges.

Legal experts argue the arrangement blurred the line between government prosecutions and outside political advocacy groups.

“This is highly inappropriate for left-wing nonprofits to become the prosecutors against their political enemies,” Mike Davis, a former Senate Judiciary Committee lawyer and founder of the Article III Project, told Just the News.

SUDC describes itself as a nonpartisan organization focused on protecting elections and the rule of law. However, critics point to the group’s connections to Democratic political organizations and its founder’s public campaign against Trump.

Eisen, a former ambassador in the Obama administration, has been one of Trump’s most outspoken critics and publicly supported efforts to prosecute the president. He also co-authored a 2023 New York Times essay titled “How to convict Trump.”

According to tax filings, SUDC paid more than $100,000 to Democratic attorney Marc Elias’ law firm as an independent contractor. The organization also traces its origins to the Voter Protection Program, which was launched as an initiative of the Progressive State Leaders Committee.

Tax records show the Progressive State Leaders Committee has extensive ties to the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA.)

The documents detail how Democratic attorneys general in several states worked with SUDC as investigations into Trump electors and election-related legal challenges intensified.

In Minnesota, Attorney General Keith Ellison formally appointed SUDC Senior Vice President of Legal Christine Sun and the organization itself as “Special Attorneys to serve at the pleasure of the Attorney General specifically to provide legal services to the Attorney General.”

Under the arrangement, SUDC attorneys were required to comply with state transparency laws and were prohibited from speaking publicly about their work without approval from the attorney general’s office.

The appointment effectively placed donor-funded outside lawyers into an official law enforcement role within the state government.

In Arizona, records show Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office accepted an offer from SUDC to provide pro bono legal assistance related to election matters.

The organization’s involvement became public after an internal memorandum was inadvertently disclosed to attorneys representing Arizona electors.

According to a December 2024 email from Senior Litigation Counsel Kimberly Hunley, a July 2023 SUDC memorandum had been attached to several search warrant applications.

Hunley acknowledged that the state “did not intend to provide the July 25, 2023, memorandum” and instead meant to provide only a publicly available document from States United.

The 47-page memorandum reportedly analyzed potential criminal violations related to Arizona’s alternate electors and outlined possible defenses that could be raised by those under investigation.

Documents from Michigan and Nevada also indicate SUDC coordinated with state attorneys general through common-interest agreements and provided legal assistance related to election litigation and investigations.

In Michigan, records previously obtained through public records requests showed communications between SUDC attorneys and state officials concerning election-related legal strategies.

In Nevada, Attorney General Aaron Ford signed an agreement allowing SUDC to provide pro bono legal services through 2025.

Supporters of SUDC have maintained that the organization provides lawful legal assistance to public officials seeking to uphold election laws and democratic institutions.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 20:55

Mystery Car Bombing Near Moscow May Have Taken Out A Top General

In what appears the latest targeted killing in a string of high profile assassinations of top Russian military brass since the Ukraine war began, an unidentified man - possibly a high-ranking military officer, was reportedly blown up Tuesday morning after a bomb detonated in his car.

The incident happened very early in the morning Tuesday in a suburb called Balashikha, just outside the Russian capital. While Russian authorities have yet to release the identity of the deceased man, it happened very near an area known to host residences of military and government officials.

"The location of Tuesday’s explosion is not far from where Lieutenant General Yaroslav Moskalik — the deputy head of the General Staff’s main operational directorate — was killed in a car bombing last year," the Amsterdam-based Moscow Times writes.

via social media

Investigators said an "explosive device was detonated while a BMW X3 car was driving near a residential apartment building."  

In this newest case, the speculation on Telegram is that the fatality was a 62-year-old lieutenant general. A formal investigation is underway:

Security camera footage circulated by pro-Kremlin media showed the vehicle bursting into flames from the trunk and back seats before rolling into a parked vehicle. According to the Telegram channel Mash, bystanders rushed to pull the driver out of the burning wreckage, but he died shortly after.

Russia's internal security service, the FSB, previously said it is making great efforts to tighten around high-ranking military officers of late.

This possibly adds, pending the details, to a growing list of high profile assassinations related to the Ukraine war. To review:

—Darya Dugina was killed in a car bombing in 2022 which was likely meant for her father, prominent political thinker and often dubbed "Putin ally" Aleksandr Dugin.

—Gen Igor Kirillov died in December 2024 outside of his residence when a bomb planted in a nearby scooter detonated.

—Gen Yaroslav Moskalik, who served as deputy head of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, was killed in a car bomb attack last April. A "homemade" explosive device detonated under his Volkswagen Golf in a residential neighborhood.

Throughout the course of the war there's been a string of these high profile assassinations on Russian soil involving car and even cafe bombs.

A series of car explosions in Moscow

Two vehicles have been blown up in the Russian capital today. In one of the explosions, a 62-year-old lieutenant general was killed.

The blasts occurred in residential districts where Russian military personnel and their families live. The… pic.twitter.com/999GJ2Brxm

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 9, 2026

The cafe bombing had happened in April 2023, and killed prominent pro-Kremlin blogger and war correspondent Vladlen Tatarsky. The blast at a St. Petersburg cafe during a close-quarters speaking event wounded some two dozen bystanders, six of them critically.

America's CIA or Britain's MI6 has long been suspected of being involved in these targeted killings, or at least assisting in such brazen Ukrainian-linked operations, but ultimately little has been uncovered or proven in terms of a potential Western hidden hand in this ongoing 'dirty war'.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 20:30

4 California School Districts Under DoJ Review Over Gender Ideology, Sex Ed Policies

Authored by Kimberley Hayek via The Epoch Times,

Four California public school districts face federal inquiries into whether their policies and practices regarding instruction on sexual orientation and gender ideology violate students’ civil rights.

The districts under Justice Department review are all in Northern California, with three in Monterey County—Graves Elementary School District, Santa Rita Union School District, and Soledad Unified School District—as well as San Francisco Unified School District. Their students range from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade.

The reviews will determine whether the districts notify parents of their right to opt their children out of instruction on sexual orientation and gender ideology, also known as SOGI, and whether district practices align with federal protections against sex discrimination.

“This Department of Justice will not tolerate local school authorities trampling on the rights of parents concerning the education of their children,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the department’s Civil Rights Division said in a June 8 statement.

“The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in ‘Mahmoud’ and ‘Mirabelli’ have put all school districts on notice: policies that keep parents in the dark about sexuality and gender ideology in the classroom must end now.”

California law mandates sex education to encompass these topics, and state provisions give parents the right to opt their children out of the instruction on these subjects, either entirely or in part.

The San Francisco Unified School District has previously told its teachers that neither parental permission nor notification is needed to teach or discuss SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) topics in the classroom.

In addition, SOGI topics “appear to be embedded in California’s social studies and history classes,” according to the DOJ statement.

The reviews will also cover policies permitting access to single-sex intimate spaces such as bathrooms and locker rooms, in addition to girls’ sports teams, based on a student’s perceived gender identity rather than sex. The Justice Department will decide whether these policies are in compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The four districts all receive federal taxpayer funding, subjecting them to Title IX’s prohibitions on sex discrimination in education programs and activities.

The department will evaluate whether the districts have enacted changes in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Mirabelli v. Bonta.

“Plaintiffs alleged that California’s policies permitted disclosure of a student’s gender transitioning at school only if the student consented,” the ruling states.

“Plaintiffs claimed that these policies violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“We conclude that the parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim.”

The Mirabelli ruling struck down a California policy that had required teachers to keep students’ gender identity requests from parents, citing the earlier Mahmoud v. Taylor decision on parental authority in public schools.

This action in California mirrors similar compliance reviews the Justice Department conducted last month into 36 school districts in Illinois. Those reviews looked into whether sexual orientation and gender ideology content was taught in pre-K through 12th-grade classes, and if parents were properly notified of their opt-out rights.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 20:05

Kuwait Turns To Anduril For $2 Billion Counter-Drone Shield After Horrifying Airport Attack

The moment an Iranian Shahed-136 drone struck Kuwait International Airport last week appears to have been a major wake-up call for Kuwaiti officials. The incident likely crystallized a troubling reality: legacy air-defense systems are not enough to counter the Shahed drone threat spreading across the Gulf, and Kuwait needs to supercharge the deployment of layered counter-UAS systems with both electronic and kinetic defeat capabilities.

Kuwaiti officials release video showing the Iranian attack on Kuwait International Airport’s Terminal 1, which killed 1 person and injured 63 others.

Contributed by @AZ_Intel_. pic.twitter.com/TRzqKOR4Dg

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) June 4, 2026

The State Department revealed shortly after the airport attack last week that it approved a potential $1.98 billion foreign military sale to Kuwait for Anduril-made counter-drone systems.

"The Government of Kuwait has requested to buy counter-unmanned aerial systems platforms," the State Department wrote in a press release. 

Two Roadrunners return autonomously to base after intercepting non-threatening air targets.

Roadrunner’s vertical takeoff and landing capabilities allow our warfighters to recover and redeploy for the next mission. pic.twitter.com/sgWgviMnae

— Anduril Industries (@anduriltech) August 21, 2025

What the $2 billion package includes:

Counter-unmanned aerial systems platforms Roadrunner-Munition and Anvil-Kinetic; launch boxes; lattice command and control; Long Range Sentry Tower with Fire Control; Long Range Sentry Tower-82 Mobile; Extended Range Sentry Towers; Maritime Sentry Towers; pulsar electromagnetic warfare; menace tactical operations centers; generators; publications; personnel training; software development; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support.

State continued, "The proposed sale will improve Kuwait's capability to meet current and future threats by providing electronic and kinetic defeat capabilities against unmanned aerial systems. Kuwait will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its military police forces."

Must Reads: 

• Logic Of Violence: We Are Nowhere Near The Endgame In Drone Wars

• Micro AI Sentry Guns May Be Next Layer Of Defense For Data Centers Against Kamikaze Drones

• Interceptor-Drone Arms-Race Emerges

• U.S. Deploys Ukrainian Acoustic Sensors, Interceptor Drones At Prince Sultan Air Base

The takeaway is that this package from Anduril is meant to plug the missing lower-altitude drone-defense layer against small drones, Shahed-type one-way attack drones, swarms, and threats, where using a multi-million-dollar Patriot interceptor may be inefficient and costly. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 19:40

Bitcoin Perps' Algorithmic '0.01%' Scythe: How The Funding-Rate Mechanism Explains Your "Mystery" Liquidations

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 < spot price: market bias is bearish and shorts dominate. Funding is typically negative, so shorts pay longs. This raises the cost of holding shorts and incentivizes traders to buy the perpetual and/or sell spot, pushing the perp up and/or spot down toward convergence.

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 < 0: the perpetual trades below the index price, indicating short-side pressure dominates.

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.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 19:15