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

SNAP Benefits Go To 186,000 Dead People... And Stopping Them Might Be Difficult

Authored by Tom Gantert via The Epoch Times,

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

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

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

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

Renewed Focus by Trump Admin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Dead People End Up on Food Stamps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Long-Running Problem

Benefits fraud sometimes goes undetected for years or even decades.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The federal government continues to take action against fraud.

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

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

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 18:25

The Oil Shock Is Weakening India's Economy and Finances

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 17:40

Iran Threatens "Decisive Response" After US Begins 'Self-Defense' Strikes Following Downing Of Apache Helicopter Summary:

• US begins 'self defense' strikes against Iran

• Iran threatens retaliation after US retaliatory strikes

• Trump says 'US must respond' after Iran downed Apache over Strait 

• Trump says Washington and Tehran are in the "final throes" of cementing a deal, "two or three days"

• Iran shoots down US Apache helicopter over Strait, crew safe

• Despite Trump calls for Israeli ceasefire, casualties are rising in southern Lebanon

So much for the early hopes of an imminent deal...

US Begins "Self Defense" Strikes Against Iran, Iran Threatens Re-Retaliation

Just as President Trump has warned, US Central Command has just tweeted confirmation that the US military began 'self defense' strikes against Iran:

"U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces began launching self-defense strikes against Iran at 5 p.m. ET today at the Commander in Chief’s direction, in response to yesterday’s downing of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter.

The mission is a proportional response to unjustified Iranian aggression."

The extent of the latest strikes wasn’t immediately clear but they further undercut an already fragile ceasefire signed in April.

A US official tells Fox that airstrikes targeting Iran are "ongoing" and targets include air defenses and radar installations.

IRNA reports explosions in Iran's Hormozgan province, while IRIB reports aerial attacks in Qeshm, Sirik and Bandar Abbas with six explosions reported in Qeshm

The US and Iran have traded attacks several times in recent days even as Trump has said they are close to signing an agreement to bring the conflict to an end.

President Trump told ABC News Jonathan Karl:

"I think it's very important to respond. They shot down a helicopter, and we are responding as we speak."

He added:

"This is a response to what they did they did with our helicopter last night, and I believe the response should be very strong, very powerful, and that's what this one is."

Shortly after the strikes began, IRGC-owned Tasnim News reported that Iran is threatening to retaliate for US' retaliation:

"Iran will respond to US aggression.

As warned hours earlier, Iran will deliver a decisive response to the US aggression, which is being carried out under the pretext of an Apache helicopter crash."

Odds of a peace deal are sliding and oil prices are rising (though not significantly).

Trump Reacts to Apache Downing, Threatens Response

Following earlier reports that a US AH-64 Apache helicopter had gone down over the Strait of Hormuz off the coast of Oman in an unprecedented first of the Iran war, moments ago Trump said on Truth Social that he had "been informed by our Great Military that last night the Iranians shot down one of our highly sophisticated Apache Helicopters while patrolling over the Strait of Hormuz. There were two pilots involved, both are safe and uninjured. Nevertheless, the United States must, of necessity, respond to this attack."

The news that the US may imminently resume the Iran war - sent oil surging instantly...

... as Trump's latest promise that a huge peace is coming appears to have unraveled yet again.

Trump Says In 'Final Throes' of Iran Deal... Again

President Trump is still maintaining that Washington and Tehran are in the "final throes" of cementing a deal, and is even suggesting (once again) that an agreement will be done in days:

Asked whether it would be matter of days or weeks, he said it would take “two or three days”.

Tehran has repeatedly stated any deal should include Lebanon—where Israel has been pressing its war with Iran-backed Hezbollah—and fired missiles at Israel on Sunday. That prompted Israeli retaliation, despite US pressure for restraint.

Iran fired another salvo before announcing it was ceasing military action, and hours later Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the “fire on that front is contained”.

Of course, we've been hearing that the war is merely 'days' away from ending from basically the start of the war. And yet, all too predictably, the two sides keep going up the escalation ladder in an escalation trap.

But the White House is saying that it will forge a deal which is good for the American people, whether Israel likes it or not. "Israel may like that, they may not like that — but this is in the best interest of the United States," Vice President JD Vance spelled out to Fox this week.

US Apache Helicopter Shot Down over Strait, Crew Safe

A US helicopter has gone down over the Strait of Hormuz off the coast of Oman in an unprecedented first of the Iran war, Central Command announced Tuesday, after which the two crew members were reportedly rescued by unmanned boats.

The Army AH-64 Apache was patrolling regional waters before the downing incident, which is still shrouded in mystery, and which the Pentagon says it is now investigating. However, the Iranians are saying they know exactly what happened - insisting that the Apache was shot down.

"An AH-64 Apache attack helicopter belonging to the U.S. Army was shot down and destroyed by the IRGC Navy near the Strait of Hormuz, after ignoring warnings and being targeted by fired from one of our speedboats," an Iranian military central command statement has said.

The NY Times, among the first to report the downing, underscores the claims and counter-claims concerning what happened:

It was not immediately clear whether the Apache was shot down by Iranian fire, experienced mechanical failure or encountered some other problem, said a person briefed on the incident, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Central Command said in a statement that the incident was under investigation.

But the Pentagon says the crew was successfully rescued. The unusual rescue by unmanned boats adds another layer of complexity and strangeness to the story. 

"A Task Force 59 unmanned surface vessel, essentially a drone boat, found and rescued the soldiers," spokesperson Capt. Tim Hawkins described to NBC News. The pair of pilots are now receiving medical care, he indicated, after their rescue came within two hours of the aircraft going down.

Trump briefly spoke to journalists at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York after watching the NBA Finals on Monday night and he acknowledged the rare crash in the Persian Gulf.

"The pilots are fine. Yeah," Trump said. "Nobody injured. We are going to issue a report tomorrow. But the pilots are fine."

Apaches, along with A-10 gunships, have been frequently used for low-flying operations in the Persian Gulf and Hormuz region, in order to attack Iranian small boast.

As for the Iranian claims of shootdown, it remains a top most plausible scenario, but the Pentagon has not said whether it took on Iranian fire.

FOX: American military forces, including U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, the 82nd Airborne Division, and U.S. 5th Fleet assets, helped bring both soldiers to safety.

NEW: Two U.S. soldiers are safe after a dramatic rescue operation off the coast of Oman.

CENTCOM says the crew members were recovered roughly two hours after their AH-64 Apache helicopter went down while patrolling regional waters.

American military forces, including U.S. Naval… pic.twitter.com/iBr7WiQnKB

— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 9, 2026

During earlier operations connected to Epic Fury, other US military aerial assets have crashed or sustained damage over the region - however, the Pentagon has downplayed or rejected efforts to link a number of incidents to Iranian attack, apparently not wishing to give Tehran a battlefield 'success' acknowledgement.

But many independent pundits have suspected that all along the Iranians have been hitting a lot more American assets than previously disclosed.

Death Toll Soars As Israel Pounds South Lebanon

The southern Lebanese city of Tyre is being pounded by Israeli airstrikes on Tuesday, despite President Trump's insistence that Lebanon not come under attack. Israel's military had hours prior issued an evacuation order for all civilians in the area, amid the unraveling and failing ceasefire.

Casualties are already high, coming at a tense moment after starting on Sunday Iran sent ballistic missiles against Israel over its renewed airstrikes on the southern suburbs of Beirut, where it says Hezbollah command centers are located.

The NY Times reports of the growing death toll Tuesday, "At least eight people were killed in the bombardment, and dozens more were wounded, Lebanon’s health ministry said. The Israeli military also targeted towns and villages across southern Lebanon, including areas that were not covered by evacuation warnings, according to the country’s state-run news agency."

Attack on Tyre, via AFP

So clearly the air raids are expanding, per the report, even after the latest Trump warnings directed at Netanyahu to not do anything that would sabotage a broader Iran peace agreement.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 17:25

Viral Influencer: How Bill Gates' Billions Shape US Medical Research

Authored by Paul D. Thacker via RealClearInvestigations,

Bill Gates has long been one of the most admired people in the world, especially since he stepped down from his role running Microsoft to devote himself and much of his fortune to philanthropy. That reputation has been tarnished recently, however, by revelations of the billionaire's close relation with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and exposes on his own fraught relationships with women.

On the eve of Gates' private testimony with Congress scheduled for tomorrow, a trove of federal whistleblower documents provided to RealClearInvestigations is renewing questions about how Gates money has bought what critics complain is an untoward influence on government health policy. For almost a quarter of a century, his main vehicle of power, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), allowing Gates to shape the direction of the country's health strategy in ways that have benefitted his own priorities and pet causes while polishing his image as a benevolent global do-gooder.

At a time of growing concern about the power of billionaires such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Sam Altman, Gates' efforts stand out. Instead of lobbying federal agencies for specific policies, Gates leveraged his wealth to work inside the government, partnering with high-ranking NIH officials to steer taxpayer research funding and design scientific policies for several federal programs.

The cache of several dozen emails and documents, made public for the first time by an NIH whistleblower, reinforces previous reports detailing Gates's extensive influence over U.S. biomedical research. During the height of the COVID pandemic, Kate Elder, a senior vaccines policy adviser for Doctors Without Borders, complained to Politico, "What makes Bill Gates qualified to be giving advice and advising the U.S. government on where they should be putting the tremendous resources?"

Emails and internal plans, for example, show that the NIH - the world's largest funder of biomedical research - gave the Gates Foundation first billing for the joint workshops and meeting held on federal property.

The Gates Foundation did not respond to repeated requests for comment. The NIH also declined to comment.

Leveraging Investments

Like most philanthropies, the Gates Foundation tries to grow its endowment through investments. Some of these efforts, especially its stake in vaccine companies, blur the lines between profit-seeking and the foundation's mission to develop and deliver vaccines around the world. This symbiotic relationship between capitalism and charity also benefits Gates, whose power and position hinge in large part on the size of his foundation's assets. Before the pandemic, The Nation magazine reported that the Gates Foundation had a $40 million stake in CureVac - this was not a grant but an investment. CureVac was one of many companies the nonprofit bought stock in that were working on COVID vaccines and therapeutics.

Around that same period, the Gates Foundation announced that it had begun to "leverage a portion of its $2.5 billion Strategic Investment Fund" to advance the nonprofit's COVID work. The Gates Foundation also turned a $55 million investment in Pfizer's COVID vaccine partner, BioNTech, into over $550 million when it sold stock a couple of years later after the vaccine hit the market.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was established in 2000 with an initial endowment of $20 billion and a primary focus on reducing global health disparities. Rather than working exclusively through non-governmental agencies, the Gates Foundation began contributing to the NIH through the agency's own nonprofit, the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH). Congress created the FNIH in 1990 as a firewall between NIH officials and outside donors seeking to influence federal research.

That firewall is not ironclad.

In 2018, for example, NIH officials, funded by beer and liquor companies through an FNIH grant, were in frequent contact with the alcohol industry while designing a study that seemed predetermined to find alcohol's benefits but not potential harms, such as cancer. The NIH also declined money in 2018 from drugmakers to support a proposed $400 million research program to discover opioid alternatives and addiction treatments. Like the alcohol funds, that drugmaker money would have also been routed through the FNIH.

Major Grants To Government

In 2003, the Gates Foundation donated $200 million to the FNIH to fund NIH scientific programs, an unprecedented sum. Rice University researchers warned in 2008 that this Gates cash was shifting the NIH's scientific priorities, even though the money was cycled through the FNIH. While FNIH manages and administers Gates money, they said, the Gates Foundation's scientific board ultimately "oversees and selects the projects to be funded" at the NIH.

After Gates gave an NIH lecture in 2013, NIH documents show that the agency began hosting Gates-NIH Workshops, eventually synchronizing federal research programs with Gates, to include coordinating grant funding and science policies across 10 NIH programs.

"Bill Gates, along with the NIH, the Wellcome Trust, it was this cartel," the whistleblower, a former NIH official who requested anonymity, told RCI. "This is a globalist movement. And that's something that I don't think the public knows."

The Gates Foundation held its second annual meeting with the NIH in July 2105, with both sides proposing new areas of teamwork, and later agreeing to cooperate on funding and research policies for global health. One area of overlap was the West African Ebola outbreaks. To align the Gates Foundation's Ebola research with the federal agency, Gates routed money through the FNIH so that NIH employees could hire the McKinsey consulting firm.

According to the NIH's summary of the 2015 workshop, McKinsey's study of the Ebola field found 20 therapeutics, eight diagnostics, and eight different vaccines, concluding that the Merck and GSK vaccines were the most advanced.

At no point in the several dozen emails and documents provided to RCI did NIH officials appear to raise any concerns about conflicts of interest regarding their work with Gates, nor the hiring of McKinsey to shape federal research and development policies. McKinsey is a global consulting firm whose clients include dozens of foreign governments and some of the world's largest corporations.

House Democrats released an April 2022 investigation that documented McKinsey's conflicts of interest during the opioid epidemic that killed tens of thousands of Americans, finding that McKinsey provided consulting advice to both Purdue Pharma and the Food and Drug Administration from 2008 to 2019.

In one example, the report surfaced emails with McKinsey employees congratulating themselves for influencing a 2018 speech on opioid safety by then-FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb.

When Congress brought McKinsey managing partner Bob Sternfels before cameras during a 2022 public hearing, he alleged that his firm did not have a conflict of interest when it gave simultaneous advice to both OxyContin's manufacturer and the government agency that regulated OxyContin. Two years later, McKinsey paid a $650 million fine to resolve a criminal and civil investigation into the firm's consulting work with Purdue Pharma.

"The NIH and BMGF have had a long history of interaction, particularly with respect to vaccines and drugs," reads the NIH summary of the 2015 Gates-NIH meeting.

A longtime NIH official said that the agency's leadership initially held Gates at arm's length, but eventually gave in. "They were very suspicious at first," said the official, who requested anonymity. "But they got caught up in, 'Wow, he's the richest man in the world!"

The NIH official added, "What I saw, which really, I think, extends until this day, is a complete merging of NIH and Gates. And I've never seen that written anywhere. I don't think people realize this incredible symbiotic relationship."

Bill Gates Is Coming!

Bill Gates added a bit of splendor to the Gates-NIH workshop series when he made his first personal appearance at the April 2016 meeting. As part of the meticulous planning for the event, NIH Director Francis Collins held a 45-minute teleconference 10 days prior to hash out the meeting's details with Trevor Mundel, a former pharmaceutical executive in charge of global health at the Gates Foundation.

According to a list of key "milestones and accomplishments" sent at the time to Collins, the Gates Foundation was by then firmly entwined within the NIH ecosystem to include dual workshops, joint clinical trials, combined research policies, and collaborative funding efforts. For example, NIH staff and Gates employees worked together on clinical trials for TB treatment in Africa. Both Gates and NIH employees also began a joint study for TB with support from the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology.

The night before the meeting, the NIH held a reception and a catered dinner, paid by the FNIH, for almost two dozen Gates executives at the Cloisters Mansion, a historic, stone castle in rural Maryland, where actor Will Smith married actress Jada Pinkett.

Emails show that the NIH continued scrambling that night to lock down the arrival of other attendees, which included Obama officials at the Department of Health and Human Services and the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Robert Califf.

To provide Bill Gates a luxury experience, NIH staff prepared Collins - a Nobel Prize-winning scientist - a minute-by-minute itinerary for the arrival of Gates and his retinue the following morning. NIH police were ordered to greet Bill at the facility's entrance and then escort the billionaire's three-vehicle convoy the final half mile to one of the main research centers, where the Director lingered in waiting. Such deference to power, said a senior Trump official when reading the Collins itinerary over the phone, is normally reserved for the president, first lady, or visiting dignitaries of state.

"Dr. Collins will meet Bill Gates after he exits the car and steps inside of the building," the itinerary read. After posing for a photo, Collins was bidden to escort the billionaire into the main auditorium and welcome the audience for Gates.

The agenda shows Collins and Gates Foundation's Trevor Mundel gave a joint introduction before stepping aside for Bill Gates's opening speech. Moderated by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the man who would later lead the U.S. medical response to COVID, the first panel included a mix of NIH and Gates executives discussing microbial outbreaks and public-private partnerships to develop pandemic-preventive vaccines.

Collins then moderated a panel on "Research on Engineered Gene Drives and Vector-Borne Disease Control: Status and Next Direction." Gene drive technology involves inserting specific genetic traits to spread rapidly throughout a population. Gates has long been a fan of gene drives to control mosquitoes, but the technology is highly controversial as it could also drive species to extinction and irrevocably alter ecosystems. The NIH's scientific program to control mosquitoes with genetic technology was apparently started with seed money from Gates in 2003. Last August, the African nation Burkina Faso suspended a malaria program funded by Gates over safety concerns.

Beginning in 2012, a Bill Gates-funded nonprofit called Target Malaria began a gene drive technology study to eradicate malaria-transmitting mosquitoes in Burkina Faso. Last August, Burkina Faso's government suspended Target Malaria's project over safety concerns and worries about the excessive influence of Bill Gates on the country's sovereignty.

Gates only stayed the morning of the 2016 meeting and left before lunch. "Bill Gates is escorted, by Dr. Collins, out of the building through the same hallway he entered," reads Collins' itinerary. "NIH Police escort Mr. Gates and staff to the exit gate."

The meeting ended with a wrap-up and review of next steps, led by Collins and a Gates executive.

Later that year, the FNIH honored the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Pfizer with an award for supporting the NIH's mission. Gates was recognized for $413 million dollars in donations and Pfizer for $73 million. In a press release announcing the honor, the NIH said, "Their gifts created cornerstone programs and paved the way for our partnerships with literally hundreds of other organizations dedicated to driving biomedical research worldwide."

The FNIH continues to maintain close ties to pharmaceutical interests, a major NIH funder. The current CEO, Julie Gerberding, came to the FNIH during the COVID pandemic, having previously served as President of Merck Vaccines.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 17:00

Man Accused In Fatal Charlotte Train Stabbing Ruled Incompetent To Stand Trial

Two months after mental health experts deemed Decarlos Brown Jr. incompetent to stand trial for the fatal train stabbing of 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska last year - when Brown shouted "I got that white girl" - a federal judge has agreed with them. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt speaks alongside photos of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska and Decarlos Brown Jr. during a press briefing at the White House on Sept. 9, 2025. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

Brown, 34, will be committed to a federal facility for treatment for up to four months in an attempt to restore competency, Judge Kenneth D. Bell said in his order on June 9.

After Brown's time in the treatment facility, the court will again take up the case to determine if he is then considered competent. If he is found competent, the murder case will resume.

If he is not found to be competent, and the court finds he cannot be restored to competency, the court will rule on further treatment.

The defendant stands accused of stabbing Zarutska to death on a Charlotte, North Carolina, commuter train in August 2025.

Brown was charged with one count of Violence Against a Railroad Carrier and Mass Transportation System Resulting in Death. If convicted, the defendant faces the death penalty.

A random horror caught on camera

As we noted in April, the killing occurred on the evening of August 22, 2025. Twenty-three-year-old Iryna Zarutska, still wearing her black baseball cap from her shift at Zepeddie’s Pizza, boarded the Lynx Blue Line light-rail train heading home. She took a seat. Seconds later, Brown - already seated directly behind her - pulled a pocketknife from his hoodie and stabbed her three times in the neck and upper body in a sudden, unprovoked attack.

Surveillance video, which quickly circulated online, captured the gruesome moment: Zarutska’s desperate attempts to fight back as blood poured from her wounds, while other passengers initially failed to intervene. Brown stood, wandered through the train leaving a trail of blood, and exited at the East/West Boulevard station. He was arrested on the platform minutes later. Investigators say he told officers he believed the young woman had been “reading his mind.”

Zarutska, who had fled the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 seeking safety and a new life in America, died at the scene. Friends and family described her as vibrant, hardworking, and full of hope. Heart-wrenching videos later shared by loved ones showed her laughing, cooking, and enjoying simple moments with friends—images that stood in heartbreaking contrast to the brutality of her final minutes.

A suspect with a long trail of red flags

Brown was no stranger to the justice system. Court records and family statements show he had amassed more than 14 arrests in North Carolina since 2007, including charges for assault, firearms violations, and felony robbery.

Two years after he was released from a five-year sentence for robbery, the same year Zarutska fled Ukraine, Brown was arrested again for assaulting his sister, who did not pursue charges. 

His mother and sister have publicly described a sharp decline in his mental health after a prison stint, including violent outbursts, delusions, and refusal to take prescribed medication for schizophrenia. Despite multiple attempts by his family to have him involuntarily committed, he was repeatedly released - most recently on cashless bail after what authorities described as a bogus 911 call.

* * * Top sellers

Brain Rescue - Your baseline daily brain food

Peak Focus - Nootropic ultra-focus, no jitters

Community members gather for a vigil honoring the life of Iryna Zarutska, who was fatally stabbed on a commuter train last month, Monday, Sept. 22, 2025, in Charlotte, N.C. Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 16:40

55% Of Democrats Would Prefer Living Outside The US; Survey Finds

Authored by Bryan Hyde via American Greatness,

A poll conducted last month shows 55 percent of Democrats answering affirmatively when asked "Is there any other country on Earth you would rather live in than the United States today?"

Breitbart reports that the Elon University/YouGov America 250 National Survey conducted between April 30 and May 4 asked 1,000 US adults ages 18 and older about their feelings as the nation prepares to celebrate its 250th year.

Thirty-eight percent of Independents answered yes while only 10 percent of Republicans said the same.

Jason Husser, director of the Elon University Poll, described a country that remains proud but uneasy as the anniversary approaches.

According to a new Elon University/YouGov poll, a full *55%* of Democrats said that they would rather live in a different country than the United States.

Only 10% of Republicans said the same. pic.twitter.com/cSpccKhC6d

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) June 7, 2026

When respondents were asked where they would choose to live outside the US, Canada topped the wish list at 19 percent, followed by the United Kingdom at 9 percent, and Japan and Australia at 5 percent each. Ireland, Switzerland, Norway, and Italy also drew interest.

According to PJ Media, the same survey found 68 percent of adults said they are proud to be American, with 95 percent of Republicans answering in the affirmative, 62 percent of independents and only 48 percent of Democrats. Similarly, a poll conducted last fall showed a majority of Democrat voters aligned with socialism over capitalism and supported far-left candidates, stating:

Unsurprisingly, the survey found that socialism is largely toxic to Republicans and many independents, explaining why far-left Democrats have had more success in places like New York City but have struggled in red and battleground areas. The poll also found that a plurality of independent voters and Republicans prefer capitalism.

American voters are leaning away from Democrats as the critical midterms approach, with a recent CNN poll showing Democrat support sliding.

In April, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) summarized the battle for the midterms, saying, "I think this election actually comes down ... to two sentences, and those sentences are 'They're crazy. We're not.' And I think we have to highlight that for the American people."

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 16:20

Dan Loeb Reveals DOJ Threat To Trump Over Ross Ulbricht Commutation In Final Hours Of First Term

Authored by Juan Galt via Bitcoin Magazine,

Hedge fund manager Dan Loeb has publicly claimed that the Department of Justice threatened President Donald Trump in the final hours of Trump's first term in January 2021, warning it would "go after" him if he commuted the sentence of Ross Ulbricht, creator of the Bitcoin-powered Silk Road marketplace. After the reported threat, Trump withdrew the commutation, forcing Ulbricht to serve four additional years in prison before receiving a full pardon in January 2025 during Trump's second term.

Loeb, founder and CEO of Third Point LLC, made the revelation on the All-In Podcast while discussing his role in criminal justice reform and Ulbricht's clemency efforts. "On the last day of Trump's 45th term, we were certain that he was going to get out," Loeb stated. "And the Justice Department, for whatever reason, said, 'If you commute his sentence, we're going to go after you,' to the president. So he, as I understand, he withdrew the commutation."

This account is the first public report of such a direct threat from the DOJ during the closing days of Trump's first presidency. It has not been independently corroborated by other sources to date, and no specific DOJ official has been named as delivering the warning. The claim rests on Loeb's recollection, likely conveyed through the advocacy chain that included crypto figures like Riva Tez, Charlie Kirk, and then-White House counsel David Warrington.

DOJ Leadership In January 2021

Jeffrey A. Rosen served as Acting Attorney General after William Barr's departure in late December 2020. Richard Donoghue was Acting Deputy Attorney General. The Office of the Pardon Attorney, a DOJ unit that reviews clemency petitions and issues recommendations, operated under their oversight. Presidents, including Trump, frequently bypassed standard OPA processes for politically sensitive cases.

The alleged threat appears to have gone well beyond typical DOJ advisory input on issues such as sentence proportionality, victim impact, or enforcement priorities. Ulbricht had been serving a double life sentence plus 40 years following his 2015 conviction on charges including operating a continuing criminal enterprise, narcotics distribution via the internet, money laundering, and hacking. Contrary to popular belief and widely publicized insinuations by the mainstream media, Ulbricht was never prosecuted on any charges related to murder for hire.

Silk Road, which relied primarily on Bitcoin for transactions, represented one of the earliest large-scale experiments in the use of an alternative currency to the dollar, making the case and its history foundational to the Bitcoin community.

A warning framed as potential retaliation against the President himself would constitute an extraordinary escalation in tensions between the executive branch and the Department of Justice over clemency authority. Such pushback likely stemmed from institutional concerns about appearing soft on major drug trafficking and money laundering cases tied to the early Bitcoin economy.

Four-Year Delay And Political Impact

The reported DOJ intervention in the final days of Trump's first term cost Ulbricht four more years behind bars. As Loeb recounted, Charlie Kirk later took the lead on the clemency effort. "This was his only ask of the president," Loeb said, referring to Kirk. Kirk's advocacy helped turn Ulbricht's release into Trump's primary promise to libertarians and the crypto community during the 2024 campaign. Trump delivered on that promise with a full and unconditional pardon early in his second term.

Ironically, the delay strengthened the "Free Ross" movement. What began as advocacy for clemency in a case viewed by many in Bitcoin circles as emblematic of government overreach evolved into a potent political force. The campaign highlighted issues of disproportionate sentencing, self-custody, privacy tools, and resistance to broadly unpopular and ineffective war on drugs, core themes in Bitcoin's ethos of financial sovereignty and of high importance to the libertarian voting block. This momentum and Trump's promise to pardon Ulbricht are widely considered to have earned Trump the libertarian and crypto vote in 2024.

Broader Context For Bitcoin

Loeb framed his involvement in Ulbricht's case as part of broader criminal justice reform, linking it to his broader philanthropy efforts on education and concerns over opportunity and income inequality. He highlighted three categories for clemency: the wrongly convicted, the rehabilitated, and those with disproportionately harsh sentences. Ulbricht, who acknowledged wrongdoing on Silk Road while denying murder-for-hire allegations, fit the latter category in Loeb's assessment.

The episode highlights ongoing tensions between law enforcement, Bitcoin innovation, and the libertarian culture that makes up a large part of the U.S. public. Silk Road, one of the earliest Bitcoin marketplaces, remains a reference point in debates over decentralization, privacy, and regulatory overreach. Similar cases continue to draw attention in the Bitcoin community, including Bitcoin activist Ian Freeman, the developers of the Samourai Wallet privacy tool, and Roman Storm of Tornado Cash - all facing charges viewed by many as attacks on Libertarian leaders, the freedom of commerce, self-custody and financial privacy tools.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 15:40

Goldman Details A Quiet Month For Western Nuclear While Russia And China Pick Up Speed

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

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

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

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

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

New reactor progress and announcements North America

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

Europe

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

Asia and other

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SMR announcement tracker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global reactor critical updates

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

Global reactor construction tracker

Fuel announcements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uranium pricing and volume trackers

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

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

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 15:20