Iranian uprising

An effective altruism-linked organization, as of last month, is paying $2,000 in weekly compensation for an ostensibly grassroots anti-AI media campaign. 

Irreplaceable, which employs a campaign strategist who also works for the effective altruism-funded Center for AI Safety, supports protests against AI as a way to advocate for regulations that could benefit the effective altruism agenda.

“What’s missing is coordinated action that forces the government to respond,” it claimed.

It’s currently recruiting student protest leaders for an anti-AI uprising in October. They’ll help to coordinate walkouts at more than 100 colleges to demand new regulations to affect the AI industry.

But if the writing sometimes comes off as winking and belabored, the acting is not. Malkovich and Rockwell are a joy to watch, and that, after all, is what we continue to go to the movies for: to see actors at play, even as they work. Malkovich’s Chris and Rockwell’s Lee are an odd-couple duo who have been working together long enough to intuit one another’s thoughts and moods. They also bicker, a lot. Lee seems annoyed by his elder partner’s tendency to tootle down trails of fanciful thought. In an early scene, Chris complains that his apartment in Santiago is riddled with moths, and he doesn’t want them to ruin his clothes. But he also doesn’t want to kill them. Instead, he says, “I’ve been escorting them outside.” It’s 1973, not long before socialist president Salvador Allende will be overthrown in a military coup—Chris and Lee know that’s going to happen, given that their job is to destabilize democratic governments here and there around the world. In one of his many pensive moments, Chris muses, “Sometimes I think I care about the moths in Chile more than I care about the people in Chile.”

Binance has denied that a system or pricing failure caused more than $5 million in alleged trader losses as the AKEUSDT perpetual contract surged from about $0.0076 to nearly $0.045 on Sept. 3.

Binance says AKE liquidations followed market volatility

X user xunlu alleged that more than 30 funding-rate arbitrage positions on Binance were liquidated within minutes at around 5:44 a.m. UTC+8 on Sept. 3.

The trader estimated the losses at more than 5 million USDT and alleged that the sudden move resulted from coordinated activity in the AKE market rather than ordinary trading.

Responding to the complaint, Binance Customer Support said AKE recorded large price swings across several exchanges and on-chain markets during the same period. The exchange attributed the liquidations to market conditions and rejected the claim that a technical problem on its platform caused the losses.

Binance also said an internal review found no fault in its pricing model, risk controls or liquidation engine. According to the exchange, its systems remained operational while the contract moved sharply, leaving leveraged positions exposed to an adverse price change.

The distinction matters because a liquidation can occur even when an exchange has not experienced an outage. Once the value of a trader’s collateral falls below the maintenance margin required for a position, the platform can close the trade automatically to prevent the account from building a larger deficit.

An August guide to margin calls published by crypto.news explained that automated crypto liquidations can move from a warning to forced closure within minutes. Unlike traditional markets, crypto derivatives trade around the clock, leaving traders with little time to add collateral during a fast price move.

AKEUSDT mark price relies on external spot markets

Binance does not offer AKE through its spot market, meaning the AKEUSDT perpetual contract cannot use an AKE price formed on Binance’s own spot order book. The exchange said it instead calculates the contract’s mark price from data gathered across several external spot venues.

A multi-market index is designed to reduce the effect of an abnormal print or short-lived price gap on a single exchange. Binance maintained that the index and mark-price process functioned as intended during the Sept. 3 volatility.

Perpetual futures do not represent ownership of the underlying token. Traders post collateral and take long or short exposure to a contract whose value tracks the asset, while recurring funding payments help keep the contract close to spot prices.

As a perpetual futures explainer noted in June, the mark price, rather than the last traded contract price, commonly determines when a leveraged position is liquidated. Exchanges generally calculate that mark from an index and a funding-related adjustment to limit liquidations caused by brief movements in the futures order book.

For AKEUSDT, the absence of a Binance spot pair makes the composition and behavior of the external index central to the disagreement. The trader has asked Binance to disclose the relevant trading records, liquidation data, and risk-control logs so the calculation can be examined.

Publicly available aggregated spot charts showed heavy volatility during the session. However, the highest combined spot reading was below the contract peak cited by the trader. The report said the gap could have resulted from price differences between the futures contract, external spot venues, or the index used to produce the mark price, but it did not establish which factor accounted for the difference.

Trader alleges AKE short squeeze hit arbitrage positions

The complainant described the affected trades as funding-rate arbitrage positions, a strategy that usually seeks to earn payments created by differences in perpetual-market positioning rather than profit from a token’s direction.

Funding-rate arbitrage commonly combines offsetting positions to reduce directional exposure. One version pairs a spot purchase with a short perpetual contract, allowing the trader to collect funding when short holders receive payments from longs. Other structures may spread positions across several exchanges or contracts.

Although such trades are often called market-neutral, they still carry execution, liquidity, collateral and exchange risks. A cash-and-carry guide published in August noted that an arbitrage position can face a margin call when its leveraged leg moves sharply, even if the combined trade is intended to limit exposure to price direction.

AKE’s reported rise from about $0.0076 to nearly $0.045 would amount to an increase of roughly 492%, or almost six times the starting price. A move of that size can rapidly reduce the margin supporting short futures positions, particularly when liquidity is thin and several trades share the same exposure.

The trader characterized the episode as a short squeeze, in which rising prices force short sellers to close their positions by buying back contracts. Such forced purchases can add to upward pressure and trigger further liquidations when nearby short positions breach their maintenance requirements.

During an unrelated market event in August, a $3 billion squeeze liquidated about $2.77 billion in short positions across major exchanges. Binance accounted for approximately $518 million of the total, while forced purchases pushed prices higher and activated more liquidations. The figures show how automated closures can accelerate an existing move, though they do not establish whether manipulation occurred in AKE.

Binance has attributed the Sept. 3 liquidations to the risks attached to leveraged trading and has not accepted the trader’s claim of coordinated market manipulation. No market regulator or independent investigator has publicly reached a finding on the allegation.

U.S. traders face a different perpetual futures market

For U.S. readers, the AKE dispute concerns an offshore Binance product that is not offered through Binance.US. American access to crypto derivatives remains subject to Commodity Futures Trading Commission rules, while offshore perpetual contracts have historically offered assets and leverage levels unavailable on regulated U.S. platforms.

Regulated perpetual futures began entering the U.S. market in 2026. The CFTC approved a Bitcoin perpetual contract from Kalshi in May, followed by contracts tied to other digital assets, while Coinbase secured another regulated path for domestic perpetual products.

U.S. platforms operate under different product approvals, leverage limits, and market-surveillance requirements. CME Group has challenged the CFTC’s treatment of perpetual futures, arguing that the products should fall under swap rules in the Dodd-Frank Act rather than be regulated as standard futures contracts.

In his complaint, the AKE trader also referred to an earlier TUT liquidation incident and said competing exchanges compensated some affected users. Binance has not agreed that the two events are comparable, maintaining that the AKE positions were closed because of market risk rather than an exchange pricing mistake.

Binance had acknowledged the complaint but had not announced compensation. The trader has requested the full transaction history, liquidation records, and risk-control logs related to the Sept. 3 session.

Prediction-market operator Kalshi is reportedly preparing to file with the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) for a new kind of energy derivative: a West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil perpetual futures contract that would never expire. Bloomberg reports the filing could be made as soon as next week, while Reuters adds that the product would be available 24 hours a day, five days a week.

If regulators approve it, the contract would represent the first oil-linked perpetual futures offering to trade on a regulated US venue—an important test case for how the CFTC handles perpetual structures in markets traditionally built around fixed expiration dates.

Key takeaways

• Kalshi is reportedly seeking CFTC approval for a WTI crude oil perpetual futures contract with no expiration date.
• Bloomberg reports the CFTC filing could happen as soon as next week; Reuters says trading would run 24/5.
• The approval would mark the first oil-linked perpetual futures product to trade on a regulated US platform.
• The proposal arrives as the CFTC evaluates 24/7 trading expansion and whether perpetual contracts can be structured around physically delivered or storable energy commodities.
• Kalshi is also facing an ongoing jurisdictional fight over event contracts in state courts, creating additional regulatory friction beyond derivatives design.

A perpetual structure meets an oil market built on expiry dates

Perpetual futures—often called “perps”—differ from standard futures in that they do not have a set settlement or expiration date. In practice, this means traders can hold positions indefinitely without repeatedly rolling exposure into new contracts.

That structure is more familiar in some crypto derivatives markets, but it is still emerging in regulated commodity trading. Kalshi’s reported plan to attach the perpetual format to a benchmark like WTI is therefore notable not just for novelty, but for what it implies about regulatory comfort with perpetual mechanics in traditional commodities.

Bloomberg says Kalshi would file the contract with the CFTC, and Reuters reports it would trade 24 hours a day, five days a week. If approved, this could reshape how participants think about maintaining exposure to crude oil price risk—particularly for traders who prefer continuous participation instead of managing expiries and roll calendars.

CFTC groundwork: 24/7 trading and perpetual energy contracts

Kalshi’s oil perp push is happening against a backdrop of active CFTC consideration of market design. In June, the regulator sought public comments on extending standard futures contracts to 24/7 trading. The notice also touched on allowing perpetual contracts tied to physically delivered or storable energy commodities, including crude oil.

Later, in July, the CFTC halted the self-certified listing of a CME Group contract intended to bring 24/7 crude oil futures trading. The regulator said it was examining whether the product complied with federal commodities law, illustrating that expansions in trading hours and product structure face close scrutiny rather than automatic approval.

Now, with Kalshi reportedly pursuing a perpetual approach for WTI, the same core questions remain: how perpetual products fit within existing futures and commodities frameworks, and what guardrails are required for exchanges to operate these contracts legally.

Regulatory momentum doesn’t eliminate legal headwinds for Kalshi

While Kalshi’s derivatives ambitions focus on federal commodity regulation, the company also remains embroiled in separate legal disputes tied to its prediction-market business. Those disputes affect the operator’s broader business strategy and could influence how aggressively it expands into new asset classes or geographies.

On Tuesday, a Michigan state court issued a preliminary injunction barring Kalshi from offering sports-related event contracts in the state and requiring geofencing that blocks Michigan residents. Earlier this week, New Jersey asked the US Supreme Court to weigh in on a jurisdictional dispute after federal appeals courts reached conflicting decisions in cases involving New Jersey and Nevada. Reuters reported on the request, underscoring that the legal uncertainty is not confined to a single venue or state.

In other words, even if Kalshi secures regulatory traction in commodities derivatives, it is simultaneously managing uncertainty over whether federal commodities law preempts state gambling enforcement against event contracts traded on CFTC-regulated exchanges. That dual-track reality highlights how, for prediction-market operators, the compliance landscape can become broader than any single product filing.

Broader push for perpetual products: energy and beyond

Kalshi’s oil perpetual concept also reflects a wider industry interest in perpetual futures being brought “onshore” and aligned with US regulatory frameworks. In late August, Ondo Finance submitted comment letters to the SEC and CFTC urging regulators to bring perpetual futures tied to individual stocks onto regulated US venues.

Ondo argued that such products could potentially operate under the existing security futures framework without requiring entirely new rules. While Ondo’s proposal concerns stocks rather than crude oil, the underlying theme is consistent: market participants want perpetual-style trading to fit within established regulator-approved categories.

For investors and traders, this matters because product availability changes the mechanics of hedging, speculating, and managing liquidity. Perpetuals, if permitted and structured properly, can reduce the operational friction of rolling exposure, but they also raise regulatory expectations around risk controls, transparency, and the legal classification of these instruments.

For now, much hinges on what the CFTC decides to accept—and how it interprets the contract’s perpetual nature relative to commodities law. Readers should watch for whether Kalshi’s reported filing is submitted on schedule, how the agency responds, and whether any additional approvals or objections signal a broader shift toward perpetual derivatives for physical or storable commodities.