$AKE — FORMAL UPDATE I have now formally filed an IC3 complaint with the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center, in addition to my previous CFTC Form TCR. The submission covers the suspected coordinated activity surrounding $AKE / AKEUSDT, including the highly homogeneous wallet cluster, unresolved token-distribution and airdrop questions, AKE-to-stablecoin flows, extremely thin Binance Alpha liquidity, and the persistent mirrored bid/ask behavior I have documented. The central question remains unchanged: Who actually controlled the relevant AKE wallets — and were those same persons or linked accounts also trading AKEUSDT derivatives? That answer requires records the public cannot access: KYC ownership, master/sub-accounts, API relationships, IP/device data, deposits/withdrawals, full order history, positions, P&L and liquidation counterparties. Those records exist. The exchanges hold them. Law enforcement and regulators can obtain them. I have preserved the full evidence package and will continue submitting material evidence through the appropriate channels. If you were affected by $AKE / AKEUSDT, preserve your trade history, liquidation records, screenshots, wallet addresses and TxHashes. Do not rely on screenshots alone. Preserve the original records. @akedofun @BNBCHAIN @cz_binance @heyibinance @okx @star_okx @FBI @CFTC $AKE #AKEUSDT# #CFTC# #IC3# #MarketIntegrity#

If the platform continues to avoid providing a substantive response to these verifiable issues, I will submit the complete evidence package, together with any newly identified material, to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), while continuing to supplement my existing CFTC submission. Whether these matters warrant investigation should be determined by regulators and law-enforcement authorities — not by silence from the platform. @binance @cz_binance @heyibinance $AKE #AKE#

$AKE / AKEUSDT There is now a very simple contrast in the $AKE investigation. Pieverse responded. @pieverse_io’s CMO contacted me directly and put the company’s position on record. According to Pieverse: BERLIN had been contracted as a community moderator. Pieverse stated that he was not an employee and did not have access beyond community-facing tools. Pieverse also stated that it had no involvement in AKE issuance, market making, liquidity, treasury, exchange accounts, API trading or wallets. Then came the more important part. Pieverse said that after becoming aware of @BERLIN_x_’s connection to AKEDO, it conducted an internal review. Pieverse stated that BERLIN’s AKEDO connection was considered a “red flag”, and that the working relationship was terminated. That statement is now part of the record. But several factual questions remain unanswered: When did @BERLIN_x_ begin working with @pieverse_io? When exactly was that relationship terminated? Did his work for Pieverse overlap with his role at AKEDO? What did the internal review actually examine? Why was BERLIN’s AKEDO connection considered serious enough to terminate the relationship? Those questions remain open. And there is another point that deserves attention. The Binance interface itself has displayed BERLIN as “Builder” in connection with AKE. At the same time, X displayed @BERLIN_x_ as an affiliated account of @pieverse_io. Pieverse has now placed its own version of events on record. Those records can be compared. That is how factual scrutiny is supposed to work. NOW COMPARE THAT WITH BINANCE @binance @cz_binance Binance has already responded publicly regarding AKEUSDT. But its response focused on: market-wide volatility external spot prices index pricing mark-price methodology None of that answers the question I have repeatedly raised. I am not asking whether Binance’s pricing engine operated according to its formula. I am asking: WHO CONTROLLED THE ACCOUNTS TRADING AKEUSDT? And: WERE ANY OF THOSE ACCOUNTS LINKED — DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY — TO PERSONS OR ENTITIES CONTROLLING MATERIAL AKE SUPPLY? That requires examining: KYC ownership master / sub-account relationships API relationships deposit / withdrawal attribution market-maker accounts order history positions P&L liquidation counterparties Those records exist inside Binance. An explanation of index pricing does not answer an account-attribution question. “Market-wide volatility” does not answer it either. PIEVERSE PUT ITS POSITION ON RECORD. BINANCE SHOULD DO THE SAME. @pieverse_io was asked about BERLIN and AKE. It responded. It described BERLIN’s role. It denied involvement in AKE operations. It acknowledged an internal review. It acknowledged terminating the relationship after identifying BERLIN’s AKEDO connection as a red flag. Those statements can now be preserved and tested against other records. Now the question to @binance is equally specific: Did Binance investigate whether AKEUSDT trading accounts were connected to wallets controlling significant AKE supply? And one step further: Were any Binance employees, affiliates, market makers, liquidity providers, sub-accounts, API-linked accounts or related entities connected to the abnormal AKE / AKEUSDT market activity? This is not a question about mark price. It is not a question about an index formula. It is an account-attribution and market-integrity question. It requires an internal investigation and a factual answer. THE RECORDS ALREADY EXIST I am not asking Binance to speculate. I am asking Binance to examine records it already possesses. Who deposited? Who withdrew? Who controlled the accounts? Which accounts were linked? Which APIs were connected? Who held the positions? Who profited? Who were the liquidation counterparties? Were relevant trading accounts connected to wallets controlling material AKE supply? Were any Binance-linked accounts involved? These questions have factual answers. MATERIAL EVIDENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN PRESERVED Material on-chain evidence concerning $AKE / AKEUSDT has already been preserved and submitted for regulatory review. I will not publish the complete wallet map, transaction routes or account-linkage analysis on social media. That is unnecessary. The public question to Binance is much simpler: HAS BINANCE ACTUALLY INVESTIGATED THE ACCOUNT RELATIONSHIPS BEHIND AKEUSDT? If yes: Say so. Explain what categories of records were examined. If no: Why not? Because repeatedly explaining index pricing while avoiding the account-attribution question is not an answer. @binance @cz_binance @pieverse_io was capable of putting its position on record. Now Binance should do the same. Who controlled the AKEUSDT accounts? Were they linked to material AKE supply? Were any Binance-linked accounts involved? Has Binance Market Surveillance / Compliance actually investigated this? You hold the records. Preserve them. Investigate them. Answer the actual questions. @akedofun @BERLIN_x_ @pieverse_io @binance @cz_binance $AKE #AKE# #AKEUSDT# #CFTC# #Binance# #MarketIntegrity#

FORMAL UPDATE — $AKE / AKEUSDT I have submitted a formal Form TCR to the U.S. CFTC concerning $AKE / AKEUSDT. Since that filing, additional material on-chain evidence has been identified, preserved, and submitted to the regulator. I will not publicly disclose the complete evidentiary record, wallet map, transaction routes, or account-linkage analysis while these materials remain before the regulator. The blockchain records exist. The exchange records exist. The questions are now very simple. 1. WHERE DID THE AKE TOKENS ACTUALLY GO? AKEDO publicly describes allocations involving: Community Airdrops Players Nodes Creators Investors Contributors / Advisors So answer the most basic question: Who actually received those tokens? Not allocation percentages. Not tokenomics graphics. Not a circulating-supply figure. Actual recipients. If substantial amounts of AKE were genuinely distributed to independent community participants, then publish enough information for the market to verify that distribution independently: recipient addresses TxHashes distribution dates amounts claim / vesting mechanisms aggregate recipient counts Because: UNLOCK ≠ DISTRIBUTION And: A TOKEN MOVING TO ANOTHER WALLET DOES NOT PROVE INDEPENDENT OWNERSHIP. The relevant question is not simply whether tokens were technically “unlocked.” The question is: WHO ULTIMATELY CONTROLLED THEM? 2. WHO BENEFICIALLY CONTROLLED THE RELEVANT WALLETS? Material wallet relationships and transaction paths have already been preserved and submitted. I am not going to publish the complete map in advance. The question is straightforward: Were apparently separate wallets genuinely controlled by independent parties? If yes, the records can establish that. If not, the records can establish that too. Blockchain transactions do not disappear. Neither do exchange deposit and withdrawal records. 3. WHO WAS TRADING AKEUSDT WHILE THESE EVENTS OCCURRED? AKEUSDT experienced extraordinary periods involving: rapid price expansion major Open Interest growth deeply negative funding violent short squeezes concentrated liquidations sharp subsequent reversals The important question is not whether individual traders made or lost money. It is: WHO WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THOSE TRADES? And more specifically: WERE ANY OF THOSE TRADING ACCOUNTS LINKED — DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY — TO PERSONS OR ENTITIES CONTROLLING MATERIAL AKE SUPPLY? Public blockchain data can answer part of that question. Exchange records can answer the rest. Those records include: KYC / beneficial ownership master / sub-account relationships API relationships deposit / withdrawal attribution order history positions P&L liquidation records There is no need to speculate about whether these records exist. They do. 4. @BINANCE — THIS IS AN ACCOUNT-ATTRIBUTION QUESTION @binance @cz_binance The central issue is no longer simply whether AKEUSDT pricing systems functioned mechanically as designed. The question is narrower: Who controlled the accounts trading AKEUSDT during the abnormal market events? And: Were those accounts linked, directly or indirectly, to wallets controlling significant AKE supply? That question cannot be answered by referring to an external price index. It requires account attribution. The relevant internal records can establish the answer. Those records should be preserved. 5. @AKEDOFUN — SHOW THE DISTRIBUTION @akedofun If AKE community allocations and airdrops were distributed as represented, then that distribution should be independently demonstrable. So demonstrate it. Show where the tokens actually went. Not where they were supposed to go. Not what category they were assigned to. Where they actually went. If a broad population of genuine independent users received these tokens, there should be a verifiable on-chain distribution trail consistent with that claim. This should not require trust. It should require only evidence. 6. BERLIN / PIEVERSE — THE QUESTIONS REMAIN OPEN Specific questions concerning the historical roles and relationships involving BERLIN, AKEDO, and Pieverse have also been preserved for regulatory review. @BERLIN_x_ @pieverse_io The relevant questions concern: actual operational roles contractual relationships knowledge of AKE-related operations wallet relationships exchange or trading relationships Pieverse has not provided me with a substantive response to the specific questions I previously raised. Those questions remain open. I am not asking for another general statement. I am asking for records capable of resolving them. Dates. Contracts. Roles. Wallet relationships. Exchange relationships. These are factual questions. They can be answered with factual records. 7. TO ANY REAL AKE AIRDROP RECIPIENT If you genuinely received an AKE community airdrop, I want to hear from you. You do not need to disclose your identity. Provide: TxHash date amount distribution / claim mechanism A verifiable transaction is enough to begin. If broad, genuine community distribution occurred, the community itself should be able to demonstrate that on-chain. 8. CALL FOR EVIDENCE If you possess original evidence concerning AKE / AKEUSDT, preserve it. Especially: wallet addresses TxHashes exchange transaction records historical positions orders liquidations funding / OI records allocation or vesting records market-maker or project communications original screenshots / archived materials If you independently possess evidence concerning potentially manipulative or disruptive trading activity, you may submit your own Form TCR to the U.S. CFTC based on facts you personally observed or independently verified. Do not copy another person's conclusions. Submit original evidence. Preserve the original files. The complete evidentiary record will not be litigated on social media. Material evidence has been preserved. Material evidence has been submitted. Additional evidence will continue to be submitted when appropriate. The public questions are deliberately simple: Where did the tokens actually go? Who ultimately controlled the wallets? Who controlled the relevant trading accounts? Who was trading AKEUSDT during the abnormal market events? @akedofun @binance @cz_binance @BERLIN_x_ @pieverse_io These questions have factual answers. The blockchain contains part of the record. The exchanges hold the rest. Preserve the records. Answer the questions. $AKE #AKE# #AKEUSDT# #CFTC# #Crypto# #MarketIntegrity# #Tokenomics#

🚨 FORMAL RISK WARNING — $AKE The most disturbing question surrounding $AKE may not be its price action. It is much simpler: Where did the alleged community airdrops and unlocked tokens actually go? AKEDO’s tokenomics describe substantial allocations for: • Community • Nodes • Players • Creators • Airdrops Yet despite these claims, I have still not found sufficiently transparent, independently verifiable on-chain evidence showing that these tokens were broadly distributed to a large population of genuine, unrelated users. What we did find is far more concerning. 98 highly homogeneous $AKE wallets Together, these wallets held approximately: 20.87 BILLION AKE ≈ 20.87% of the total supply At the time they were identified: • 98/98 held exactly 0.001 BNB • 98/98 had nonce = 0 • Their AKE balances fell within an unusually narrow range • They held virtually no other meaningful assets • Their wallet structures were extraordinarily similar This is not what one would normally expect from a naturally distributed group of independent retail holders. And the situation becomes even more concerning. Some wallets from this broader structure later began showing: AKE transfer → wallet emptied → funds moved into another address We are continuing to reconstruct those migration paths. So the question to @akedofun is straightforward: Where are the independently verifiable recipients? If billions of tokens were genuinely distributed to community members, players, creators, nodes and airdrop recipients, then publish the evidence. Addresses. Transaction hashes. Distribution methodology. Recipient counts. Actual on-chain dispersion. Because: Unlocking tokens does NOT mean distributing tokens. And moving tokens between wallets does NOT automatically create genuine circulating supply. Unlock ≠ Distribution. Distribution ≠ Decentralization. This matters even more because $AKE has also experienced an extraordinary derivatives-market structure: • rapid Open Interest expansion • deeply negative funding • violent short squeezes • concentrated liquidations • extreme price expansion followed by sharp reversals When a token displays both: an unusually concentrated and opaque supply structure AND extreme derivatives-market behavior the beneficial ownership of that supply becomes a serious market-integrity question. @binance @cz_binance: This is precisely why identifying who ultimately controlled these wallets — and whether any related accounts participated in $AKEUSDT derivatives trading — matters. I am not claiming that common control of all 98 wallets has already been proven. I am saying the observable structure is sufficiently abnormal that it deserves independent investigation. And if these wallets represent legitimate community distribution, there should be no difficulty demonstrating that transparently on-chain. Until that evidence exists, market participants should be extremely cautious about treating $AKE’s reported “unlocked” or “circulating” supply as proof of genuine decentralized distribution. The relevant wallet evidence, transaction paths and cross-token relationships are continuing to be documented and preserved for regulatory review. The blockchain is public. The distribution should be provable. So prove it. @akedofun @binance @cz_binance #AKE# #AKEDO# #Binance# #Crypto# #Tokenomics# #MarketIntegrity#