From ef8c68f163fe99ef5b8c36b4d7f6e9a77de2853d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chen Yang <yc4646@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 15:05:17 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] Updated perpetual paper link.

---
 index.html | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/index.html b/index.html
index 0eadfda..e09551f 100644
--- a/index.html
+++ b/index.html
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ Postgraduate Courses
 
     </li><br>
     <li>Arbitrage in Perpetual Contracts (with <a href="https://sites.google.com/view/mindai/home" target="_blank">Min Dai</a> and Linfeng Li).<br>
-        Working Paper. [<a href="" onclick="toggleAbstract('abs_arbPerp');return false">Abstract</a>|<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5262857" target="_blank">SSRN</a>]<br>
+        Working Paper. [<a href="" onclick="toggleAbstract('abs_arbPerp');return false">Abstract</a>|<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5262988" target="_blank">SSRN</a>]<br>
         <div style="display:none" id="abs_arbPerp">
         <hr>
         <i>Perpetual contracts, designed to track the underlying price through a funding swap mechanism, have gained significant popularity in cryptocurrency markets. However, observed price discrepancies between perpetual contracts and the underlying asset cannot be explained solely by transaction fees. By examining the impact of the clamping function inherent in the funding swap mechanism -- an overlooked aspect in existing literature -- we derive model-free no-arbitrage bounds for perpetual contracts. Our findings reveal that these bounds persist as intervals even without transaction fees, due to the clamping function. Empirical analysis using two years of Binance data supports the validity of our proposed bounds. </i>