Perpetual Funding Arbitrage

No. Some structures are intra-venue (spot vs perpetual on the same exchange), but cross-venue differences often matter for deployability and friction. Intra-venue setups avoid transfer risk but may have less favorable rates.

Fees, crowding, and shrinking funding persistence are common sources of degradation. As more participants enter a trade, funding rates compress toward equilibrium, often faster than naive projections suggest.

Compare advertised and Model-Adjusted APR together with Mirage, freshness, and capacity instead of reading the highest raw rate in isolation.

Most exchanges use 8-hour funding intervals, though some use 4-hour or 1-hour periods. Shorter intervals mean more frequent but smaller payments, and potentially faster signal about rate direction changes. Longer intervals mean larger single payments but more time for rates to shift.

Execution timing matters because entering legs sequentially creates temporary directional exposure. Some traders enter the less liquid leg first, while others use limit orders on both sides. The cost of execution slippage should be factored into expected returns.

Exchanges differ in funding interval frequency, fee structures, collateral requirements, liquidation mechanics, and available pairs. Some exchanges have consistently higher or lower rates on certain assets due to user base composition and market maker activity.

Yes, but automation introduces its own risks: API rate limits, execution failures, network latency, and the need for robust error handling. Automated systems also need monitoring for edge cases that manual traders would catch intuitively.