Comparing Crypto Bitcoin Perpetual Swaps Across Exchanges
Summary
This comparison explains how Bitcoin perpetual swaps work and how their funding and margin specifications differed across exchanges. A perpetual contract has no expiry date; periodic funding payments are intended to keep its price aligned with a reference market. The article compares products from several venues and emphasizes that funding rates can vary with settlement currency, funding schedule, index, liquidity, and exchange characteristics. It reports substantial differences in annualized funding over the periods examined, making venue selection relevant to the costs of holding a position over time.
The margin discussion distinguishes initial margin, required to open a position, from maintenance margin, required to keep it open. Advertised maximum leverage can overstate practical exposure because maintenance requirements may trigger liquidation after a small adverse move. The article gives historical funding observations from 2019 and examples of exchange-specific leverage and position limits. These figures describe particular products and periods, not current terms; contract rules and exchange conditions can change, so the comparisons are not a timeless ranking or a complete assessment of execution and counterparty risks.
Key ideas
- Perpetual swaps have no expiry and use periodic funding to keep contract prices near a reference price.
- Funding rates differed substantially across exchanges in the historical periods examined.
- Funding costs can materially affect returns for traders who hold perpetual positions over time.
- Maintenance margin and liquidation rules can make practical leverage much lower than advertised leverage.
Tags
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.