Skip to content

View translation

BTC Cross-Settlement Funding Arbitrage (BINANCE_CM Inverse Perp + BINANCE USD-M Perp, Same-Asset Cross-Margin-Type Hedged)

Hypothesis

Cross-settlement-type funding arbitrage on BTC perpetuals: capture the funding-rate differential between BINANCE_CM's BTC-margined inverse perp (BTCUSD_PERP.BINANCE_CM) and BINANCE USD-M's USDT-margined linear perp (BTCUSDT.BINANCE) by simultaneously taking opposite-direction positions on the SAME underlying asset across the two settlement-type venues. Both legs are BTC exposure — they CANCEL OUT directionally — leaving only the funding-rate differential between the two markets as the net PnL source. The two venues attract DIFFERENT participants: USD-M is dominated by USDT-speculator retail flow (higher leverage, more bullish bias, higher funding); CM is dominated by BTC-holding institutions and miners (lower leverage, hedging-driven, often lower funding). This structural participant-mix difference creates persistent funding-rate gaps between the two. The strategy SIMULTANEOUSLY FILLS FOUR severely under-represented portfolio buckets in a single hypothesis: (a) BINANCE_CM venue (0.2% → ≥5% target, the LARGEST gap I haven't filled), (b) cross-venue scope (4.1% → ≥15%), (c) market-neutral direction (8.7% → reducing 91.3% long-only), (d) pairs scope (13.8% → reducing 79.5% single). Mechanism class is COMPLETELY NEW to factory record — no failure pattern involves cross-settlement-type funding arbitrage. Distinct from BtcSpotPerpFundingCarryHedged (already abandoned due to BINANCE_SPOT data refill) because (1) both legs are perps (no spot dependency = no BINANCE_SPOT data refill risk), (2) funding source is the DIFFERENTIAL between two perp markets, not the absolute funding on one perp.

Backtest and paper results are hypothetical. Trading involves risk of loss.