Strategies
ETH Cross-Exchange Funding Differential Arbitrage (BINANCE Perp vs HYPERLIQUID Perp, Market-Neutral, Cross-Venue)
Outcome: Abandoned
EthCrossVenueFundingDiffCarryBinanceHlNeutral
Outcome Summary
This strategy targeted four under-represented portfolio buckets at once with a market-neutral ETH funding-differential carry, going long the lower-funding venue and short the higher-funding venue across Binance and Hyperliquid to capture the annualized spread. The code correctly implemented the delta-neutral pair and the carry was observable across 24 trades, but the edge was below cost: net funding (~$500) fell short of commissions ($934), expectancy was -$32/trade, and the signal even mis-called the funding direction on at least one pair. Headline metrics were catastrophic and implausible for a true hedge — max drawdown 142%, Sharpe -3.34 — which the reviewer flagged as a suspected stale-leg or bar-misalignment artifact. The backtest-review gate returned a 'revise_hypothesis' verdict, concluding the ETH Binance-vs-HL funding differential is too thin to beat the two-leg round-trip fee, and the strategy was abandoned without reaching optimization.
Hypothesis
Implementation
Delta-neutral cross-venue ETH funding-differential carry: long the lower-funding venue and short the higher-funding venue (equal USD notional on Binance USD-M perp vs Hyperliquid perp), capturing the net funding spread while market-neutral across exchanges. Iteration-2 hardens the trading logic against over-trading.
Backtest Review
- Sharpe
- -3.34
- Total return
- -0.65%
- Max drawdown
- 1.42%
- Trades
- 24
- Win rate
- 50.0%
- Profit factor
- 0.98
Code correctly implements the hypothesis: equal-notional, opposite-direction cross-venue ETH pair (SHORT HL + LONG Binance and vice-versa), 7-day holds, market-neutral construction
Strategy actually trades (24 trades / 12 pairs), funding is credited per leg, so the carry mechanism is observable and backtestable
Genuinely distinct, under-represented mechanism (HYPERLIQUID venue, cross-venue, market-neutral, pairs) with no prior refutation in record
Edge below cost: net funding carry across all pairs (~$500) is LESS than total commissions ($934) — the Binance-vs-HL funding differential on ETH is too thin to beat ~0.19% round-trip fees on two legs
Signal got funding direction wrong on at least one pair (net funding -62 when it entered to collect), so even the thin carry is not reliably positive
Headline metrics are catastrophic and implausible for a true delta-neutral hedge: max_drawdown 142%, Sharpe -3.34, per-leg MAE -23% to -35%, suggesting the two venue legs diverge heavily intra-hold (suspected stale-leg / bar-misalignment artifact — not independently verified)
avg_trade_return / expectancy negative (-$32/trade), profit_factor 0.98
~500 vs 934
carry>fees
Analysis
Outcome Summary
The cross-venue ETH funding differential between Binance and Hyperliquid is structurally smaller than the two-leg round-trip fee, so the carry cannot clear costs — and the catastrophic non-neutral drawdown signals a likely leg-alignment bug that must be ruled out before such a hedge can be trusted.
It was abandoned after the backtest-review gate returned a 'revise_hypothesis' verdict: the ETH Binance-vs-HL funding differential was too thin to beat the ~0.19% two-leg round-trip fee, the signal even got the funding direction wrong on at least one pair, and the analyst, risk, and optimization stages were never reached.
A market-neutral cross-exchange funding-differential carry on ETH that held a delta-neutral pair — long the lower-funding venue and short the higher-funding venue between the Binance USD-M and Hyperliquid perps (cadence-normalized and EMA-smoothed) — to collect the net funding spread when the annualized differential exceeded a threshold.
Over the backtest it placed 24 trades (12 pairs) with a 50% win rate and ~7-day holds but lost money: total return -0.65%, Sharpe -3.34, profit factor 0.98, negative expectancy (-$32/trade), and net funding carry (~$500) was less than total commissions ($934); the headline metrics were implausible for a true hedge (max drawdown 142%, per-leg MAE -23% to -35%), suspected to be a stale-leg/bar-misalignment artifact.
Backtest and paper results are hypothetical. Trading involves risk of loss.