Strategies
BTC Cross-Venue Funding Rate Arbitrage Carry (Hyperliquid vs Binance USD-M, Same-Asset Funding Differential, Market-Neutral Long-Short)
Outcome: Abandoned
BtcCrossVenueFundingDifferentialCarryHlBinanceNeutral1H
Outcome Summary
BtcCrossVenueFundingDifferentialCarryHlBinanceNeutral1H harvested the BTC funding-rate differential between Hyperliquid and Binance USD-M, delta-neutral by longing the cheaper-funding venue and shorting the richer one, filling four under-represented quotas at once. The code worked and funding was credited, but the economics were hopeless: the 5-25 bps annualized carry sat orders of magnitude below the ~19 bps two-leg fee, producing a -15.17 Sharpe, 0.77 profit factor, and an 81.7% drawdown of pure fee bleed across just 28 days of coverage. The analyst ruled it a structural edge-below-cost failure — BTC across the two most-arbitraged venues is the tightest possible spread and a dead target — while noting the mechanism could survive on a persistently high-funding altcoin pair. It ended after one iteration as abandoned, never advancing to optimization or risk review.
Hypothesis
Implementation
Backtest Review
- Max drawdown
- 0.00%
- Win rate
- 0.0%
- Profit factor
- 0.00
Strategy code functions and trades match the hypothesized mechanism: 17 balanced long/short pairs, shorting the richer-funding venue, equal-dollar delta-neutral legs
Funding is now credited by the engine, so the negative result is a genuine fee-aware verdict, not an artifact of uncredited carry
Clean implementation: goes flat when either funding series is missing, no price-only fallback
Structural cost-to-edge failure: hypothesis-stated carry of 5-25 bps ANNUALIZED vs ~19 bps round-trip taker fees on two legs — fees exceed the edge by ~100-600x
Every metric decisively negative: Sharpe -15.17, profit_factor 0.77, expectancy -$34.98/trade, commissions = 23.88% of gross PnL, win_rate 0.47
'Market-neutral' design with an 81.7% max drawdown confirms there is no real carry signal — only fee bleed and basis noise amplified by leverage
Only 28 days of dual-funding coverage (HL history overlap) — far too thin a sample to optimize 4 parameters without curve-fitting noise
High churn (34 trades / 28 days) pays the round-trip fee repeatedly while the tiny carry barely accrues over an ~11.5h avg hold
Outcome Summary
Cross-venue same-asset funding-differential carry on BTC across the two most-arbitraged venues is a dead target: the differential is the tightest possible spread (5-25 bps annualized) and sits ~100-600x below the ~19 bps two-leg round-trip fee, so fee bleed swamps the carry and even a correct delta-neutral implementation loses — the mechanism is only viable where the funding skew persistently exceeds round-trip costs (e.g., a high-funding altcoin perp), not on BTC.
It was abandoned at the pre-optimization backtest-review gate (verdict: abandon) as a structural edge-below-cost failure — funding is credited by the engine, so the negative result is a genuine fee-aware verdict that the BTC HL-vs-Binance differential is far smaller than round-trip fees — and with only 28 days of coverage and 34 trades it was far too thin to optimize, so optimization and all later stages were never reached.
A market-neutral cross-venue funding-rate-differential carry on the same underlying (BTC), longing one venue's perp and shorting the other in equal dollar notional to harvest the Hyperliquid-vs-Binance USD-M funding spread — shorting the richer-funding venue when the 8h-equivalent differential exceeded +0.02% and flattening on convergence, delta-neutral, OHLCV-plus-funding, monitored hourly, to fill four under-represented buckets (Hyperliquid, cross-venue, long_short, pairs).
Over only 28 days of dual-funding coverage and 34 trades (17 balanced pairs) it was decisively negative: Sharpe -15.17 (CI [-22.0, -10.4]), profit factor 0.77, expectancy -$34.98/trade, total return -0.45%, an 81.7% max drawdown on a supposedly market-neutral book, with commissions at 23.88% of gross — the hypothesis's 5-25 bps annualized carry sitting ~100-600x below the ~19 bps two-leg round-trip taker fee.
Backtest and paper results are hypothetical. Trading involves risk of loss.