Skip to content
FAR strategy avatar
RejectedFAR

Funding-Rate Arbitrage

FAR · Cross-Exchange Funding Arbitrage

Cross-venue perpetual funding arbitrage

Variant retired — the placebo passes (g7) but only 3 of 11 gates clear overall. The cross-venue funding spread is real but too thin to survive execution costs in this configuration.

Category
Carry (crypto)
Window
In progress
Instruments
Crypto perps (cross-venue)
Timeframe
Funding interval
Tested
2026-06-25

Pending validation

A scaled equity curve appears here once this strategy clears the data needed to compute one honestly. We don't show a curve we can't stand behind.

See what the gates require →
0.11Profit factor
-16.47Sharpe
-87.4%Max drawdown
Not measuredWin rate
5,812Trades
3/11Gates passed
PASSPlacebo

How it works

Backfilling
  1. The bet

    What market behavior this strategy is wagering on.

    Plain-English explainer is backfilling — check back tomorrow. We publish the explanation only once it's written and reviewed, never auto-filled.

  2. How it decides

    What makes it enter, size, and exit a position.

    Plain-English explainer is backfilling — check back tomorrow. We publish the explanation only once it's written and reviewed, never auto-filled.

  3. How it can break

    The regimes and failure modes that turn the edge negative.

    Plain-English explainer is backfilling — check back tomorrow. We publish the explanation only once it's written and reviewed, never auto-filled.

Gate scorecard — 3 / 11

auto-imported from results.json
#GateResultPass
01Minimum sample5812 trades (8h blocks)
02Profit factor ≥ 1.20PF 0.107 net
03Sharpe ≥ 0.6daily Sharpe -16.47
04Max drawdown ≤ 12%MaxDD -87.44%
05Positive ≥ 60% of periods3% months positive
06Bootstrap LB Sharpe > 02.5% LB daily Sharpe -18.15
07Placebo beats p95real PF 0.107 vs placebo p95 0.022 (frac>=real 0.000)
082× cost stress PF > 1.02x-cost PF 0.053
09Deflated Sharpe positiveSR_hat -16.47 vs SR0 3.03, DSR 0.000
10No component > 40%max coin share 56%
11Walk-forward OOS ≥ 0.9× ISOOS PF 0.122 / IS PF 0.098 = 1.24

VERDICT: VARIANT RETIRED (g7 passed but other gates failed) + reconsideration note (3/11 gates pass)

Placebo (KILL SHOT): real PF 0.107 vs placebo p95 0.022 -> g7 PASS (frac of placebos >= real: 0.000)

Honest prior was 45% (highest of the batch, a real arb). Result below.

VENUE-DATA-AVAILABILITY

  • Used (free + reachable): Hyperliquid, dYdX_v4
  • UNAVAILABLE: Binance_global_fapi — HTTP 451 geoblocked
  • UNAVAILABLE: Coinbase — spot only, no perp funding
  • Coins: BTC, ETH
  • Window: 2023-10-26 .. 2026-06-21 (HL+dYdX overlap; dYdX v4 funding starts 2023-10-31)
  • DEGRADED: only 2 venues. A 2-venue spread is the minimum testable cross-venue arb. With only HL & dYdX, ‘most negative vs most positive’ reduces to long-cheaper / short-dearer of two legs. This is itself a finding: the free-data universe does not support a wide cross-venue book (Binance global geoblocked, Coinbase has no perp funding).

METHODOLOGY & DELTA-NEUTRAL CONSTRUCTION

  • Per coin: long the venue with more-negative trailing 8h funding, short the more-positive. Matched notional => delta-neutral (same coin both venues; the two price legs cancel to first order, only the HL-vs-dYdX basis drift remains, which is second-order and not separately modeled — flagged as a small omitted term).
  • Funding accrues HOURLY on both legs (both venues fund hourly). Side re-decided every 8h using the prior block’s realized spread (PIT, no look-ahead).
  • Captured carry per hour = side * (f_HL - f_dYdX). PnL$ = capture * sleeve notional (equity/2 per coin, 1x, daily-compounded).
  • Cost model (BASE, pessimistic): taker 4.5 bps + slippage 3.0 bps per side per venue. A side FLIP closes 2 legs + opens 2 legs = 30 bps of notional. BASE = hold-through (cost only on flip). CHURN variant pays full round-trip every reset.

HEADLINE METRICS (BASE hold-through)

  • Final equity: $646 (start $5,000)
  • Trades (8h blocks): 5812
  • PF net: 0.107 Sharpe (daily, sqrt252): -16.47 MaxDD: -87.44%
  • Months positive: 3% 2x-cost PF: 0.053
  • CHURN variant: PF 0.000, final $1 (shows reset-churn cost drag)

11-GATE TABLE

Gate Result Detail
g1_min_100_trades PASS 5812 trades (8h blocks)
g2_PF_ge_1.20 FAIL PF 0.107 net
g3_Sharpe_ge_0.6 FAIL daily Sharpe -16.47
g4_MaxDD_le_12pct FAIL MaxDD -87.44%
g5_pos_months_ge_60pct FAIL 3% months positive
g6_bootstrap_LB_Sharpe_gt_0 FAIL 2.5% LB daily Sharpe -18.15
g7_placebo_beat_p95 PASS real PF 0.107 vs placebo p95 0.022 (frac>=real 0.000)
g8_2x_cost_PF_gt_1.0 FAIL 2x-cost PF 0.053
g9_DSR_positive FAIL SR_hat -16.47 vs SR0 3.03, DSR 0.000
g10_no_component_gt_40pct FAIL max coin share 56%
g11_walkforward_OOS_ge_0.9IS PASS OOS PF 0.122 / IS PF 0.098 = 1.24

3/11 pass.

FUNDING-SPREAD COMPRESSION (early vs late)

  • BTC: abs spread 0.195 -> 0.157 bps/hr (ann if captured 17.1% -> 13.7%); HL/dYdX funding corr 0.58
  • ETH: abs spread 0.223 -> 0.162 bps/hr (ann if captured 19.5% -> 14.2%); HL/dYdX funding corr 0.46

COST SENSITIVITY

Scenario fee/slip bps PF Final $ Sharpe
zero-cost 0/0 5.026 $6,347 12.52
optimistic 2.5/1.5 0.200 $1,878 -13.62
base 4.5/3.0 0.107 $646 -16.47
2x 9.0/6.0 0.053 $65 -18.24
3x 13.5/9.0 0.036 $7 -18.84

DEADBAND CADENCE SWEEP (POST-HOC — informs reconsideration, NOT gated)

Only reposition when |trailing 8h spread| exceeds a deadband; higher band = fewer flips = less cost but staler signal. This probes whether the REAL gross edge survives cost at any cadence.

deadband bps gross %/yr cost %/yr NET %/yr total flips
0 +8.99 85.97 -76.98 1520
1 +8.33 24.98 -16.66 441
2 +6.94 10.46 -3.51 184
5 +3.56 0.90 +2.66 15
10 +2.28 0.11 +2.16 1
20 +0.00 0.00 +0.00 0

Best survivable net ~ +2.66%/yr at 5bps deadband. Even fully churn-suppressed, the surviving edge is single-digit %/yr — far below the 5-7%/mo program target and below the PF>=1.20 gate.

PER-COIN ATTRIBUTION

  • BTC: 44% of gross profit
  • ETH: 56% of gross profit

WALK-FORWARD

  • IS (‘2023-10-26’, ‘2025-05-30’) PF 0.098; OOS (‘2025-05-30’, ‘2026-06-21’) PF 0.122; ratio 1.24 (gate >=0.9)

BACKTEST-VS-LIVE DELTA

  • Funding is realized historical (not assumed) — high fidelity.
  • OMITTED/optimistic vs live: (a) HL-vs-dYdX basis drift on the delta-neutral legs not modeled (small but adds variance, slightly helps backtest); (b) dYdX v4 perp liquidity for BTC/ETH is thin vs HL — real slippage on a $2.5k sleeve leg is plausibly worse than 3 bps in stress; (c) funding-rate timing: we assume we hold across the funding stamp each hour — in live, missing a stamp by minutes flips a leg’s sign; (d) margin/liquidation buffer on each venue ties up capital not charged here; (e) spreads COMPRESS as arbs crowd (see compression section) — forward funding spread is likely <= the backtest’s.
  • Net: live PF would be <= backtest PF. Treat backtest as an upper bound.

RECONSIDERATION NOTE (g7 passed => archetype not retired)

  • The funding-spread SIGNAL is real: zero-cost PF ~5.0, Sharpe ~12, and the sign-permutation placebo is decisively beaten (0/200 placebos reach real PF). The cross-venue funding spread genuinely predicts captured carry direction.
  • The archetype dies on COST, not on no-edge — the same mechanical failure as the single-venue HL funding harvest (whipsaw/churn drag). Gross ~+9%/yr is shredded by ~86%/yr of flip cost at signal-cadence; even an optimal deadband leaves only ~+2.7%/yr, sub-threshold.
  • Reconsideration would require: (a) MORE venues (real >2-venue dispersion; free data blocked that here — Binance global geoblock, no Coinbase perp funding), (b) maker/rebate execution to cut the 30bps/flip, (c) a slow-cadence variant pre-registered fresh on OOS data (not the post-hoc deadband above). Absent those, this 2-venue HL/dYdX BASE config is RETIRED.

Charts & evidence

Cross-Exchange Funding Arbitrage — drawdown
Cross-Exchange Funding Arbitrage — equity curve
Cross-Exchange Funding Arbitrage — funding spread
Cross-Exchange Funding Arbitrage — placebo distribution
Cross-Exchange Funding Arbitrage — walk-forward

Frequently asked

Is Cross-Exchange Funding Arbitrage profitable in 2026?

In this pre-registered backtest, Cross-Exchange Funding Arbitrage returned a profit factor of 0.11 and passed 3/11 validation gates (placebo PASS). Verdict: REJECTED. Every result is published, pass or fail.

Has Cross-Exchange Funding Arbitrage been backtested honestly?

Yes — through The Validation Gauntlet, a pre-registered 11-gate framework (profit factor, deflated Sharpe, a random-permutation placebo, cost-stress and walk-forward) with the specification locked before any out-of-sample metric is computed. It failed and is published anyway.

Methodology: 11-gate validation — pre-registered spec, 11-gate battery, real market data. Full reproducible report: backtests/funding_arb/REPORT.md in the source repository.Author: Validated Research Team (Methodology v1.0 — 11-gate validation). Backtests are not investment advice.