Perpetual Funding Stability Index 2027: Which Exchange Has the Most Predictable Funding?
A low trading fee can be wiped out by expensive funding. A high funding yield can disappear after a regime flip. DN-FSI v1.0 benchmarks funding predictability across ten exchanges with complete 31-day BTC, ETH and SOL observations, separates stability from cheapness, and adds a Hold-or-Move calculator that estimates when changing venues is worth the execution friction.
What Matters
BingX had the most stable observed funding regime in the complete 31-day cohort, but Gate.io had the lowest average long-side funding burden across BTC, ETH and SOL. That distinction is the core finding of this index. Predictable funding is not necessarily cheap funding, and cheap funding is not necessarily stable. A trader choosing a venue only from today's rate can easily optimize for the wrong variable.
DN Evidence Block
Yieldo's October 13 pages report daily funding averages observed from official exchange APIs and normalize the values to annualized rates. Ten venues had 31 days of complete BTC, ETH and SOL history in the source. Binance, Bybit, Lighter, Pacifica, Extended and GRVT had only six or seven days in the same source, so DN excludes them from the main 31-day ranking.
The Signal
Funding is becoming a routing problem. The same BTC position can carry a materially different annualized funding burden on two venues while both track roughly the same spot asset. That spread is not free money: moving requires trading fees, spread, slippage, collateral movement and new venue risk. But once positions are large or held for weeks, the funding differential can become larger than the execution cost.
DN Perpetual Funding Stability Index 2027
The table separates four things that conventional funding screens often blur together: stability score, 30-day average carry, regime drift and current shock.
| Rank | Venue | DN-FSI | BTC 30d | ETH 30d | SOL 30d | 3-asset avg | 7d↔30d drift | Now↔7d shock | $100K / 30d long carry* | Access |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | BingX Very stable |
84.2/100 | 7.31% | 7.47% | 7.32% | 7.37% | 1.07 pp | 1.80 pp | $605 | Open · F8XN1D |
| #2 | OKX Stable |
75.1/100 | 4.83% | 3.72% | 4.10% | 4.22% | 1.96 pp | 3.06 pp | $347 | Open · 2136301 |
| #3 | KuCoin Stable |
73.9/100 | 4.15% | 5.07% | 3.23% | 4.15% | 1.36 pp | 4.29 pp | $341 | Open · CX8QMK4M |
| #4 | Bitget Stable |
71.9/100 | 6.52% | 7.52% | 4.84% | 6.29% | 1.77 pp | 3.31 pp | $517 | Open · nqef |
| #5 | Gate.io Stable |
71.4/100 | 3.02% | 3.41% | 1.94% | 2.79% | 1.86 pp | 4.51 pp | $229 | Open · UgUVAVoJ |
| #6 | HTX Stable |
70.0/100 | 2.39% | 4.78% | 7.13% | 4.77% | 2.00 pp | 2.61 pp | $392 | Open · g7uz6 |
| #7 | Hyperliquid Moderate |
66.3/100 | 8.54% | 9.32% | 8.21% | 8.69% | 2.37 pp | 4.42 pp | $714 | Open |
| #8 | Aster Moderate |
65.3/100 | 4.92% | 5.89% | 4.13% | 4.98% | 2.61 pp | 4.56 pp | $409 | Open · 537ed8 |
| #9 | MEXC Moderate |
63.9/100 | 4.24% | 3.94% | 3.80% | 3.99% | 2.90 pp | 5.33 pp | $328 | Open · 16yJL |
| #10 | edgeX Highly unstable |
26.7/100 | 3.64% | 7.93% | 7.11% | 6.23% | 5.46 pp | 10.38 pp | $512 | Open · DECENTRALISED |
*Modeled from the average annualized funding rate across BTC, ETH and SOL: notional × annualized rate × 30/365. Positive observed averages imply a cost to longs and income to shorts if the rate persisted. This excludes fees, slippage and compounding.
Best Funding Venue by Question
84.2/100 DN-FSI. Very consistent 30-day rates across BTC, ETH and SOL.
2.79% annualized cross-asset 30-day average in the full-history cohort.
75.1/100 DN-FSI with a 4.22% three-asset average carry.
2.39% annualized observed BTC average.
3.41% annualized observed ETH average.
1.94% annualized observed SOL average.
8.69% annualized average across BTC, ETH and SOL in the 31-day window.
Sharp recent sign and level changes pushed DN-FSI to 26.7/100.
The data argues for routing by holding period rather than treating one exchange as universally cheapest.
The Most Important Finding: Stable Is Not Cheap
BingX's observed BTC, ETH and SOL 30-day averages were 7.31%, 7.47% and 7.32% annualized. That is remarkably consistent.
Gate.io's corresponding averages were 3.02%, 3.41% and 1.94%. Those are much cheaper for a long position, but its current-versus-seven-day movement was larger.
A trader with a short time horizon may care more about the exact next settlement and execution cost. A trader holding for weeks should care much more about whether the funding regime is persistently expensive.
How Large Was the 30-Day Cross-Exchange Spread?
Across the complete cohort:
- BTC: Hyperliquid averaged 8.54% annualized versus HTX at 2.39%, a 6.15 percentage-point spread.
- ETH: Hyperliquid averaged 9.32% versus Gate.io at 3.41%, a 5.91-point spread.
- SOL: Hyperliquid averaged 8.21% versus Gate.io at 1.94%, a 6.27-point spread.
If those averages persisted, a $100,000 long held for 30 days would experience roughly $505 of BTC funding-cost difference between the high and low venues, about $486 for ETH and $515 for SOL, before trading and transfer costs.
DN Hold-or-Move Funding Calculator
The correct question is not “Which exchange has lower funding?” It is “Will I save enough funding to justify closing here and reopening there?”
Hold-or-Move Funding Calculator
Compare the 30-day observed funding regime of two venues and estimate whether expected carry savings exceed your switching friction.
Short-History Watchlist: Important Venues We Refuse to Fake-Rank
Some of the largest or most important platforms did not yet have 30 days of complete history in the same source feed. Rather than mix six-day and 31-day observations, DN places them here until the source window matures.
| Venue | Coverage | BTC avg | ETH avg | SOL avg | 3-asset avg | Access |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Binance | 6 days | 2.39% | -0.34% | 3.16% | 1.74% | Open · CPA_00SXKU7IO9 |
| Bybit | 6 days | 2.63% | 0.20% | -0.57% | 0.75% | Open · 46164 |
| Lighter | 7 days | 1.84% | -3.41% | -16.62% | -6.06% | Open |
| Pacifica | 7 days | 9.37% | 8.25% | 10.92% | 9.51% | Open |
| Extended | 6 days | 8.62% | 6.65% | 10.45% | 8.57% | Open |
| GRVT | 6 days | 10.54% | 7.57% | 9.03% | 9.05% | Open · 8YKP2VP |
The short window is still revealing. Lighter's seven-day three-asset average was negative because ETH and especially SOL funding were negative over that period. Pacifica, Extended and GRVT were strongly positive. Binance and Bybit had much lower six-day cross-asset averages. None of those figures should be treated as 30-day equivalents.
Why Funding Intervals Make Headline Rates Misleading
Not every platform settles funding on the same schedule.
Hyperliquid pays funding every hour, while its formula is framed around an eight-hour rate and one-eighth is applied each hour. Binance's standard interval is eight hours, but its rules allow contracts to shift to four-hour or even one-hour settlement under specified conditions. Bybit and Bitget explicitly note that intervals vary by symbol. GRVT's API schema includes a funding-interval field because contracts can use different intervals.
This is why DN normalizes the observed values to annualized rates before comparison.
Why Hyperliquid Can Be Excellent Yet Expensive for Long Carry
Hyperliquid remains DN's best overall perp DEX in the broader Perp DEX Index because liquidity, open interest, market breadth and infrastructure matter enormously.
Funding is a different dimension.
During this observation window, Hyperliquid's 30-day annualized averages were:
- BTC: 8.54%
- ETH: 9.32%
- SOL: 8.21%
For a long holder, those rates were materially more expensive than the low end of the cohort. For a short holder, the same positive rates could be attractive income.
This is precisely why a funding index should never be merged blindly into an overall exchange ranking.
Why edgeX Ranked Last on Stability
edgeX is the clearest example of why a current funding screenshot can be misleading.
Its 30-day averages did not look extraordinary by themselves. But the seven-day and current readings showed large sign and magnitude changes, especially in ETH and SOL. That drove:
- a much larger 7-day-versus-30-day regime drift,
- the largest current-versus-seven-day shock in the full cohort,
- and a much lower DN-FSI score.
That does not mean edgeX is a bad exchange. It means a trader holding positions there should assume funding can be more regime-sensitive than the top stability cohort.
What Does “Funding Stability” Actually Mean?
We define stability as the degree to which the funding environment remains predictable across time and major assets.
There are at least four separate questions:
- Level: Is funding generally expensive or cheap?
- Drift: Is the recent week moving away from the monthly regime?
- Shock: Is today's rate far from the recent week?
- Cross-asset consistency: Does the venue behave similarly across BTC, ETH and SOL?
A venue can score well on one and poorly on another.
DN-FSI v1.0 Methodology
Mean absolute difference between the 7-day and 30-day annualized averages across BTC, ETH and SOL. Score = max(0, 100 − 15 × drift in percentage points).
Mean absolute difference between current annualized funding and the 7-day average. Score = max(0, 100 − 10 × shock in percentage points).
Standard deviation of 30-day BTC, ETH and SOL averages. Score = max(0, 100 − 20 × cross-asset standard deviation).
Absolute three-asset 30-day average. Score = max(0, 100 − 5 × annualized carry). This is intentionally a small weight because cheapness is not the same as stability.
Why We Do Not Min-Max Rank the Inputs
DN-FSI uses fixed penalty functions rather than giving the best venue 100 and the worst venue 0 on every metric. That matters because one extreme outlier can otherwise make mediocre venues look artificially excellent. The fixed formula also makes future versions more comparable as new exchanges enter the dataset.
What DN-FSI v1.0 Does Not Yet Measure
- Intraday funding volatility.
- P95 and P99 funding shocks.
- Exact sign-flip frequency.
- Funding-cap hit frequency.
- Duration of individual extreme regimes.
- Open-interest-weighted funding.
- Funding versus realized basis convergence.
Those belong in DN-FSI v2 once DN has a sufficiently long first-party collection window. We would rather disclose the limitation than invent precision.
Funding Stability vs Funding Arbitrage
DN already publishes guides on funding-rate arbitrage and market-neutral carry. This index answers a different question.
Arbitrage asks:
Where is the spread right now?
Funding stability asks:
How likely is the funding regime to remain economically recognizable over the holding period?
A large spread that disappears before you recover transaction costs is not necessarily a profitable arbitrage.
How a $1 Million Position Changes the Math
Funding scales directly with notional.
A 5 percentage-point annualized funding difference on $10,000 held for 30 days is only about $41.
On $100,000 it is roughly $411.
On $1 million it becomes about $4,110.
At that size, a sophisticated desk can justify monitoring funding across venues continuously, provided the liquidity, collateral and counterparty risks are acceptable.
Why AI Agents Will Care About This More Than Humans
A human trader can glance at two exchanges and decide that moving a position is not worth the hassle.
An autonomous execution agent can evaluate:
- live funding,
- expected funding persistence,
- closing fees,
- target spread,
- slippage,
- collateral transfer cost,
- and counterparty exposure
across dozens of venues every few seconds.
That turns funding from a passive fee into a routable execution variable.
DN Alpha Thesis
The next generation of perpetual routing will not choose a venue only when the position is opened. It will continuously re-evaluate where the position should live. Funding, collateral efficiency, liquidation distance, execution cost and venue risk can all change while the trader is already in the market. The winning agentic system will treat a perpetual position as a portable liability that can migrate when the expected savings exceed switching friction.
What Would Change Our View?
- Thirty or more days of complete source coverage for Binance, Bybit, Lighter, Pacifica, Extended and GRVT.
- A first-party DN data collector with every funding settlement rather than daily aggregates.
- Open-interest weighting by venue and asset.
- Observed P95/P99 shock statistics.
- Funding flip frequency and half-life.
- Persistent differences after adjusting for basis and execution cost.
Final Verdict
The first version of the DN Perpetual Funding Stability Index produces a result that a simple funding-rate screen would miss.
BingX was the most predictable full-history venue in the observed window.
Gate.io was the cheapest long-carry venue on average across BTC, ETH and SOL.
OKX offered one of the strongest combinations of stability and moderate funding burden.
Hyperliquid remained structurally strong as an exchange while carrying a relatively expensive positive funding regime for longs.
edgeX showed the most unstable recent regime in the complete cohort.
The larger lesson is more important than any one ranking:
That means the best venue today can become the wrong venue tomorrow, even when nothing changes about the trader's directional thesis.
Primary Sources and Evidence Ledger
- Yieldo BTC Funding History — current, 7-day and 30-day annualized BTC funding by exchange; data through October 13, 2026.
- Yieldo ETH Funding History — current, 7-day and 30-day annualized ETH funding by exchange.
- Yieldo SOL Funding History — current, 7-day and 30-day annualized SOL funding by exchange.
- Coinalyze Funding Rates — independent normalized current funding-rate cross-check across major venues.
- Binance Funding Rate Guide — funding mechanics, positive/negative direction and dynamic funding intervals.
- Binance Futures Funding Documentation — premium-index formula, default eight-hour funding and dynamic interval rules.
- Hyperliquid Funding Documentation — hourly settlement and eight-hour funding formula basis.
- Bybit Funding History API — historical funding endpoint and symbol-specific intervals.
- Bitget Historical Funding API — official historical funding endpoint.
- Gate Futures API — public historical funding-rate endpoint.
- GRVT Market Data API — historical funding and variable interval fields.
- DN Funding Rate Arbitrage Guide — existing strategy coverage; this index is deliberately focused on predictability rather than arbitrage mechanics.
- DN Perpetual DEX Index 2027 — broader venue ranking for liquidity, fees, execution, custody and risk.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the DN Perpetual Funding Stability Index?
DN-FSI v1.0 is a benchmark of observed funding predictability across venues with complete 31-day BTC, ETH and SOL data. It combines 7-day versus 30-day regime drift, current versus 7-day shock, cross-asset consistency and a smaller carry-burden component.
Which exchange had the most stable funding in the current 31-day cohort?
BingX ranks first in DN-FSI v1.0 at 84.2/100 because its BTC, ETH and SOL 30-day averages were unusually close to one another and its 7-day averages moved less than most peers. Stable does not mean cheapest.
Which exchange had the lowest average long funding burden across BTC, ETH and SOL?
Gate.io had the lowest cross-asset 30-day average in the full-history cohort at about 2.79% annualized, followed by MEXC, KuCoin and OKX. Funding can change sharply, so this is historical observation rather than a forward guarantee.
Why are Binance, Bybit and Lighter not in the main ranking?
The source used for this version had only six to seven days of complete observations for those venues as of October 13, 2026. DN excludes them from the 31-day ranking rather than pretending incomplete history is comparable.
Does positive funding always mean a bad trade?
No. Positive funding is a cost to longs and income to shorts, but it can coexist with strong directional returns. Funding should be evaluated relative to holding period, basis, execution cost, liquidation risk and the trader's directional thesis.
Can a trader move exchanges to save on funding?
Sometimes. The move only makes economic sense when expected funding savings exceed the combined cost of closing, reopening, spread, slippage, fees and operational risk. The DN Hold-or-Move tool models that break-even.
