Tại sao một số nhà giao dịch bán khống Bitcoin phải trả phí tài trợ lên tới 201 đô la trong 67 ngày, trong khi những người khác lại không phải trả gì cả

[라온]

For 67 straight days, traders shorting Bitcoin through perpetual futures were charged a fee every eight hours. That came to 201 separate payments.

K33 Research data, cited by CoinDesk on May 8, confirmed the run had broken the previous record of 62 days set during the COVID crash of 2020.

Crypto media framed it as a sentiment story.

What largely went unexamined was more fundamental: some traders paid hundreds of dollars in fees across that stretch, while others running the same trade paid nothing at all.

A record that outlasted the Covid crash benchmark

The 67-day run eclipsed a mark that had stood for five years.

The K33 Research findings, pointing to the streak as evidence of entrenched bearish positioning in Bitcoin derivatives.

Negative funding, in its basic form, signals that short interest has grown heavy enough to flip the market's built-in balancing mechanism.

Under normal conditions, long traders pay a periodic fee to shorts, keeping perpetual contract prices anchored to spot.

When sentiment turns decisively bearish, that reverses. Shorts start paying longs. Over a few days, the cost is small.

Over 201 consecutive settlement windows, it adds up in ways that most traders did not model before entering the position.

Anton Palovaara, founder of Leverage.Trading noted that "most traders didn't know they had a choice. Some found out when they got liquidated."

The streak has since ended. But the record it set, and the quiet cost it imposed on a specific type of trader, raised a structural question that most coverage skipped over entirely.

Perpetual futures vs quarterly contracts: same trade, different Bill

Not every Bitcoin short carries a funding obligation. Dated futures, or quarterly contracts, settle at a fixed expiry and do not use a rolling funding rate to stay tethered to spot.

A trader who shorted Bitcoin through a quarterly contract at any point during the 67-day streak paid zero in funding fees across all 201 settlement windows.

The gap that is created is not marginal.

At a conservative average rate of 0.01% per eight-hour period, a $10,000 short in a perpetual contract would have generated $201 in funding charges over the course of the streak.

The same $10,000 directional bet placed through a quarterly futures contract would have generated none.

Same market view, same exposure to Bitcoin's price movement, a $201 difference in cost before a single tick of price action is counted.

"Run the math: a $10,000 short in perpetuals at a conservative 0.01% per period paid $201 in funding over 67 days. The same position in a quarterly contract paid zero," stated Anton Palovaara.

Leverage.Trading's analysis of how funding costs accumulate across perpetual and dated contracts outlines the mechanics behind this divergence. The split is structural, not specific to this cycle or this streak.

How funding fees drain margin before price even moves

The $201 figure looks manageable in isolation. Set against actual margin, the picture shifts considerably.

On a $1,000 margin account at 10x leverage, those funding charges represent 20% of the total capital deployed, drawn down by the cost of holding the position rather than by any movement in price.

Bitcoin could stay completely flat and a perpetual short trader would still lose a fifth of their margin over the streak's duration.

That is the mechanism that makes extended negative funding cycles more dangerous than they first appear. Fees accrue on a fixed schedule, independent of price.

A trader may believe they are managing directional risk carefully while the account balance falls toward a liquidation threshold driven entirely by accumulated funding costs.

"That's 20% of a $1,000 margin account, gone, with no price move required," Anton highlighted.

Quarterly contract holders carried none of that exposure. The risk does not distribute evenly across instrument types.

It sits entirely with perpetual traders during every negative funding period, regardless of how the trade performs directionally.

What the data shows as the streak ends

The 67-day streak is over. The structural split it exposed is not.

Perpetual contracts dominate Bitcoin derivatives trading by volume across most major exchanges.

Quarterly futures are available on the same platforms, but draw a smaller share of short interest, in part because their mechanics are less familiar to a broad base of retail traders.

When funding turns negative again, as it has done repeatedly across Bitcoin's market history, the same asymmetry applies from the first settlement.

Perpetual shorts pay. Quarterly shorts do not.

The record streak made that difference visible at a scale not seen since the COVID crash, across more than two months of continuous charges.

Bitcoin was trading at $79,446.23 at press time, according to CoinGecko.

BTC was down 1.30% over the last day and 2.69% over the past week. The daily trading volume stood at $42,735,487,178.
source: https://www.tradingview.com/news/invezz:c438946ec094b:0-why-some-bitcoin-shorts-paid-201-funding-fees-in-67-days-and-others-paid-zero/