Research the funding rate. Understand the whole trade.
Explore funding persistence, hedge costs, and the outcomes of a continuously documented paper-trading strategy — every entry, exit, and naked-leg gap shown, wins and losses alike.
Market snapshot
A few useful observations, not a trading terminal.
Instruments monitored
75
Venues covered
HL, INTX
Positive-funding names
42
Negative-funding names
13
Largest changes in funding (vs 24h average)
How the research works
1. Observe
Track funding and liquidity across venues on a delayed feed.
2. Evaluate
Check persistence, basis, and all-in cost before anything is logged as a candidate.
3. Document
Simulated entries and exits are recorded with full assumptions — no live capital.
4. Compare
Expected funding is reconciled against the all-in outcome, including hedge slippage.
Results with context
Full record and every assumption: Lab Portfolio →
Closed paper trades
16
Cumulative all-in P&L
+$345.25
Max drawdown
-$937.36
Win rate
75.0%
Latest journal articles
case study
INTC: the naked window can go your way too
A worked example of the same mechanism that produced this project's largest loss — this time landing favorably.
rejected
HYUNDAI: three losses, then blacklisted — and why the automatic system should have caught it
A symbol that kept qualifying on paper but kept losing in practice, and the gap between an automatic rule and its intent.
weekly review
Weekly review: September 1–8, 2026
Five closed trades, all net-positive on strategy accounting — but the naked-leg reconciliation tells a more mixed story.
Help shape the research dashboard
Tell us what you trade and what you'd want to see next.