A funding rate showing 200% annualized looks obviously tradeable. It usually isn't, on its own — for four separate reasons this research treats as hard requirements before a number becomes a paper trade.
1. Persistence
Funding can spike for a single settlement period and immediately fade. A rate that isn't sustained will often resolve before a position can even be opened and managed. This research requires funding to stay continuously above the entry threshold for a minimum window before counting it as a real candidate — not just crossing it once.
2. Basis
The perp and its hedge rarely trade at exactly the same price. That gap — the basis — is itself a cost or a risk depending on direction. A funding rate that looks attractive can be economically worthless (or worse) if the basis is wide enough to eat the expected gain, or if it signals the market is already pricing in a reversal.
3. Liquidity
A funding rate on an illiquid instrument is a number you can observe, not necessarily a number you could trade at scale without moving the market. Open interest and volume floors exist to filter these out.
4. All-in cost
Every venue and hedge broker charges fees on both legs of a round trip. A funding rate has to clear that fixed cost before it's worth anything — see How we test entry and exit rules without live capital for how break-even is calculated.
Why this matters for reading this site
The Market Research table shows raw funding numbers, but also persistence, basis, liquidity, and a plain-language research note for exactly this reason — a number in isolation is close to meaningless. When a symbol doesn't qualify, this site tries to say why in specific terms ("basis exceeds research limit", "insufficient history") rather than a bare pass/fail.