[Huobi Future Tutorial] What Do You Need to Know about the Funding Rate?

HTX LearnPublished on 2022-07-29Last updated on 2022-08-25

Abstract

What Do You need to Know about the Funding Rate?

What is Funding Rate?

Funding rates are periodic payments either to traders that are long or short based on the difference between perpetual contract markets and spot prices. Therefore, depending on open positions, traders will either pay or receive funding.

Crypto funding rates prevent lasting divergence in the price of both markets. It is recalculated several times a day - Huobi Futures does it every eight hours.

On our Huobi Futures platform, funding rates are displayed in real-time.

Click here to check the funding rate

What determines the funding rate?

The funding that users should pay or receive is calculated as below:

Funding = Net Position * Contract Face Value * Settlement Price * Funding Rate

Among which, Net Position =Quantity of long positions (conts) – Quantity of short positions (conts)

When the funding rate is higher than 0, users with a net position higher than 0 have to pay funding, and users with a net position less than 0 will receive funding; when the funding rate is less than 0, users with a net position greater than 0 will receive funding, and users with a net position less than 0 have to pay funding.

Note: For a Perpetual that supports both cross and isolated margin modes, the funding for the cross margin account and the isolated margin account will be calculated separately.

How does it impact traders?

As funding calculations consider the amount of leverage used, funding rates may have a big impact on one’s profits and losses. With high leverage, a trader that pays for funding may suffer losses and get liquidated even in low-volatility markets. 0

On the other hand, collecting funding can be very profitable, especially in range-bound markets.

Thus, traders can develop trading strategies to take advantage of funding rates and profit even in low-volatility markets.

Essentially, funding rates are designed to encourage traders to take positions that keep perpetual contract prices line in with spot markets.

Related Reads

DeFi Has Reached Its Most Dangerous Moment: The Real Vulnerabilities Are Not in the Code

DeFi in Peril: The Real Vulnerability Isn't in the Code April 2026 marked a paradigm shift in DeFi security, with over $625 million lost across 30 incidents—the worst month in crypto history by event count. Crucially, none of the major exploits (Drift Protocol: $285M, KelpDAO: $292M, Wasabi Protocol: $4.5M) resulted from smart contract vulnerabilities. Instead, failures occurred in the operational "plumbing": social engineering to compromise multi-signature councils, a single-point-of-failure 1-of-1 bridge validator, and stolen admin private keys. These events expose a fundamental misalignment: the industry's security model has long focused on code audits, while the actual attack surface has shifted to privileged access points and off-chain infrastructure. The article introduces the term "OpenFi" to describe this reality: permissionless, on-chain, yet operationally dependent on trusted third parties (admins, validators, oracles) at key junctures. The KelpDAO exploit vividly demonstrated asymmetric "contagion risk." A configuration error in a smaller protocol triggered a panic, causing approximately $13.2 billion in outflows from larger, unaffected protocols like Aave within 48 hours, as users fled uncertain collateral. The core dilemma is the double-edged sword of centralization. Operational levers like emergency councils (e.g., Arbitrum freezing stolen funds post-KelpDAO) enable crisis response but also create catastrophic attack surfaces if compromised (e.g., Drift). The path forward demands radical honesty: protocols must clearly disclose their trust assumptions, operational levers, and failure modes. The industry must treat operational security (key management, configurations, incident response) with the same rigor as code security. Survival depends on building systems whose risks can be understood, priced, and insured, moving beyond the outdated "code is law" mantra to a mature model of disclosed and managed trust.

链捕手2h ago

DeFi Has Reached Its Most Dangerous Moment: The Real Vulnerabilities Are Not in the Code

链捕手2h ago

Vitalik's Article Emphasizes Ethereum Must Be 'Amazing', But Foundation Is Not the Center

Vitalik Buterin has published a lengthy response to recent community criticism directed at the Ethereum Foundation (EF). Acknowledging a sense of "unease," he addresses concerns about the EF's strategic direction, its perceived disconnect from ETH's price performance, and calls for its reduced central role. Vitalik rejects the notion that the EF should be the central governing body of Ethereum, framing it instead as one "node with a clear mandate" among many within the ecosystem. He highlights the EF's limited ETH holdings (≈0.16% of supply) compared to other blockchain foundations and states it will no longer sell significant amounts of ETH. Its future focus will be on long-term, critical projects that align with Ethereum's core values of censorship-resistance and decentralization, which might not otherwise happen. A core argument is that Ethereum must be "amazing," but not by merely chasing higher transaction speeds at the cost of decentralization. He proposes focusing on the "CROPS" dimensions: creating a Cryptographically provable, Reliable, Open, Private, and Secure network. This includes pursuing goals like a formally verifiable, bug-free Ethereum client and minimizing protocol-level reliance on intermediaries. The article concludes by noting that while Vitalik clarifies the EF's refocused role, he does not directly address community suggestions for creating a new organization explicitly aligned with ETH's economic interests. This "alignment gap" is presented as a key challenge for Ethereum's future.

链捕手2h ago

Vitalik's Article Emphasizes Ethereum Must Be 'Amazing', But Foundation Is Not the Center

链捕手2h ago

Galxe: How a Quest Platform Evolved into Web3's Growth Infrastructure

Galxe, once perceived as a simple Web3 quest platform, has evolved into a core growth infrastructure within the Web3 ecosystem. It addresses a fundamental Web3 growth dilemma: the lack of a mature, systematic user acquisition and retention system akin to Web2's advertising and analytics platforms. While users complete quests (social tasks, on-chain interactions) for rewards, Galxe's true innovation lies in transforming these fragmented, one-off actions into lasting, verifiable identity credentials. This process of *behavioral assetization* creates a persistent record of a user's activities across projects and chains. For users, their wallet accumulates a valuable history that can unlock future access and rewards, fostering a "profile-building" mentality. For projects, Galxe provides a pre-screened user pool with rich behavioral data, enabling targeted outreach to users based on their specific on-chain history and community engagement. Galxe employs a gamefied growth path, guiding users from low-friction social tasks into deeper, valuable on-chain interactions through a structured progression of quests. This solves the incentive-behavior mismatch common in Web3, filtering users by their willingness to engage. Beyond quests, products like Passport (identity verification) and Starboard (community analytics) position Galxe as a comprehensive growth operating system. The platform's defensible advantage is its self-reinforcing data and network flywheel: more projects attract more users, enriching behavioral data; richer data enables better user targeting, attracting more projects. Ultimately, Galxe is shifting Web3's growth logic from short-term "reward-driven" traffic towards a long-term "identity-driven" relationship model, where a user's accumulated on-chain履历 becomes a core asset.

marsbit2h ago

Galxe: How a Quest Platform Evolved into Web3's Growth Infrastructure

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片