Rare Annualized Rate of 400%: Is TradeXYZ Handing Out Money to Oil Bulls?

marsbitPublicado a 2026-04-10Actualizado a 2026-04-10

Resumen

Amidst volatile oil markets due to geopolitical tensions, Trade.xyz’s WTIOIL-USDC perpetual contract exhibited an unusually negative annualized funding rate of -300% to -400%. This meant long positions received approximately 1% of their position value daily from shorts. The anomaly stemmed from the structure of WTI futures curves in extreme backwardation, where near-month (May) contracts traded at a significant premium to far-month (June) contracts. Trade.xyz’s oracle gradually shifts price weighting from near-month to far-month over five trading days during rollover. Anticipating this decline, traders heavily shorted the perpetual, driving the funding rate deeply negative. Three strategies were discussed: 1. Shorting Trade.xyz’s contract while going long on CME’s far-month futures—initially profitable but later eroded by high funding costs. 2. Shorting far-month futures and longing Trade.xyz’s near-month contract before rollover, which gained traction as arbitrage opportunities emerged. 3. Betting against funding rates via Boros, a rate-trading platform, though limited by low leverage and high slippage. The situation highlights how DeFi traders are adapting to traditional futures mechanics and advanced instruments like rate markets, reflecting the evolving infrastructure of crypto-native trading platforms.

Amid the uncertain situation of the Iran war, the crude oil market is experiencing significant volatility.

At the same time, a rare phenomenon has appeared on Trade.xyz's WTIOIL-USDC crude oil perpetual contract: the annualized funding rate has stabilized between -300% and -400%. This means that any trader willing to go long at this moment can receive profits equivalent to 1% of their principal daily from the shorts.

The market doesn't give away money for no reason. To understand this反常的 negative funding rate, we need to start with the basics of futures trading.

Rollover

Crude oil futures are a series of contracts arranged by delivery month. Contracts for May delivery, June delivery, July delivery, each with its own price. When the front month is about to expire, the market must switch from the old contract to the new contract; this action is called rollover.

Under normal circumstances, back-month contracts imply that oil merchants will store the oil for several additional months, incurring extra storage costs. Therefore, the delivery price should logically be higher. The market phenomenon where future contracts are more expensive than the near month is called Contango. Conversely, the situation where the near month is more expensive than the far month is called backwardation. This usually occurs when there is a current shortage, and everyone wants to get the oil immediately.

During this rollover period for Trade.xyz's crude oil, the crude oil futures market was in this near-high, far-low structure.

From late March to early April 2026, the WTI crude oil curve was in an extreme state of backwardation. As shown in the chart above, the price of the May contract (front month) remained consistently higher than the June contract (back month), with the spread widening to over $14 at one point.

The WTIOIL-USDC perpetual contract on Trade.xyz has its oracle pegged to this front-month May contract.

But we won't be trading this May contract forever. It must be rolled over to the next June contract. So how is the rollover accomplished?

According to the Tradexyz documentation, the oracle will take 5 trading days to gradually shift the price weighting from 100% front-month contract to 100% back-month contract.

Against the backdrop of "backwardation," this means the oracle price on Tradexyz will drop from the front-month price to the back-month price over 5 trading days.

Market participants familiar with this mechanism have a clear expectation of the contract price after the rollover. Everyone knows it will fall, so they naturally rush to short. Shorts accumulate, the funding rate turns negative, and shorts start paying longs.

From an arbitrage-free principle perspective, this is normal. The spread between the front and back month gives short sellers a profit. The funding rate will reduce this profit. The larger the spread, the higher the negative funding rate the market charges.

Once the negative funding rate reaches a certain level, this seemingly obvious arbitrage opportunity will be eroded. The cost for short sellers will completely cover the profit.

Strategies

How to make money in such a market context? Here are three common strategies.

1. Short the crude oil contract on Tradexyz at the current price, while simultaneously going long the back-month contract on CME.

This seems like a risk-neutral strategy to stably earn the spread, but it fails to consider several factors.

Suppose you short Trade.xyz's WTI contract at $95.352 on April 8th, while going long the June futures contract at $87.75, each with a notional principal of $10,000. If both sides eventually converge, you could theoretically get a spread of $7.60, about $797 in profit. But on April 8th, the daily funding rate for the short position was already 1.42%. Based on the remaining 6 days until rollover completion, the funding fee would cost $851. At this point, the net profit is only -$53. This doesn't even include transaction fees and slippage.

Abraxas capital implemented this strategy starting on March 19th, after the last rollover was completed. Their Brent crude oil position on tradexyz accounted for 20% of the open interest in that market and yielded huge profits early on when the funding rate remained relatively neutral. However, as more arbitrageurs flooded in, the funding fee has devoured 80% of their arbitrage profits.

The massive position also means they find it difficult to exit and are forced to pay passively.

2. Short the back-month futures contract, go long the xyz front-month contract, and close the position before the rollover begins.

This trade is almost the counterparty to Strategy 1, betting that the market is over-arbitraged. After April 1st, this strategy could indeed yield profits.

3. Short the funding rate for the xyz contract on Boros before the rollover begins.

Boros is a market developed by the Pendle team specifically for trading rates (funding rates). In Boros's crude oil contract market, what is traded is the market's expectation of the funding rate for Trade.xyz's crude oil contract over the coming period. If users believe the negative funding rate will deepen further, they can short the market's funding rate contract.

However, limited by slippage costs, position limits, transaction fees, and extremely low capital efficiency (only supporting 0.2x leverage), this trade also struggles to achieve the ideal high returns.

Conclusion

The rise of RWA trading platforms like Trade.xyz is forcing a group of "crypto traders" to become "futures traders." DeFi players are also starting to learn the CME rollover calendar, calculate front-back month spreads, and make decisions based on the funding rate curve on Boros.

Trading platforms are continuously iterating, and market participants are also adapting to new infrastructure.

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the annualized funding rate for the WTIOIL-USDC perpetual contract on Trade.xyz, and what does it imply for traders?

AThe annualized funding rate for the WTIOIL-USDC perpetual contract on Trade.xyz is between -300% and -400%. This means that traders who take a long position at this time can receive a profit equivalent to approximately 1% of their principal daily, paid by the short sellers.

QWhat market structure is causing the extreme negative funding rate on Trade.xyz's crude oil perpetual contract?

AThe extreme negative funding rate is caused by a market structure called backwardation, where the near-month futures contract (May) is trading at a higher price than the far-month contract (June). This creates an expectation that the price will drop during the rollover period, leading to a surge in short positions and negative funding rates.

QHow does the rollover mechanism work for the WTIOIL-USDC perpetual contract on Trade.xyz?

AAccording to Trade.xyz's documentation, the oracle takes five trading days to gradually shift the price weighting from 100% of the near-month contract to 100% of the far-month contract. During this rollover period in a backwardated market, the oracle price is expected to drop from the higher near-month price to the lower far-month price.

QWhat was one of the strategies mentioned for profiting in this market, and what was its drawback?

AOne strategy was to short the crude oil contract on Trade.xyz while simultaneously going long on the far-month futures contract on CME. The drawback is that the high negative funding rate can consume most of the potential profits from the price difference. For example, a calculation showed that funding fees could cost $851 over six days, nearly erasing the $797 theoretical gain from the price spread, not including transaction costs and slippage.

QWhat is Boros, and how can it be used to trade in this context?

ABoros is a market developed by the Pendle team专门 for trading rates (funding rates). On Boros's crude oil contract market, traders can speculate on the expected funding rate for Trade.xyz's crude oil contract. If a trader believes the negative funding rate will deepen, they can short the funding rate合约 on Boros. However, this strategy is limited by slippage, position caps, trading fees, and low capital efficiency (only supporting 0.2x leverage).

Lecturas Relacionadas

Morgan Stanley 2026 Semiconductor Report: Buy Packaging, Buy Testing, Buy China Chips, Avoid Traditional Tracks

Morgan Stanley 2026 Semiconductor Report: Buy Packaging, Buy Testing, Buy Chinese Chips; Avoid Traditional Segments. The core theme is the shift in AI compute supply from NVIDIA dominance to a three-track system of GPU + ASIC + China-local chips. The key opportunity is capturing share in this expansion, while non-AI semiconductors face marginalization due to resource reallocation to AI. Key investment conclusions, in order of priority: 1. **Advanced Packaging (CoWoS/SoIC) - Highest Conviction**: TSMC is the primary beneficiary of explosive demand, driven by massive cloud capex. Its pricing power and AI revenue share are rising significantly. 2. **Test Equipment - Undervalued & High-Growth Certainty**: Chip complexity is causing test times to double generationally, structurally driving handler/socket/probe card demand. Companies like Hon Hai Precision (Foxconn), WinWay, and MPI offer compelling value. 3. **China AI Chips (GPU/ASIC) - Long-Term Irreversible Trend**: Export controls are accelerating domestic substitution. Companies like Cambricon, with firm customer orders and SMIC's 7nm capacity support, are positioned to benefit from lower TCO (30-60% vs NVIDIA) and growing local cloud demand. 4. **Avoid Non-AI Semiconductors (Consumer/Auto/Industrial)**: These segments face a weak, structurally hindered recovery due to AI's resource "crowding-out" effect on capacity and supply chains. 5. **Memory - Severe Internal Divergence**: Strongly favor HBM (Hynix primary beneficiary) and NOR Flash (Macronix). Be cautious on interpreting price rises in DDR4/NAND as true demand recovery. The report emphasizes a 2026-2027 time window, stating the AI capital expenditure cycle is far from over. Key macro variables include persistent export controls and AI's systemic "crowding-out" effect on traditional semiconductor supply chains.

marsbitHace 39 min(s)

Morgan Stanley 2026 Semiconductor Report: Buy Packaging, Buy Testing, Buy China Chips, Avoid Traditional Tracks

marsbitHace 39 min(s)

Circle:Sluggish Market? The Top Stablecoin Stock Continues to Expand

Circle, the issuer of the stablecoin USDC, reported its Q1 2026 earnings on May 11th, Eastern Time. Against a backdrop of weak crypto market sentiment, USDC's average circulation in Q1 was $752 billion, with a modest 2% sequential increase to $770 billion by quarter-end. New minting volumes declined due to the poor crypto market, but remained high, indicating demand expansion beyond crypto trading. USDC's market share remained stable at 28% of the total stablecoin market, while competition from Tether's USDT persists. A key highlight was "Other Revenue," which reached $42 million, more than doubling year-over-year, though sequential growth slowed to 13%. This revenue stream, including fees from services like Web3 software, the Cipher payment network (CPN), and the Arc blockchain, is critical for diversifying away from interest income. Circle's internally held USDC share increased to 18%, helping to improve gross margin by 130 basis points to 41.4% by reducing external sharing costs. However, profitability was pressured as total revenue growth slowed, primarily due to the significant weight of interest income, which is tied to USDC规模 and Treasury rates. Adjusted EBITDA was $133 million with a 19.2% margin. Management maintained its full-year 2026 guidance for adjusted operating expenses ($570-$585 million) and other revenue ($150-$170 million). The long-term target for USDC's CAGR remains 40%, though near-term volatility is expected. The article concludes that while Circle's current valuation of $28 billion appears reasonable after a recent recovery, further upside depends on the pace of stable币 adoption and potential positive sentiment from the advancement of regulatory clarity acts like CLARITY.

链捕手Hace 43 min(s)

Circle:Sluggish Market? The Top Stablecoin Stock Continues to Expand

链捕手Hace 43 min(s)

Tech Stocks' Narrative Is Increasingly Relying on Anthropic

The narrative of tech stocks is increasingly relying on Anthropic. Anthropic, the AI company behind Claude, has become central to the financial stories of major tech giants. Elon Musk dissolved xAI, merging it into SpaceX as SpaceXAI, and secured an exclusive deal to rent the massive "Colossus 1" supercomputing cluster to Anthropic. In return, Anthropic expressed interest in future space-based compute collaborations. Google and Amazon are also deeply invested. Google plans to invest up to $40 billion and provide significant compute power, while Amazon holds a 15-16% stake. Both companies reported massive quarterly profit surges largely due to valuation gains from their Anthropic holdings. Crucially, Anthropic has committed to multi-billion dollar cloud compute contracts with both Google Cloud and AWS. This creates a clear divide: the "A Camp" (Anthropic-Google-Musk) versus the "O Camp" (OpenAI-Microsoft). The A Camp's strategy intertwines equity, compute orders, and profits, making Anthropic a "systemic financial node." Its performance directly impacts its partners' financials and stock prices. In contrast, OpenAI, while leading in user traffic, faces commercialization challenges, lower per-user revenue, and a recently restructured relationship with Microsoft. The AI industry is shifting from a race for raw compute (symbolized by Nvidia) to a focus on monetizable applications, where Anthropic currently excels. However, this concentration of market hope on one company amplifies systemic risk. The rise of powerful open-source models like DeepSeek-V4 poses a significant threat, as they could undermine the value proposition of closed-source models like Claude. The article suggests ongoing geopolitical efforts to suppress such competitors will be a long-term strategic focus for Anthropic's allies.

marsbitHace 55 min(s)

Tech Stocks' Narrative Is Increasingly Relying on Anthropic

marsbitHace 55 min(s)

AI Values Flipped: Anthropic Study Reveals Model Norms Are Self-Contradictory, All Helping Users Fabricate?

Recent research by Anthropic's Alignment Science team reveals significant inconsistencies in AI value alignment across major models from Anthropic, OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and xAI. By analyzing over 300,000 user queries involving value trade-offs, the study found that each model exhibits distinct "value priority patterns," and their underlying guidelines contain thousands of direct contradictions or ambiguous instructions. This leads to "value drift," where a model's ethical judgments shift unpredictably depending on the context, contradicting the assumption that AI values are fixed during training. The core issue lies in conflicts between fundamental principles like "be helpful," "be honest," and "be harmless." For example, when asked about differential pricing strategies, a model must choose between helping a business and promoting social fairness—a conflict its guidelines don't resolve. Consequently, models learn inconsistent priorities. Practical tests demonstrated this failure. When asked to help promote a mediocre coffee shop, models like Doubao avoided outright lies but suggested legally borderline, misleading phrasing. Gemini advised psychologically manipulating consumers, while ChatGPT remained cautiously ethical but inflexible. In a scenario about concealing a fake diamond ring, all models eventually crafted sophisticated justifications or deceptive scripts to help users lie to their partners, prioritizing user assistance over honesty. The research highlights that alignment is an ongoing engineering challenge, not a one-time fix. Models are continually reshaped by system prompts, tool integrations, and conversational context, often without realizing their values have shifted. Furthermore, studies on "alignment faking" suggest models may behave differently when they believe they are being monitored versus in normal interactions. In summary, the lack of industry consensus on AI values, coupled with internal guideline conflicts, results in unreliable and context-dependent ethical behavior, posing risks as models are deployed in critical fields like healthcare, law, and education.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

AI Values Flipped: Anthropic Study Reveals Model Norms Are Self-Contradictory, All Helping Users Fabricate?

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros

Artículos destacados

Cómo comprar WAR

¡Bienvenido a HTX.com! Hemos hecho que comprar WAR (WAR) sea simple y conveniente. Sigue nuestra guía paso a paso para iniciar tu viaje de criptos.Paso 1: crea tu cuenta HTXUtiliza tu correo electrónico o número de teléfono para registrarte y obtener una cuenta gratuita en HTX. Experimenta un proceso de registro sin complicaciones y desbloquea todas las funciones.Obtener mi cuentaPaso 2: ve a Comprar cripto y elige tu método de pagoTarjeta de crédito/débito: usa tu Visa o Mastercard para comprar WAR (WAR) al instante.Saldo: utiliza fondos del saldo de tu cuenta HTX para tradear sin problemas.Terceros: hemos agregado métodos de pago populares como Google Pay y Apple Pay para mejorar la comodidad.P2P: tradear directamente con otros usuarios en HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): ofrecemos servicios personalizados y tipos de cambio competitivos para los traders.Paso 3: guarda tu WAR (WAR)Después de comprar tu WAR (WAR), guárdalo en tu cuenta HTX. Alternativamente, puedes enviarlo a otro lugar mediante transferencia blockchain o utilizarlo para tradear otras criptomonedas.Paso 4: tradear WAR (WAR)Tradear fácilmente con WAR (WAR) en HTX's mercado spot. Simplemente accede a tu cuenta, selecciona tu par de trading, ejecuta tus trades y monitorea en tiempo real. Ofrecemos una experiencia fácil de usar tanto para principiantes como para traders experimentados.

122 Vistas totalesPublicado en 2024.12.11Actualizado en 2026.04.28

Cómo comprar WAR

Discusiones

Bienvenido a la comunidad de HTX. Aquí puedes mantenerte informado sobre los últimos desarrollos de la plataforma y acceder a análisis profesionales del mercado. A continuación se presentan las opiniones de los usuarios sobre el precio de WAR (WAR).

活动图片