BTC Perp Funding: MAVIA 136% & CHIP -89% Shorts | Apr 23

The crypto derivatives market enters April 23 with a distinctly risk-on posture. Total market capitalisation has climbed to $2.71 trillion, up 3.1% over the past 24 hours, while BTC dominance holds firm at 58.1%. The broad rally has been led by mid-cap and meme tokens: PENGU surged 10.3%, ARB added 6.5%, BONK rose 6.0%, SKY gained 5.9%, and HYPE closed up 5.8%. Social feeds and on-chain activity spotlight CHIP, PENGU, RAVE, AAVE, ASTEROID, TAO, and SOL as the most discussed names today. This macro backdrop matters for funding rates because rising spot prices tend to push perpetual futures into positive funding territory as late longs chase momentum. Conversely, tokens that are being aggressively shorted — often after sharp rallies or amid fundamental scepticism — exhibit deeply negative rates that punish bearish positioning. Today's funding rate landscape reflects both dynamics in extreme fashion: MAVIA longs are paying an annualised 136% to hold their positions, while CHIP shorts face an 89% annualised cost. The divergence between these two poles is among the widest seen in recent sessions and sets up compelling opportunities for traders who can read the funding tape correctly. As we detailed in yesterday's ETH Perpetual Futures Funding Rates deep dive, the ETH complex showed a more balanced profile — making the BTC perp ecosystem today's primary hunting ground for outsized funding rate setups.

MAVIA 136% Annualised — Extreme Long Bias

MAVIA tops today's funding rate leaderboard at 0.1241% per 8-hour interval, equating to a staggering 135.85% annualised rate. With a mark price of just $0.03, the dynamics at play here are classic micro-cap funding blow-off: thin order book depth meets aggressive long speculation, and the resulting funding premium becomes self-reinforcing. Longs who entered early are effectively subsidised by the spot appreciation, but any new long entering now must weigh whether the expected price appreciation exceeds the 0.12% they surrender every eight hours. This is not MAVIA's first appearance at the top of the funding charts. As we covered in our MAVIA 97% Funding Rate Arbitrage report, the token was already printing extreme rates at 97% annualised just two days ago. The escalation from 97% to 136% suggests that long positioning has intensified rather than cooled — a dangerous signal for leveraged bulls. When funding rates climb this high, the market is effectively screaming that the long side is overcrowded. Historically, such levels precede violent liquidation cascades when spot price momentum falters. For funding rate arbitrageurs, the play is straightforward: short the MAVIA perpetual while holding spot tokens delta-neutral, collecting 135.85% annualised in funding payments. However, execution risk on a $0.03 mark price is non-trivial. Slippage, funding payment timing, and the potential for sudden liquidation events on thin liquidity all add friction. Traders using Tangerine to compare rates across Hyperliquid, Vest, and Aster may find slight variations in the MAVIA funding rate, but the core trade thesis remains the same across venues: the funding premium is historically extreme, and mean reversion is a question of when, not if.

CHIP -89% Annualised — Shorts Paying Premium

CHIP presents the mirror image of MAVIA's funding extreme. At -0.0810% per 8 hours, shorts are paying an annualised 88.73% to maintain their positions — one of the deepest negative funding rates on the board today. The mark price sits at $0.11, and CHIP is trending across social feeds, suggesting that the short bias is driven by narrative scepticism rather than quiet accumulation. A negative funding rate of this magnitude tells us that the market has priced in significant downside expectation. Shorts are willing to pay a premium because they believe CHIP's current price level is unsustainable. But therein lies the risk: when the majority of positioning is concentrated on one side, any catalyst that forces short covering can trigger a violent squeeze. CHIP's trending status only amplifies this possibility — a positive catalyst hitting a token with deeply negative funding is the textbook setup for a short squeeze in crypto derivatives markets. For traders evaluating the funding rate arbitrage angle, going long the CHIP perpetual and collecting 88.73% annualised from shorts sounds attractive in isolation. The risk, however, is that the spot price may decline faster than the funding income compensates. At $0.11 mark price, a 10% spot decline erodes $0.011 of capital per token, while each 8-hour funding payment returns only $0.0000891 per token. The math makes clear that this carry trade only works if you believe the spot price is near a floor. Cross-exchange comparison adds another layer. While Hyperliquid prints -0.0810%, Binance and Bybit may offer slightly different CHIP funding rates depending on their respective open interest distribution. Using Tangerine's perp DEX aggregator, traders can identify which venue offers the most favourable entry for a CHIP long funding harvest, or whether the rate is consistent enough across CEX and DEX venues to justify the arbitrage.

ZEREBRO at 64% Annualised — Heat Persists

ZEREBRO continues to command elevated positive funding at 0.0588% per 8 hours, translating to 64.44% annualised. The mark price of $0.02 places it firmly in micro-cap territory, and the persistent funding premium indicates that speculative long interest has not waned. Yesterday's BTC Perp Funding report highlighted ZEREBRO at 59% annualised — the climb to 64% today confirms that long pressure is intensifying rather than dissipating. The trajectory from 59% to 64% annualised over 24 hours is notable because it suggests new longs are still entering despite the already elevated funding cost. In a healthy trending market, rising funding rates reflect genuine demand. But when rates persist above 50% annualised for multiple days, the risk of a deleveraging event grows proportionally. Each 8-hour funding payment at 0.0588% represents a tangible drag on long PnL. For a position held over a week, that accumulates to roughly 1.24% in funding costs alone — significant for a token priced at two cents. Traders should monitor ZEREBRO's open interest alongside the funding rate. If OI is declining while funding remains high, it suggests existing longs are trapped and paying to hold rather than new capital entering. Conversely, rising OI with high funding confirms fresh speculative inflows. Across Web3 perp DEX venues, ZEREBRO's rate appears relatively consistent: Hyperliquid's 0.0588% aligns closely with readings from Aster and Bluefin, indicating the long bias is broad-based rather than venue-specific. For those seeking the best execution price and rate, Tangerine's comparison engine surfaces these cross-venue differences in real time, ensuring the carry trade or directional entry is optimised for maximum capital efficiency.

Negative Funding Cluster — BIO, YZY, BLAST

Three tokens form a notable cluster of moderate-to-deep negative funding rates. BIO leads at -0.0263% per 8 hours (-28.83% annualised) with a mark price of $0.03. YZY follows at -0.0218% per 8 hours (-23.91% annualised), mark price $0.30. BLAST prints -0.0178% per 8 hours (-19.48% annualised), though its mark price sits at $0.00 — a data point that warrants extreme caution for any trader considering a funding harvest. The BIO situation is particularly interesting. At a $0.03 mark price with nearly 29% annualised negative funding, shorts are expressing conviction that current levels are unsustainable. BIO's negative rate has persisted long enough to suggest structural short interest rather than temporary speculative positioning. For counter-trend traders, collecting 28.83% annualised to hold BIO long is a reasonable risk-reward proposition — provided the spot downside is limited. At three cents, the absolute downside is naturally capped, making the carry trade math more favourable than it would be for a higher-priced asset. YZY at -23.91% annualised offers a similar thesis with different risk parameters. The $0.30 mark price provides more room for percentage decline, meaning the funding income must work harder to offset potential spot losses. Each 8-hour funding payment of 0.0218% yields approximately $0.000065 per token, while a 10% spot decline costs $0.03 per token — the ratio is less forgiving than BIO's. BLAST's situation deserves special scrutiny. Yesterday's report noted BLAST at -37% annualised shorts. Today's -19.48% represents significant compression. This could mean shorts have partially covered, reducing the extreme bearish pressure. For traders tracking BLAST, the funding rate normalisation is a signal that the short squeeze risk has diminished — and with it, the most aggressive funding collection opportunity. Across CEX venues like OKX and KuCoin, BLAST's negative funding has similarly compressed, a pattern easily verified through Tangerine's aggregated rate comparison.

Moderate Negative Rates — UMA, ALT, IMX, SUPER

The lower-intensity negative funding tier features four tokens with annualised rates ranging from -10% to -17%. UMA at -0.0153% per 8 hours (-16.77% annualised) leads this group with a mark price of $0.49 — notably the highest mark price among today's negative funding set. ALT follows at -0.0135% per 8 hours (-14.77% annualised, mark $0.01), then IMX at -0.0102% per 8 hours (-11.12% annualised, mark $0.18), and SUPER rounds out the list at -0.0096% per 8 hours (-10.47% annualised, mark $0.13). These moderate negative rates present a different trading calculus than the extremes discussed earlier. At 10-17% annualised negative funding, the income from holding long is modest — roughly comparable to a decent DeFi lending yield. The advantage is stability: moderate negative funding rates tend to persist for longer without triggering violent squeezes, because the short side is not being aggressively punished for their positioning. This makes UMA, ALT, IMX, and SUPER potentially attractive for a low-volatility carry trade where the primary goal is steady funding income with directional exposure as a secondary consideration. UMA stands out in this group due to its higher mark price. At $0.49, the token has sufficient liquidity depth across both DEX and CEX venues to support meaningful position sizes. Comparing UMA's funding rate across Hyperliquid, Binance, and Bybit via Tangerine's aggregator reveals that the negative rate is broadly consistent — hovering around -0.015% to -0.018% per 8 hours — suggesting the short bias is consensus-driven rather than venue-specific. IMX at -11.12% annualised also benefits from strong cross-venue liquidity, making it one of the more practical carry trade candidates for traders who want negative funding exposure without the micro-cap execution risks associated with tokens like BIO or BLAST. ALT's $0.01 mark price and SUPER's $0.13 mark price both present smaller opportunity sets but may offer marginally better rates on select perp DEX venues.

Cross-Exchange Funding Rate Comparison

One of the most underexploited edges in crypto derivatives trading is the cross-exchange funding rate spread. While Hyperliquid dominates the on-chain perpetual futures landscape, its rates are not always the most favourable for every position. Binance, Bybit, and OKX frequently print slightly different funding rates for the same underlying asset — differences that compound meaningfully over weeks and months of active position management. Consider MAVIA as a case study. Hyperliquid's 0.1241% per 8 hours is the headline rate, but Binance may offer a marginally lower rate for longs seeking cheaper holding costs, or Bybit might present a higher rate that is more attractive for short funding harvesters. The spread between venues can range from 5% to 20% of the headline rate, creating a meaningful arbitrage opportunity for traders who actively compare. Similarly, for CHIP's -0.0810% rate, the difference between entering on Hyperliquid versus OKX or KuCoin could determine whether the carry trade is profitable after accounting for gas fees, slippage, and capital efficiency. For the moderate-rate tier, IMX provides an illustrative example. On Hyperliquid the rate is -0.0102% per 8 hours, but Binance and Bitget may print -0.008% or -0.012% depending on their respective open interest concentrations. A 2-basis-point difference per 8-hour interval equates to roughly 6.5 basis points per day, or 24% annualised on the spread alone. For a $100,000 position held over a month, that difference is worth approximately $2,000 — a non-trivial sum extracted purely from venue selection. This is precisely where Tangerine's value proposition becomes critical. As a perp DEX aggregator, Tangerine pulls real-time funding rates from Hyperliquid, Aster, Lighter, Vest, Bluefin, Paradex, EdgeX, WOOFi Pro, Hibachi, and Pacifica on the DEX side, alongside Binance, Bybit, OKX, BingX, Bitget, and KuCoin on the CEX side. The platform's comparison interface allows traders to instantly identify which venue offers the best rate for any given position direction, eliminating the manual process of checking half a dozen interfaces before each trade.

Key Setups to Watch & Forward Outlook

Looking ahead, several funding rate setups demand close monitoring over the next 24-48 hours. MAVIA's 135.85% annualised rate is the most obvious candidate for mean reversion. If spot momentum stalls, the combination of extreme funding costs and thin liquidity could trigger cascading long liquidations. Traders should watch for any decline in MAVIA's open interest as an early warning signal. A short perp entry funded by the extreme positive rate remains the highest-conviction funding arbitrage on the board, though execution risk on a $0.03 mark price requires careful position sizing. CHIP's -88.73% annualised rate represents the inverse setup. Any positive catalyst — a partnership announcement, exchange listing, or community-driven narrative shift — could force shorts to cover into a market with deeply negative funding, creating a compounding squeeze dynamic. The probability is not high on any given day, but the payoff when it hits is outsized. Positioning a small long CHIP perp position as a tail-risk bet, funded by the negative rate, is a reasonable allocation for sophisticated crypto derivatives traders. ZEREBRO's accelerating rate from 59% to 64% annualised suggests the long thesis is still attracting capital. If this trend continues, ZEREBRO could breach 100% annualised — placing it in MAVIA's current territory. Conversely, BLAST's compression from -37% to -19.48% annualised indicates normalisation, reducing both the squeeze risk and the funding collection opportunity. For active perp traders, the key takeaway is clear: extreme funding rates are signals, not trades. They tell you where positioning is concentrated, but they do not predict timing. The edge comes from combining funding rate analysis with on-chain data, open interest trends, and cross-venue rate comparison. Tangerine's aggregation across dozens of DEX and CEX venues ensures that wherever you choose to execute, you are doing so with full visibility into the funding landscape. The next 24 hours will determine whether today's extremes resolve through mean reversion or intensify further — and the funding tape will be the first place to read the signal.

Related articles