Hyperliquid
Hyperliquid funding rates turn position size into hourly costs or credits
Hyperliquid funding rates determine hourly transfers between long and short perpetual positions. Positive funding makes longs pay shorts; negative funding reverses that direction. The payment depends on position size, oracle price and the applicable hourly rate. A percentage alone therefore cannot explain an account’s funding cost. The relevant quantity is the exposure held at settlement, rather than the collateral committed when opening it. Leverage affects how that cost compares with supporting capital. Contract settings and the distinction between estimated and settled funding also matter when calculating a holding cost or investigating an unexpected account entry.
- last updatedPosition quantity determines the payment basis
The funding payment uses position size multiplied by oracle price and the applicable hourly funding rate. Treat the rate as a decimal when multiplying. Position direction determines whether the resulting amount represents a debit or credit.
| Parameter | Value or basis | Calculation role | Applicable condition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Payment interval | One hour | Settlement frequency | Perpetual funding |
| Base formula interval | Eight hours | Hourly conversion basis | Base funding calculation |
| Contract quantity | One underlying asset unit | Size denomination | Standard linear crypto perpetuals |
| Valuation price | Oracle price | Converts size to notional | Funding payment calculation |
| Position input | Size at settlement | Exposure receiving or paying funding | End of the interval |
For standard linear crypto perpetuals, quantity expresses underlying exposure. Margin describes the capital supporting that exposure. These are different inputs even when an interface displays both beside the same position.
Leverage changes the burden relative to margin
Holding quantity and valuation constant, changing leverage alone leaves funding notional unchanged. This follows from the payment formula: leverage is not a separate multiplier. However, a smaller margin allocation makes the same payment larger relative to committed capital. Increasing quantity while keeping collateral unchanged increases both exposure and the potential funding burden.
Margin mode determines which capital supports losses. Cross margin shares supporting collateral across positions, while isolated margin allocates it to an individual position. That distinction matters when assessing the account’s capacity to absorb ongoing costs. It does not replace quantity with collateral in the funding calculation.
Funding payments can change the liquidation price after entry. Cross positions also depend on changes in unrealized profit or loss from other positions sharing their collateral. A liquidation estimate therefore cannot establish how long an account can absorb future funding charges, especially when both market prices and rates change.
Order-book premiums feed the rate
The base calculation combines an averaged order-book premium relative to the oracle price with a bounded adjustment toward an interest component. Impact bid and ask prices measure execution across a specified amount of order-book liquidity. A single last trade does not supply that measurement.
The eight-hour formula pays one eighth of its computed value each hour. An already hourly figure needs no further division.
Oracle and mark prices answer different questions
The oracle supplies the valuation input for funding, while the mark price supports margin calculations and unrealized profit or loss. A position value displayed using the mark price can therefore differ from its funding notional. Substituting that displayed value without identifying its price basis introduces a calculation mismatch.
A funding credit and an account loss can coexist because price losses can outweigh the credit. The credit records one transfer; price movements create a separate gain or loss on the position. Adding those effects together is necessary when assessing the position’s overall result. The direction of funding alone cannot establish profitability.
Settled entries establish the account’s funding result
The user funding history records account-specific funding entries. Market funding history supplies rates instead. The distinction matters because a market rate alone does not establish an account’s exposure. Account funding entries include the payment amount, instrument, position size, funding rate and timestamp.
Trading fees belong to executions. Keep them separate from funding when explaining a balance change.
What if a funding estimate is missing?
A missing prediction does not establish zero funding. The predicted-funding interface supports the first perpetual DEX, which limits its usefulness for other markets.
Suppose an estimate is absent for a selected contract. The expected evidence is a rate associated with that exact instrument and venue.
Check the market identifier and prediction coverage without changing the position. For a supported market, check the returned instrument and venue labels; correct a mismatched lookup before retrying. For a market outside prediction coverage, use its asset context for current funding or funding history for settled rates.
A matching prediction resolves the missing-estimate issue. For an elapsed interval, the account’s funding entry establishes the actual transfer. An empty prediction cannot substitute for either record.
Contract design changes the rate inputs
Builder-deployed perpetual markets can use configurable funding multipliers, interest components and adjustment clamps. These settings change the relationship between the measured premium and the resulting rate. The multiplier scales funding, while the clamp bounds movement toward the interest component. A calculation that assumes identical settings across contracts can therefore produce an incorrect estimate.
Hyperps have another distinction: they replace the usual external spot reference with a moving average of their own mark prices. Their funding can consequently respond to recent price momentum differently from a conventional spot-referenced perpetual. This mechanism does not establish that a particular hyperp remains available. Contract identity and its applicable design must match the calculation.
Holding-cost comparisons need matching exposure and periods
Comparing costs over several settlements requires a consistent denominator and period. As an arithmetic consequence of the payment formula, a historical total uses each interval’s actual inputs. Multiplying the latest payment by the number of elapsed intervals assumes those inputs stayed unchanged. Changes in quantity or valuation can break that assumption even when the rate appears stable.
Annualization is an extrapolation, not an earned return. It extends a rate over a longer period without establishing that the rate will persist. Comparing percentages also requires matching their intervals and distinguishing returns on notional from returns on margin. Otherwise, apparently different yields may reflect different denominators.
Holding spot means owning the asset rather than a perpetual contract. Spot ownership itself has no perpetual funding transfer. A perpetual position can receive funding, but its total result also includes price exposure and execution costs. Borrowing to finance a spot holding would introduce a separate cost, so a fair comparison must include that financing where it exists.
Hyperliquid funding rates: questions and answers
Does Hyperliquid retain a share of funding payments?
Hyperliquid’s funding mechanism transfers payments between position holders without collecting a fee on those transfers. Execution charges are separate. A funding debit should therefore be assessed using the funding calculation rather than a maker or taker fee schedule.
Can a builder-deployed market have a zero funding multiplier?
The deployer controls permit a zero funding multiplier, which scales the calculated funding rate to zero. That is a configurable market setting, not a permanent property of every builder-deployed contract. It also does not remove execution charges or losses caused by price movements.
Why can collateral and oracle quotation use different currencies?
Standard crypto perpetual specifications include contracts with a USDT-denominated oracle and USDC collateral. Their accounting applies no USDC/USDT conversion to the quoted profit or loss. Other contract designs can differ, so the collateral asset alone does not identify the oracle’s quotation currency.
Will an opposite spot holding eliminate perpetual funding?
An opposite spot holding does not remove the perpetual contract’s funding payment. It changes the combined position’s price exposure. Any funding transfer still belongs to the perpetual leg, while financing costs, execution costs and differences between spot and perpetual prices affect the combined result.