The full seven-day cost of a 10,000 USDT perpetual position

Baseline scenario

Assume 10,000 USDT notional and an example taker fee of 0.05% on both entry and exit. Each side costs 5 USDT, so round-trip trading fees total 10 USDT.

Seven days at three settlements per day could cross 21 intervals. The actual count depends on the contract schedule and whether the position remains open at each timestamp; days alone are not sufficient.

Funding scenarios

At a constant +0.01% per interval, a long pays 1 USDT each time, or 21 USDT across 21 intervals. Adding round-trip fees gives a 31 USDT example total. At +0.03%, funding becomes 63 USDT and total cost 73 USDT.

With a negative rate the long may receive funding, potentially reducing net cost below trading fees. That receipt is not trading profit; price PnL can be much larger in either direction.

The three execution scenarios side by side

Side by side, the three scenarios show something the arithmetic above did not make obvious: the fee column moves by 6 USDT while the funding column is identical in all three rows.

That is the defining feature of perpetual cost structure: the longer the hold, the less fees matter relative to funding. At seven days funding is already 68% of the all-taker total; hold thirty days at the same rate and the fee share falls to roughly 10%.

What scales with size and what does not

In this model both fees and funding are proportional to notional, so the total cost rate — the percentage of notional — does not move with size. The 0.31% on 10,000 USDT is the same 0.31% on 100,000 USDT.

Three things do not scale proportionally. Slippage usually grows with size because a larger order eats deeper into the book. The maintenance-margin rate can rise as notional crosses a tier. And in thin liquidity the realised exit price on a large position can sit well away from the quoted level.

Multiplying a small test through is therefore risky. The cost rate extrapolates; execution quality does not. When size grows by an order of magnitude, measure the gap between realised average fill and quoted price again and feed that back in as the new slippage input.

• Scales proportionally: opening fee, closing fee, funding per interval, total cost rate.
• Does not scale proportionally: slippage, maintenance tier, realised fills on partial exits.
• Does not change at all: the number of settlements, which follows time and the contract schedule, not size.

Maker does not mean zero cost

If both fills execute as maker at 0.02%, the example round trip is 4 USDT, 6 USDT below the taker case. A resting order can remain unfilled, partially fill or become a taker order when chased.

Maintain at least three budgets: all maker, all taker, and maker entry with taker stop. A risk exit should not assume a passive fill is guaranteed.

Build your own seven-day budget

Use the signed-in fee page for your maker/taker tier, record the next funding timestamp and current rate, then calculate low, central and high funding scenarios.

Add separate allowances for slippage, tax and transfers. DZPTO's total includes only displayed components and is not every economic cost of holding for seven days.

Official sources and calculation boundary

The three sources cover fee calculation, the funding settlement mechanism and the structure of the fee schedule. The 0.05% and +0.01% used here are fixed so the arithmetic can be followed step by step; neither is a live value from any particular moment.

• OKX: futures trading fee calculation
• OKX: perpetual futures funding fee FAQ
• Binance: futures fee schedule

Next checks in this series