Delta-neutral funding arbitrage is a market-neutral strategy that captures the funding rate spread between two exchanges on the same asset. You open a short position on one exchange and a long on the same asset on another exchange. The two legs offset directional exposure, so the yield comes from the net funding difference rather than from price movement.

Balanced continuously aligns perpetual futures funding rates across supported exchanges, pairs them leg by leg, and surfaces the combinations where the net funding spread is structurally favorable. Each opportunity is presented with its historical funding behavior, liquidity conditions, and execution metrics, so traders can read the setup as a whole rather than looking at a single funding number.

Balanced tracks perpetual futures across both crypto and traditional finance markets. On the crypto side, it covers major and mid-cap assets traded across supported exchanges: Hyperliquid, Paradex, Backpack, Lighter, GRVT, ApeX Omni, and others. On the TradFi side, several exchanges offer perpetual contracts on equities, forex pairs, indices, and commodities. These are tracked and scored alongside crypto perps using the same ranking framework, so you can surface delta-neutral opportunities across asset classes in one place. Coverage is expected to expand as new exchanges and markets come online.

Yes. Funding rates are collected on each exchange's native schedule (hourly on most exchanges, 8h on some DEXs, daily rollover on oracle exchanges like Ostium) and stored as a continuous history. Historical funding rates let you see whether a spread has been structurally persistent over time or only briefly dislocated.

Yes. Balanced reads L2 order book snapshots from every exchange that exposes one, walks the book leg by leg across several capital sizes (from small tickets up to six-figure entries), and turns that into real slippage in basis points, fill ratio, and book-completeness flags. For quote-based exchanges, slippage is interpolated from pre-calculated quotes; when no book is available, a volume-based fallback is used and clearly labeled. The point is to show execution cost as it would actually behave at your size, not a theoretical mid-price.

Each opportunity is scored on a composite that covers several dimensions: execution quality (slippage and fill at your chosen capital size), funding stability (Sharpe of the net series), leveraged APR net of slippage and fees, slope of recent funding behavior, and positive ratio (how often the spread remained favorable). Ranking can also be viewed through simpler lenses like Execution Score, Strategy Quality Score (SQS) or average APR.

Yes, personalization is a core part of the product. You can restrict the exchanges you care about, override per-exchange fees to match your tier, filter out setups with insufficient funding history, and select between built-in trading scenarios that change how the ranking weights recent versus long-term funding behavior. Opportunistic targets setups held around 7 days and weights recent funding more heavily. Carry targets 30-day holds and balances short and medium-term signals. Structural targets 90-day positions and emphasizes persistent, long-window trends. Custom scenarios with your own holding period and weight distribution are also supported, so the ranking adapts to how you actually run positions rather than a generic default.

Yes, and this is one of the core design decisions in Balanced. Execution cost scales with capital: a $1,000 entry may clear the order book cleanly while a $50,000 entry on the same pair will move the price against you and erode the spread. Balanced computes slippage, fill ratio, leveraged APR, and the composite score for several capital sizes, from $100 up to $100,000 per leg (so $200,000 total deployed for a $100,000 capital size). When you set your preferred capital size, every score on the grid recalculates to reflect your actual ticket. A setup that ranks well at small size may drop several positions once execution cost at your real size is factored in.

A funding rate tracker shows you a number per exchange. Balanced shows you a two-leg strategy, aligned in time, scored for persistence, and stress-tested against real order book depth at the capital size you actually deploy. Fees, slippage, asymmetric rollovers (Ostium), and funding-interval mismatches are normalized upstream, so the ranking you see reflects execution truth rather than a raw rate comparison. That is why Balanced leans on composite scoring (SQS) and historical context rather than on a single headline APR.

Today the product is focused on perp-perp delta-neutral setups across supported exchanges. Spot carry strategies (holding spot on one side and shorting the perpetual on the other to capture the basis and the funding) are planned and will reuse the same alignment, scoring, and execution logic. Until that extension ships, Balanced intentionally does not claim spot coverage.

A position dashboard to track open delta-neutral legs, P&L, and funding accrual is being built, and a farming bot that can open, rebalance, and close positions automatically based on Balanced's scoring is planned as the next layer on top. Both will consume the same backend truth as the public grid, so the metrics you see on the landing page and the ones the bot acts on will stay consistent. More information to come soon.