Recently, looking at RVV's market data, the derivatives side is really quite outrageous. The contract position size has reached around $12 million, but the project's market cap is only $6.74 million, which means the contract size is almost twice the spot market. With such a small spot market, the entire trading ecosystem is basically dominated by derivatives.
What's even more interesting is that the fee rate has already turned negative. Continuing to open short positions in a negative fee environment sounds tempting, but in reality, profits can easily be eroded by ongoing fees. Once retail investors follow the trend and open short positions, the fee rate may quickly adjust to a strong mode where fees are charged hourly, making holding short positions too costly.
From this perspective, trading strategies should follow the fee rate. When fees are negative, going long can actually be more cost-effective, as you can earn fee subsidies. If you really want to participate, it’s more stable to position low buy orders along the trend. I do not recommend going against the trend and hard shorting unless you are particularly confident, as the fee mechanism can eat into your profits.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
9 Likes
Reward
9
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
RektDetective
· 12h ago
Contract size twice the spot, this leverage ratio really can't hold up
RVV is so small and being crushed by the contract, no wonder it's easy to be harvested
Negative fee rate short? Bro, you're committing suicide, waiting for retail investors to follow and the fee rate will immediately turn against you
The fee rate mechanism can really eat up all your profits, not a joke
Going long to earn fee subsidies in a trending market, isn't that better? Instead of going against the trend with a hard short
Shorting against the trend in this market is like giving away money, don't touch it if you're not confident
Spot only 6.74 million but with 12 million in contracts, you're playing with fire
View OriginalReply0
PaperHandsCriminal
· 12h ago
The contract is twice the spot price. This market is really not playable, and they still charge fees to harvest. It's truly too difficult to make money.
View OriginalReply0
ConsensusBot
· 12h ago
This move is outrageous, with the contract eating twice the spot price, and retail investors are still there buying the dip and shorting.
View OriginalReply0
liquidation_surfer
· 12h ago
Is the contract twice the spot? This game is too fake, wait for the liquidation drama.
Long with negative fees to collect subsidies, I've played this trick before, but it's easy to get trapped.
Small-cap contracts like RVV have too many traps, I'm still on the sidelines.
Fee rates change faster than flipping pages, retail traders opening shorts just give the main players money.
I've said it before, small-cap contracts are too risky, going long with the trend is the way to survive.
View OriginalReply0
WhaleSurfer
· 12h ago
Damn, the contract is twice the spot price, this leverage ratio is outrageous.
RVV is indeed a risky project; retail investors rushing to short directly leads to a crash.
Long with negative fees to earn subsidies—that's the smart way to play.
The fee mechanism is really brilliant; it can eat up all your profits.
Going against the trend and shorting? Unless you're really confident, you're just giving away money.
Small caps are dominated by contracts and can't withstand the wind.
Listen to the author's advice: follow the fee rhythm and don't just waste time.
The spot market has a market cap of only 6.74 million, and this leverage ratio looks terrifying.
Once retail investors follow the trend, the fee rate turns into a charging mode, and short positions' costs skyrocket.
Long positions at low levels are more stable, and at least you can still earn some fee subsidies.
Recently, looking at RVV's market data, the derivatives side is really quite outrageous. The contract position size has reached around $12 million, but the project's market cap is only $6.74 million, which means the contract size is almost twice the spot market. With such a small spot market, the entire trading ecosystem is basically dominated by derivatives.
What's even more interesting is that the fee rate has already turned negative. Continuing to open short positions in a negative fee environment sounds tempting, but in reality, profits can easily be eroded by ongoing fees. Once retail investors follow the trend and open short positions, the fee rate may quickly adjust to a strong mode where fees are charged hourly, making holding short positions too costly.
From this perspective, trading strategies should follow the fee rate. When fees are negative, going long can actually be more cost-effective, as you can earn fee subsidies. If you really want to participate, it’s more stable to position low buy orders along the trend. I do not recommend going against the trend and hard shorting unless you are particularly confident, as the fee mechanism can eat into your profits.