Perpetual contract fee rate design should allow for reasonable price differences between spot and futures, but the mechanism of settling once every hour completely destroys this logic. Just look at Pippin's performance these days—frequent charges with no signs of price regression. This kind of correction has long become a tool for market manipulation.
Since some projects discovered the trick of negative fee rates to pump prices, the entire contract ecosystem has started to change. Coins like TRB and Pippin frequently perform the same tricks, and exchanges have also begun to join in—rumored to take as much as 37% of the revenue. What’s the result? Most retail investors lose the desire to open orders when they see such coins, fearing they’ll be chopped up like leeks.
This is very ironic. If exchanges profit from fees, how does this kind of user discouragement and order-blocking manipulation benefit the exchanges themselves? Unless the exchange also wants to get a piece of the blood money. Some users even lament: playing like this, it’s better to go back to A-shares—at least the regulations are strict, and such tricks are impossible.
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.
17 Likes
Reward
17
5
1
Share
Comment
0/400
SatoshiHeir
· 12-22 01:11
It should be noted that this article touches on a paradox that I have argued countless times—the short-term harvesting logic of exchanges will ultimately destroy their ecological foundation. According to on-chain data analysis, Pippin's fee mechanism has long deviated from the original thinking about market self-consistency in Satoshi Nakamoto's White Paper.
The irony is that the exchange fails to understand this. A 37% profit-sharing ratio? Laughable, this is simply burning down their own house.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-a180694b
· 12-19 01:52
This transaction is quite ruthless—after squeezing retail investors, they still want to squeeze their trading counterparts.
View OriginalReply0
MetaMisfit
· 12-19 01:52
Pippin's move is really amazing; the fees are so generous that you can't even feel them, yet the price remains sluggish. This is outrageous.
View OriginalReply0
BearMarketLightning
· 12-19 01:51
You are still playing with these coins? I already removed Pippin from my watchlist a long time ago. Just by looking at the fee mechanism, I knew it was a lost cause.
View OriginalReply0
WenMoon42
· 12-19 01:32
This fee mechanism has been played out, and Pippin's method of cutting is indeed outrageous.
Perpetual contract fee rate design should allow for reasonable price differences between spot and futures, but the mechanism of settling once every hour completely destroys this logic. Just look at Pippin's performance these days—frequent charges with no signs of price regression. This kind of correction has long become a tool for market manipulation.
Since some projects discovered the trick of negative fee rates to pump prices, the entire contract ecosystem has started to change. Coins like TRB and Pippin frequently perform the same tricks, and exchanges have also begun to join in—rumored to take as much as 37% of the revenue. What’s the result? Most retail investors lose the desire to open orders when they see such coins, fearing they’ll be chopped up like leeks.
This is very ironic. If exchanges profit from fees, how does this kind of user discouragement and order-blocking manipulation benefit the exchanges themselves? Unless the exchange also wants to get a piece of the blood money. Some users even lament: playing like this, it’s better to go back to A-shares—at least the regulations are strict, and such tricks are impossible.