2026-01-09 01:26:04

Recently, many people have started arbitraging between DEXs like VAR and StandX. The core idea is to exploit the differences in fee rates and settlement mechanisms between the two platforms to earn trading fees.

How exactly does it work? For example, opening a long ETH position on VAR while simultaneously opening an equivalent short position on StandX. On the surface, it looks like a hedge trade, but in reality, it's about capturing the fee rate differential. Because VAR and StandX have different fee settlement cycles—VAR might settle every 8 hours, while StandX has a different settlement logic—this time difference creates an opportunity for fee rate arbitrage.

Even better, during the interaction on both sides, the fee rate gains can offset some trading slippage and transaction costs. It may seem insignificant, but if the position size is large enough and the operations are frequent enough, the small gains can accumulate into a steady income. This approach is definitely a good idea for those looking to earn extra from trading fees. Of course, proper risk management and timing judgment are essential.

ETH-1,28%

View Original

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.

22 Likes

Reward
22
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GweiWatcher

· 01-11 19:41

Oh, I've been playing this game for a long time. Basically, it's just about capturing the spread on both sides. I think the VAR settlement logic has some issues; it often gets stuck on timing. Rate arbitrage sounds stable, but I'm more concerned about slippage... Can it really cover it? The saying "little by little" sounds nice, but in practice, it can easily lead to a blow-up. Positions need to be large enough; small retail investors simply can't play this game. StandX seems to have changed its settlement cycle recently. Is this information accurate? Risk management sounds easy to talk about but hard to implement; not everyone can withstand the drawdowns. I think this is a game for institutional players; retail investors should not join the fun. Timing judgment is the core; the rate window opens too quickly. This arbitrage space feels like it's shrinking more and more; later entrants basically have no chance.

View OriginalReply0

GweiTooHigh

· 01-11 13:28

Wait a minute, this trick sounds simple, but in practice, does it have to be timed to the second? A slight slip could result in a missed opportunity.

View OriginalReply0

ConfusedWhale

· 01-10 17:21

This arbitrage idea sounds good, but it feels like you need to keep a close eye on it. Half of the fee revenue might be eaten up by gas fees.

View OriginalReply0

SleepyValidator

· 01-09 01:51

Damn, I need to figure out this strategy... Can the fee difference really be exploited like this? Feels like the risk isn't clearly explained, can the slippage really be covered by fee profits? Isn't this just refined arbitrage? Traders need to be more professional. It's another time difference game; I'm worried about getting cut. Having a large position might actually make it easier to find vulnerabilities. Wait, has StandX's settlement logic changed? Feels like this setup could fail at any time. Is anyone really making money, or is this just another scam? It looks simple, but to execute it properly, you need a deep understanding of the underlying assets. Why does it feel like this is just誘導 people to leverage more... Stable income? I've heard the most magical words in the crypto world, haha.

View OriginalReply0

ZKProofster

· 01-09 01:48

honestly the "stable yield" part here is where people always get it wrong... protocol design is way messier than just fee diff arbitrage lol

Reply0

RiddleMaster

· 01-09 01:44

Another back-and-forth game, to be honest, it's just about earning from the fee difference, but how many can really make a profit... --- This strategy sounds good, but I'm worried that a change in the settlement cycle will lead to liquidation immediately. --- Does the settlement logic of VAR and StandX really differ that much? Are there any data? --- Accumulating little by little sounds great, but in practice, how frequently do you need to operate? The transaction fees might eat into the profits. --- Saying "manage risk well" is too vague. Where exactly is the real trap in this routine? --- Arbitrage and hedging again. If it's this complicated, it's better to just do swing trading directly. --- Having a large enough position... How do you define "enough"? I just want to know the minimum amount in USD needed to get out. --- This idea is indeed feasible, but it depends on which platform first changes its fee model. --- I've never seen anyone get rich just from this. Usually, the fee consumption eats up all the profits.

View OriginalReply0

DecentralizedElder

· 01-09 01:43

It's the same old trick again. Arbitrage with high fees has been common for a long time; the key is still who can run faster. Insufficient capital really is a waste of effort; small retail investors can't make much profit. If risk management isn't done well, you can lose everything in minutes. I think I'll just watch. The settlement logic on these two platforms is so complicated that it really gives me a headache when I try to operate. It's easy to say, but in reality, gas fees and slippage pile up, so how much net profit can there really be? It sounds good, but with the market so competitive, who can still reliably arbitrage? I'd rather just hold coins honestly; this kind of work is too exhausting.

View OriginalReply0

DegenWhisperer

· 01-09 01:39

Haha, it's the same old trick again. It feels like every month someone discovers a new "stable arbitrage"... --- Fee rate difference arbitrage sounds good, but I'm afraid of losing everything if the settlement mechanism changes. --- Having a large position can really make money, but you need to keep a close eye on the risk exposure on both sides. --- Wait, didn't the VAR settlement logic change recently? Can this still be used? --- The term "stable income" is heard too often in crypto lol. --- It feels like betting on time difference with large positions, and the risk isn't that small. --- The biggest risk with this approach is slippage eating into the profits, which requires sufficient liquidity support. --- Hmm, it's a bit interesting, but you need real-time monitoring of fee rate changes on both platforms. --- Insignificant amounts add up... but this phrase always sounds a bit dubious.

View OriginalReply0

ImpermanentPhilosopher

· 01-09 01:28

This tactic looks clever, but in reality, it's just exploiting the time difference to make a profit. However, the prerequisite is that you must grasp the settlement window well; being even slightly slower means losing money. The pitfalls are in the details—slippage and gas fees can eat up more profit than you think. Basically, it's about taking large positions to gamble on the settlement cycle. Don't get caught with a reverse spike later. It seems like using complexity to exchange for a tiny fee difference. Why bother? This trick has been played by others for a long time. Whether there's still a chance now is really hard to say.

View OriginalReply0