To eat melons, one must also do serious things 😂 Yesterday, I had a drink with a few friends and talked about the issue of contract billing. Many people think that contracts are very simple, with both upward and downward directions, right? As long as you choose the right direction, can't you keep making big money with it? I can't say that this statement is completely wrong, but there is a missing key premise here - "funding rate" and "handling fee". So some contracts are not a 'zero cost strategy', but a system with 'wear and tear'. From Chao Labs' data, it can be seen whether there is a difference in transaction fees. Many friends have told me that playing contracts is like gambling in a casino. I think this metaphor is wrong, because real casinos do not rely on winning money by betting against customers, but on "House Advantage", which means the casino's advantage to make profits. This advantage is reflected in various aspects, such as the odds design of roulette, pumping, return rate, etc. Even if you win today, the casino won't feel heartbroken because in the long run, as long as you're still playing, they have stable returns. So I often hear a saying that the biggest fear of casinos is not that you win money, but that you don't play. This is very similar to a contract. The platform establishes a "rule advantage" through fees, funding rates, and other means. Regardless of whether you are up or down today, as long as you trade frequently, the platform will definitely make a profit. For users, they may never receive their theoretical full profits, and even their bets may not reach the maximum margin. If there are opinions, there is demand. Exchanges without funding rates are almost non-existent, or they will be wiped out if they lose money. However, exchanges without procedures, especially DEX, still exist. @ surf_protocol is one of them, with no handling fees. Only when making money do they need to pay a "share", and when losing money, it will not increase investors' losses.