Funding is a positioning tax
Perpetual futures use funding to keep contract prices anchored to spot. When one side is crowded, that side often pays. Aegium uses that as a market structure input rather than a simple long/short trigger.
A positive or negative funding rate does not mean much in isolation. Aegium compares funding pressure across the liquid perps, then checks whether crowded positioning is being rewarded or punished by flow.
Perpetual futures use funding to keep contract prices anchored to spot. When one side is crowded, that side often pays. Aegium uses that as a market structure input rather than a simple long/short trigger.
A high-funding long can still work when flow and momentum are strong. A negative-funding short can still be dangerous if the squeeze pressure is building. The dashboard makes those tradeoffs visible in the same cross-sectional view.
Funding is one of the inputs the ranking is built on, and a live market-neutral engine trades that ranking in the open, marked hourly. So funding is judged by realized behavior on a public track record, not by a neat theory chart.
You can, but Aegium does not treat funding as enough. It is stronger when paired with flow, momentum, liquidity and observed book performance.
Yes, at portfolio level. The public track record shows the live paper engines' whole history, marked hourly; a free account adds where each one stands inside its backtest cone.
Aegium turns flow, funding and liquidation context into a market-neutral book tracked in the open.