2026-01-08 04:27:30

Recently compared the trading mechanisms of a leading DEX and mainstream centralized exchanges, and found some interesting differences.

First, let's talk about funding rates — this is a key point. On centralized exchanges, those who short pay funding to those who go long; but on some DEXs, the logic is reversed, and longs actually pay shorts. The rate differences are also huge and incomparable. Honestly, this kind of design is a bit confusing.

Even more frustrating is the stop-loss issue. Last night, I placed a stop-loss order on a DEX at 0.2424. The market moved down to 0.23 — it should have triggered, but when I checked in the morning, the order was still there and hadn’t been executed. That’s quite unreasonable. Centralized exchanges tend to execute stop-losses more reliably, but here there’s a clear execution flaw.

From these experiences, DEXs still have a long way to go in terms of maturity and completeness compared to established exchanges. The fundamental mechanism design and order execution stability still need refinement. Newcomers should pay close attention to these details to avoid losses.

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.

13 Likes

Reward
13
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SocialAnxietyStaker

· 01-11 03:46

Funding rate reversal is something I've encountered before, and I almost got confused at the time. Unfilled stop-loss orders are really a game-changer, it feels like playing a game of strategy against the mechanism. DEX is still too immature; after reviewing, centralized exchanges are still more reliable.

View OriginalReply0

MissedTheBoat

· 01-11 03:14

Is the fee logic reversed? Isn't this misleading? Luckily, most of my funds are in centralized platforms. Stop-loss orders can also be ghost orders. DEX really needs to reflect on this. DEX is still in the experimental stage; don't risk real money exploring pitfalls.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketMonk

· 01-10 19:27

In plain terms, DEX is just a trick of boiling a frog in warm water. It looks decentralized and sexy, but the mechanism design is so bad it's like a sieve, even more absurd than centralized systems. Stop-loss orders can fail, and that's not a bug—it's a warning to you—don't trust it. History repeats itself, and every cycle, someone gets cut by this kind of "innovation."

View OriginalReply0

ExpectationFarmer

· 01-08 04:53

DEX is really still too immature; it's excessive that stop-losses can fail. I've also experienced this, and later I gave up using DEX derivatives. Who came up with the design of reverse fee rates? It's purely a trap for retail investors.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketMonk

· 01-08 04:52

I've also encountered the issue of reverse fees; luckily, I didn't hold a large position, or I would have suffered heavy losses. The stop-loss order didn't trigger? That's the most annoying part. I directly switched to using limit orders. DEX is still too inexperienced; let's wait for it to be further refined.

View OriginalReply0

OnlyUpOnly

· 01-08 04:48

This DEX funding rate design is really outrageous, going long even requires paying extra? Stop-loss orders don't get filled at all, now that's truly a scam. Centralized exchanges, no matter how they are, wouldn't be like this. DEX still needs to wait a bit longer, it's not mature enough. Newcomers, definitely don't follow blindly, it's easy to suffer heavy losses. With so many loopholes in the mechanism, how can they dare to attract mainstream funds? It still feels like centralized exchanges are more reliable, at least their execution won't fail. The road for DEX is still very long, brothers.

View OriginalReply0

WenMoon

· 01-08 04:37

I've also experienced orders not being filled, and DEXs are indeed still too impulsive. The logic of reverse funding rates... is really outrageous, it feels like just exploiting users. There are too many pitfalls on DEXs, beginners should still be cautious. Messing up the fee rates is basically an insult to intelligence. Bro, I feel for you that your order didn't go through, that's a common problem with DEXs.

View OriginalReply0

SatoshiNotNakamoto

· 01-08 04:33

The reverse fee logic thing I’ve also encountered before, I once thought I was seeing things haha Not triggering the stop-loss order is really the worst, that’s the most heartbreaking part. Paying a higher fee is still acceptable. DEX is indeed still in the polishing stage, no wonder big players are still using centralized platforms.

View OriginalReply0

MoonlightGamer

· 01-08 04:28

The fee logic of DEX is really messed up, it's incredible. Luckily, I didn't put all my funds in. --- Stop-loss can even fail? Then what's the point of playing? Better to go back to centralized exchanges. --- That's why I will never touch certain DEXs, they are too immature. --- Who designed such a huge fee difference? It feels like a scam to cut the leeks. --- Damn, the stop-loss didn't trigger, which means I lost money for nothing. --- DEX has potential, but right now it definitely has a lot of issues. Need to wait for the optimizations. --- People are still using inverted funding fees? Is this a joke? --- Newcomers, take a good look. Don't be fooled by the high returns of DEXs; the risks are very high. --- I've also experienced stop-loss failures, and after that, I never used that platform again. --- It seems I still need to compare more. Don't be fooled into falling into a trap.

View OriginalReply0