Most people look at ETH Short, first checking direction, leverage, and Funding, but rarely pay attention to what's written on the liability side.

@protocol_fx's sPOSITION uses fxUSD as collateral, borrowing wstETH from the xPOSITION wstETH collateral pool via a flash loan to build the position.
The liability side records wstETH, an ETH asset that appreciates with staking rewards.
This position therefore has two lines. When ETH falls, the dollar value of the debt decreases, and the short profits; even if ETH stays flat, wstETH may slowly appreciate with Lido staking rewards, making the same amount of debt gradually more expensive.
Price determines directional profit/loss, while staking rewards affect time cost. This is the structure behind sPOSITION's low-Funding experience; the protocol does not copy the periodic funding fee of perpetual contracts, but embeds the holding cost into the debt asset itself.
Low Funding can be valid, but zero cost cannot. The appreciation of wstETH affects the debt value, but its formation is different from traditional exchange funding.
When ETH reverses upward and leverage exceeds the safe range, the keeper will repay part of the wstETH debt, reducing both the debt amount and leverage. The position becomes more resistant to volatility, but there is still a rebalance fee, and in extreme cases it may enter liquidation.
Therefore, to judge an ETH Short, one cannot just look at entry price and leverage. The short button determines direction, while the debt unit determines which side time stands on. Would you rather bear a clearly changing funding curve, or a debt that slowly appreciates with staking rewards?