Head of BD @bulktrade , ex @tradeparadigm @pythnetwork NFA. Everything here is my personal opinion for entertainment
Wilderness
Joined December 2021
- Tweets212
- Following1.2K
- Followers716
- Likes1.2K
Pinned Tweet
Excited to announce I’ve joined @BulkTrade as Head of BD.
Excited to lead BD alongside incredibly based founders: @kdotcrypto, @junbug_sol.
Bulk is building something that shouldn’t be possible a perpetuals DEX with:
• ~20ms tick-to-trade latency
• A fully on-chain risk engine
• CME SPAN-inspired portfolio margining
Pumped to hit the ground running onboarding market makers, trading firms, and protocols to the next generation of derivatives infrastructure.
gBULK 🫡
Cory L retweeted
Hey CT, I'm assembling a squad at @bulktraders.
Anyone interested?👀
Cory L retweeted
Traders have always thought liquidation is where a trade ends. We disagree.
on Bulk, liquidation doesn't have to mean the end. It can be a second chance, an opportunity to recover, reassess, and keep your strategy alive while other venues would simply annihilate your entire margin.
your portfolio deserves more than an all-or-nothing approach.
YOU deserve more. Just pivot to Bulk.
In the last 30hrs market action was mayhem - and @bulktrade risk engine performed as expected, saving 335 accounts from getting fully wiped out!
BULK processed $60.97m in trading volume, with $14.31 million in average OI..
There were liquidations, yes. There were substantial losses. But across the 335 accounts that underwent liquidation, every account still held an open position immediately after its final reduction
This is has been reported overwhelmingly positive exp by our users
Looking at the wider numbers, BULK recorded $1.26m in liquidations, while hyperliquid recorded 280m + and binance $818m. (The window also completed with zero recorded ADL events on bulk)
Our 24-hour trading volume was 4.56x its gross OI, compared with approx 3.16x for lighter, 1.83x for binance and 1.54x for hyperliquid
BULK had the lowest absolute liquidation notional among the four venues, alongside the highest trading turnover relative to gross OI
To understand what happened, we need to look deeper into how liquidations work on BULK
Whenever an account is selected for liquidation, BULK runs a portfolio optimiser. It evaluates reductions across the account and selects those that most efficiently restore margin health, accounting for correlations, risk contributions. It then recomputes the portfolio and repeats if needed in the next ticks
Take account HNHW…
> held 11 positions with a $71,000 exposure
> by its liquidation at 23:42 UTC, BTC mark price had fallen 2.54%, ETH 2.98% and SOL 4.54%
> when the account crossed its liquidation threshold, the engine trimmed its PAXG long by 30%
The other ten position quantities were unchanged!
All eleven positions remained open - approximately 95.89% of the portfolio’s gross exposure remained after liquidations.
The same distinction matters at larger sizes too..
Another account, Ebao.., experienced $883,598 of forced HYPE and ZEC reductions across 21 events. Immediately after its final reduction, it still held both positions and had $58,611 of recorded collateral value, excluding unrealized P&L.
Preserving some exposure does not mean avoiding losses. It means the engine can reduce risk without necessarily closing every position in the account
Across the full 24hour:
> 320 of 335 accounts (95.52%) received partial reductions.
> Sixteen individual position legs fully closed across 15 accounts, but those accounts retained their other positions.
> The median individual liquidations left 90% of the targeted position’s quantity open..wow
another example: on account BLN6.., the engine closed ZEC and HYPE legs and reduced XRP + PUMP longs, while leaving an ETH short of 0.043 untouched.
That ETH short was closed later by the user for a profit!
We also compared actual portfolios under different margin models
Account 97Nq… held a $469,341 portfolio of BTC, ETH and XRP shorts against MON, LIT and HYPE longs.
At identical reference prices and equity:
BULK’s maintenance requirement was $13,645.
Hyperliquid’s standard perpetual cross-margin rules produced $18,283.
That is $4,638 of additional maintenance headroom in BULK's calculation
We also simulated a real account that was liquidated on Hyperliquid.
On 29 oct, an HL account’s 1.19 BTC short approx $97,468 at the liquidation mark - was closed completely
We then passed that same state through BULK’s native liquidation logic at the same mark:
With assumed fills at the fixed mark, the model retained 45% of the position!
Approx 10,880 accounts were fully closed on HL during these events!
The aim of a risk engine is to manage exposure robustly as conditions change. On BULK, that includes recognising portfolio offsets, evaluating reductions across the account, and reducing positions in stages where the risk permits
For traders, the practical consequence is straightforward: a liquidation intervention can leave meaningful position open - same would be fully closed on other venues, including positions that continue to serve a role in your portfolio.
Your hedges should count. Your portfolio should be evaluated as a portfolio. And liquidations should only take whats needed to keep you safe!
Keep trading on bulk and we will keep building the best engines to keep you safe 🫡
@bulktrade ‘s liquidation logic runs multiple scenarios and optimizes for protecting your hedge legs.
If you ran long/short positions across any dex, other dexes liquidate EVERYTHING. This causes cascading liquidations and sends your account to zero.
What bulk does is if your account reaches liquidation from overly long leverage, it would protect your short positions as those are increasing in value and offsetting your risk.
Only in time will the market appreciate this.
Tick by tick.
gBulk
In the last 30hrs market action was mayhem - and @bulktrade risk engine performed as expected, saving 335 accounts from getting fully wiped out!
BULK processed $60.97m in trading volume, with $14.31 million in average OI..
There were liquidations, yes. There were substantial losses. But across the 335 accounts that underwent liquidation, every account still held an open position immediately after its final reduction
This is has been reported overwhelmingly positive exp by our users
Looking at the wider numbers, BULK recorded $1.26m in liquidations, while hyperliquid recorded 280m + and binance $818m. (The window also completed with zero recorded ADL events on bulk)
Our 24-hour trading volume was 4.56x its gross OI, compared with approx 3.16x for lighter, 1.83x for binance and 1.54x for hyperliquid
BULK had the lowest absolute liquidation notional among the four venues, alongside the highest trading turnover relative to gross OI
To understand what happened, we need to look deeper into how liquidations work on BULK
Whenever an account is selected for liquidation, BULK runs a portfolio optimiser. It evaluates reductions across the account and selects those that most efficiently restore margin health, accounting for correlations, risk contributions. It then recomputes the portfolio and repeats if needed in the next ticks
Take account HNHW…
> held 11 positions with a $71,000 exposure
> by its liquidation at 23:42 UTC, BTC mark price had fallen 2.54%, ETH 2.98% and SOL 4.54%
> when the account crossed its liquidation threshold, the engine trimmed its PAXG long by 30%
The other ten position quantities were unchanged!
All eleven positions remained open - approximately 95.89% of the portfolio’s gross exposure remained after liquidations.
The same distinction matters at larger sizes too..
Another account, Ebao.., experienced $883,598 of forced HYPE and ZEC reductions across 21 events. Immediately after its final reduction, it still held both positions and had $58,611 of recorded collateral value, excluding unrealized P&L.
Preserving some exposure does not mean avoiding losses. It means the engine can reduce risk without necessarily closing every position in the account
Across the full 24hour:
> 320 of 335 accounts (95.52%) received partial reductions.
> Sixteen individual position legs fully closed across 15 accounts, but those accounts retained their other positions.
> The median individual liquidations left 90% of the targeted position’s quantity open..wow
another example: on account BLN6.., the engine closed ZEC and HYPE legs and reduced XRP + PUMP longs, while leaving an ETH short of 0.043 untouched.
That ETH short was closed later by the user for a profit!
We also compared actual portfolios under different margin models
Account 97Nq… held a $469,341 portfolio of BTC, ETH and XRP shorts against MON, LIT and HYPE longs.
At identical reference prices and equity:
BULK’s maintenance requirement was $13,645.
Hyperliquid’s standard perpetual cross-margin rules produced $18,283.
That is $4,638 of additional maintenance headroom in BULK's calculation
We also simulated a real account that was liquidated on Hyperliquid.
On 29 oct, an HL account’s 1.19 BTC short approx $97,468 at the liquidation mark - was closed completely
We then passed that same state through BULK’s native liquidation logic at the same mark:
With assumed fills at the fixed mark, the model retained 45% of the position!
Approx 10,880 accounts were fully closed on HL during these events!
The aim of a risk engine is to manage exposure robustly as conditions change. On BULK, that includes recognising portfolio offsets, evaluating reductions across the account, and reducing positions in stages where the risk permits
For traders, the practical consequence is straightforward: a liquidation intervention can leave meaningful position open - same would be fully closed on other venues, including positions that continue to serve a role in your portfolio.
Your hedges should count. Your portfolio should be evaluated as a portfolio. And liquidations should only take whats needed to keep you safe!
Keep trading on bulk and we will keep building the best engines to keep you safe 🫡
If you are a pair trader with a multi-directional portfolio, I encourage you to test our margin calculator
Save up to 69% margin requirements than other perp venues.
Dms are open to chat 😃
docs.bulk.trade/misc/margin-…
Cory L retweeted
just woke up to a new 24h volume ath on @bulktrade
said on yesterday's team call we'd break records next week with some very strong catalysts lined up, but looks like we managed to get there a bit earlier.
trust me, you DON'T wanna stay sidelined 👀
gbulk
Cory L retweeted
Agree that demand and cost of capital matter. . I disagree is that there isn’t a tech gap
Building the infrastructure was hard, yes. what matters is what it unlocks-
tradfi already uses sophisticated portfolio margining. Derivatives traders expect their hedges to count when calculating margin and much more. BULK brings that onchain: recognising cross-asset offsets, adapting margin to market conditions and accounting for the actual cost of liquidating positions is a start
A hedged portfolio ties up less capital because the engine recognises the reduction in risk. That changes the economics for everyone
Thats the smallest PMF we are pursuing: traders who want better capital efficiency, quality execution and an engine that can handle sophisticated derivatives portfolios. Today’s ICE / Trade[XYZ] announcement is another signal of where demand is heading..
More on the risk model here:
xitter.gq/0xJaehaerys/status/211…
You can notice a trend here - all the offerings are completely done on purpose built envs
We are 50+ days old in prod and are onboarding traders everyday - we are just getting started with the quality of execution too
Hyperevm is the only word I read
@bulktrade
It's been a long time coming... But it's finally time
Part of evolving as a business is recognising where your focus should be while remembering who your users are.
The reality is that we spent an incredible amount of time purpose-building a network that is specifically designed to cater to HFT and everything that it encompasses.
Execution needed to be faster and limitations to throughput hindered our ability to run real time risk checks as we think about scaling to 100,000 to 1,000,000 users and beyond.
For those who have been following along, its no secret that there has been friction between how we execute and what the preference is from Solana leadership.
I understand and respect their stance, however to continue to frame BULK a solana dex would be reductive to the actual offering, so we’re officially putting this on the record.
The stronger case is that multichain access expands BULK’s distribution and usable capital while bringing more activity into the same market.
Distribution follows where users hold their money.
As more people enter crypto through neobanks, wallets and payment applications, their first chain may simply be whichever network their provider uses. Their choice of trading venue will depend on execution quality, liquidity and convenience.
Requiring those users to move to a particular chain before they can trade creates an acquisition barrier: another transaction, another fee, another interface and another opportunity to abandon onboarding. It also asks wallets and neobanks to move customers away from their existing infrastructure to integrate BULK.
Multichain access lets BULK meet that distribution where it already exists. A wallet or neobank could offer its customers BULK markets through the rails they already use.
The lesson from multicurrency products like Wise is that a single financial relationship can span across several underlying currencies and payment systems. We expect users to increasingly demand the same convenience across chains.
A unified clearing layer can make capital more productive and markets more liquid.
The strongest clearinghouse analogy is capital efficiency. Traditional clearing infrastructure brings eligible collateral and positions into a common risk framework, allowing qualifying exposures to offset and reducing the capital required to support them.
This today belongs to CME Group.
For BULK, the opportunity is to connect capital held across supported chains to a common margin system and shared order book. A trader’s access to liquidity should not depend on which chain funded their account. A market maker should be able to serve that combined demand through the same BULK markets.
This creates an economic advantage: more sources of capital and order flow can support deeper books; deeper books can improve execution; better execution can attract more traders and integrations.
That advantage depends on keeping liquidity concentrated. Multichain access should bring users into the same markets, with eligible collateral recognized under a consistent risk framework. It should also let users withdraw available capital through supported destination chains, making BULK useful within their wider financial activity.
BULK’s specialised execution layer gives it a natural role connecting these rails.
BULK is a purpose-built trading L1 rolled into an order book, matching engine and risk engine. Its value comes from how efficiently it executes trades and manages risk. That specialization gives it a reason to serve capital from multiple ecosystems.
Today, collateral lives on Solana, and BULK’s ledger tracks the corresponding balances, positions and margin. Extending that model to supported networks such as Arc, Tempo, Arbitrum and HyperEVM would allow more funding and withdrawal routes to connect to the same execution system.
The architectural principle is to handle each chain’s confirmation and settlement requirements at the funding boundary. Once collateral is securely recognised, trading should run through BULK’s own execution and risk process. This allows BULK to preserve its performance while broadening access.
The intended experience is straightforward: fund from a supported chain, trade against BULK’s shared liquidity, and withdraw available balances to a supported destination. A user could enter from Solana and exit on HyperEVM, with BULK coordinating the accounting, settlement and destination liquidity required.
For wallets and neobanks, that would make BULK an exchange and clearing integration they can use across their supported networks. Each additional rail would expand access to the same venue, and strengthen the market already serving everyone else.
Cory L retweeted
BULK is moving beyond Solana to multichain. Its specialised L1 (order book, matching and risk engines) was built for HFT speed and scale. Users will fund from chains like Arc, Tempo, Arbitrum or HyperEVM, trade shared liquidity under unified margin/clearing, and withdraw to any supported network. Goal: deeper markets, better capital efficiency and easier access via wallets/neobanks without forcing chain switches.
Cory L retweeted
It's been a long time coming... But it's finally time
Part of evolving as a business is recognising where your focus should be while remembering who your users are.
The reality is that we spent an incredible amount of time purpose-building a network that is specifically designed to cater to HFT and everything that it encompasses.
Execution needed to be faster and limitations to throughput hindered our ability to run real time risk checks as we think about scaling to 100,000 to 1,000,000 users and beyond.
For those who have been following along, its no secret that there has been friction between how we execute and what the preference is from Solana leadership.
I understand and respect their stance, however to continue to frame BULK a solana dex would be reductive to the actual offering, so we’re officially putting this on the record.
The stronger case is that multichain access expands BULK’s distribution and usable capital while bringing more activity into the same market.
Distribution follows where users hold their money.
As more people enter crypto through neobanks, wallets and payment applications, their first chain may simply be whichever network their provider uses. Their choice of trading venue will depend on execution quality, liquidity and convenience.
Requiring those users to move to a particular chain before they can trade creates an acquisition barrier: another transaction, another fee, another interface and another opportunity to abandon onboarding. It also asks wallets and neobanks to move customers away from their existing infrastructure to integrate BULK.
Multichain access lets BULK meet that distribution where it already exists. A wallet or neobank could offer its customers BULK markets through the rails they already use.
The lesson from multicurrency products like Wise is that a single financial relationship can span across several underlying currencies and payment systems. We expect users to increasingly demand the same convenience across chains.
A unified clearing layer can make capital more productive and markets more liquid.
The strongest clearinghouse analogy is capital efficiency. Traditional clearing infrastructure brings eligible collateral and positions into a common risk framework, allowing qualifying exposures to offset and reducing the capital required to support them.
This today belongs to CME Group.
For BULK, the opportunity is to connect capital held across supported chains to a common margin system and shared order book. A trader’s access to liquidity should not depend on which chain funded their account. A market maker should be able to serve that combined demand through the same BULK markets.
This creates an economic advantage: more sources of capital and order flow can support deeper books; deeper books can improve execution; better execution can attract more traders and integrations.
That advantage depends on keeping liquidity concentrated. Multichain access should bring users into the same markets, with eligible collateral recognized under a consistent risk framework. It should also let users withdraw available capital through supported destination chains, making BULK useful within their wider financial activity.
BULK’s specialised execution layer gives it a natural role connecting these rails.
BULK is a purpose-built trading L1 rolled into an order book, matching engine and risk engine. Its value comes from how efficiently it executes trades and manages risk. That specialization gives it a reason to serve capital from multiple ecosystems.
Today, collateral lives on Solana, and BULK’s ledger tracks the corresponding balances, positions and margin. Extending that model to supported networks such as Arc, Tempo, Arbitrum and HyperEVM would allow more funding and withdrawal routes to connect to the same execution system.
The architectural principle is to handle each chain’s confirmation and settlement requirements at the funding boundary. Once collateral is securely recognised, trading should run through BULK’s own execution and risk process. This allows BULK to preserve its performance while broadening access.
The intended experience is straightforward: fund from a supported chain, trade against BULK’s shared liquidity, and withdraw available balances to a supported destination. A user could enter from Solana and exit on HyperEVM, with BULK coordinating the accounting, settlement and destination liquidity required.
For wallets and neobanks, that would make BULK an exchange and clearing integration they can use across their supported networks. Each additional rail would expand access to the same venue, and strengthen the market already serving everyone else.
Cory L retweeted
This was great to read and thank you for the support so far!
I see you're a challenger so already a bulkooor but allow me to further pill you
I hope you don’t mind me hitting a QRT on this but there’s some super good questions here i’d like to give visibility to the answers for.
>First, will this actually be enough to attract users?
If am being overly critical, I would say no, not on its own and with the current average trader profile. It’s my bet that this changes (its already begun) as more institutions come onchain that are used to have this margin efficiency with CME.
Coming on chain and now needing up to 4x the capital you’re used to deploying on the same notional in tradfi is simply not something these folks that clear billions (if not trillions) per day will accept.
>How many traders really need this level of capital efficiency, and how many simply care more about liquidity, spreads, fees and having more markets to trade?
The number is already growing and some of the liquidity leaders today have already announced that they are working towards offering similar, or parts of this.
>And how quickly can BULK expand its offering to make the most of its architecture?
We are pedal to the medal, we spent the time doing the boring stuff early so that the products are all we have to worry about pushing.
To answer your next question about how defensible this advantage is: This is not a feature addition. This is core logic to the risk infrastructure which ties the entire exchange together.
This is not a quick couple of months work, especially while already in prod and your current risk logic is tied to every product in your suite
This is a complete uplift and rebuild of how your exchange asses risk, clears trades and handles liquidations.
>Another thing I'm curious about is how BULK's risk engine will perform under extreme market conditions. How well will those margin discounts hold up when correlations suddenly break down?
On the article you RT’d there’s a comparison which shows us more defensible during volatility, this is part of the beauty of a portfolio aware engine.
On BULK the hedged legs keep cancelling, so the regime shift only reprices the exposure that is actually open.
(i've attached the chart that compares us to other venues in the scenario described in the article)
Ultimately whatever the product is, it simply existing doesn’t get users in the door. This is is why we have recently turned on several flywheels, and have one more we will be announcing on @bulktraders soon
There’s still lots of work to do but we are loving every minute of it and my promise to you is that this will absolutely reflect in the product.
Really interesting article on @bulktrade's architecture and the advantages it already offers, but especially what it could unlock in the future.
Its portfolio margin system is genuinely impressive. Being able to hedge correlated positions with significantly less collateral is a huge advantage in terms of capital efficiency.
And the potential gets even more interesting if BULK manages to bring spot, perps, options and prediction markets under the same risk engine.
But as promising as all this sounds, I still have a few questions.
First, will this actually be enough to attract users?
How many traders really need this level of capital efficiency, and how many simply care more about liquidity, spreads, fees and having more markets to trade?
And how quickly can BULK expand its offering to make the most of its architecture?
There's also the question of how defensible this advantage really is.
What happens if competitors like Lighter implement similar risk-management features?
Lighter already offers crypto and TradFi perps, spot trading, binary options and multi-asset margin. It also has a strong advantage in trading costs, with zero fees on regular spot and perp orders for Standard accounts.
Of course, these aren't identical systems, but it's hard to imagine competitors standing still.
Another thing I'm curious about is how BULK's risk engine will perform under extreme market conditions. How well will those margin discounts hold up when correlations suddenly break down?
Don't get me wrong, I genuinely like what BULK is building. I've been using it since launch and have accumulated a pretty sizeable AURA bag, so if anything, raising these concerns is going against my own interests.
But I think it's important to stay critical, even when you're invested in a project. I'm just not convinced that having better technology automatically translates into greater adoption.
Ultimately, what matters is whether those technical advantages are valuable enough to make traders switch exchanges and, more importantly, stay.
Either way, all this competition is great for us users.
Especially after the TGE, when incentives become less effective at attracting activity, exchanges will have to compete more on the quality of their products.
And that should mean better execution, more markets, greater capital efficiency and more opportunities for everyone.
Really curious to see how this plays out.
Cory L retweeted
REFER FRIENDS TO BULK. GET PAID. 💰
It’s not just AURA anymore… referrers now earn:
→ 10% of your referrals’ fees
→ 1% of THEIR referrals’ fees
→ No earnings cap for Season 1
You're gonna get tired of winning 👀
Grab your ref link: app.bulk.trade/referrals
Cory L retweeted
it's been a year since I first came across @bulktrade, and what hooked me back then were these raw words from Jun's substack:
"... After months of research and talking to different teams about their design principles, I realized no one's really building for a market so big that it deserves blood, sweat, and obsession to pull it off. So what the fuck are we building? Enough of this bish bosh."
and the Bulk team lives up to it. it's an insatiable machine that runs 24/7: quants who've designed fixed income systems at Lehman and Japan's first electronic bond exchange, alongside PhDs in distributed systems. traders making an exchange for traders.
It's only my first week, but I already know nothing can shake my belief in where we're heading.
becoming the fastest exchange by any measure is just the first step.
onwards and upwards.
BULK is one of the fastest growing derivatives exchanges
A 8% compounded daily growth, on avg $350k in net OI added per day since launch
Global derivatives represent roughly $1 quadrillion in outstanding notional. At $100B+ in open interest, perps represent only around 0.01% of that scale
In the last few months Perps have already demonstrated substantial demand and price discovery during non trading hours. As more of traditional finance catches on to perpetuals, I believe capturing more than 10% of the broader derivatives market over the next few years is possible
But to get there, we (onchain) need the risk infrastructure that tradfi has spent decades developing: that allows institutions to manage complex portfolios.
SPAN is part of that history. Used since 1988 across exchanges and clearing orgs worldwide, it puts portfolio risk and eligible hedge offsets at the centre of margining
Cme's portfolio-margining programme alone averaged $8.4B in daily margin savings during 2025, with savings exceeding $10B per day at the beginning of 2026
That is billions of dollars in lower collateral requirements through better portfolio risk management
In the next few years, there wont be a distinction between trad and defi. But if we want to make that happen, we have to do better
We, as a industry should offer the beautiful features of blockchain to risk infrastructure built through decades
That is the direction we believe onchain derivatives should take to grow: recognise useful hedges, charge for the risk that remains, and account for what it would cost to close positions under stress.
Ultimately, that means helping traders use their capital more efficiently
BULK brings that portfolio-risk philosophy onchain through its own margin model. A long BTC / short SOL portfolio can receive margin credit because the positions partially offset. The credit depends on sizing, correlations and risk conditions, while leverage constraints and closeout reserves remain in place
We are so early, To bring the world of derivatives onchain, we need to learn, adapt and build a better system
For us at BULK, the job is clear: build and share the best risk systems onchain, and shove it down tradfi's throat
Over time, we want to bring that same margining philosophy to a broader set of instruments: swaps, forwards, options and other OTC derivatives, alongside interest-rate and FX futures and options
Accelerating, tick by tick.
10 MILLION OI in the first 30 days.
@Bulktrade built a completely different risk infrastructure than all other on-chain perp venues.
Just the beginning.
Thank you all of the support.
gBulk
Cory L retweeted
best new perps exchanges (outside of the current big 3) that are launching are clearly
- @papertrade_xyz
&
- @bulktrade
paper offering compelling tokenomics + 1000x leverage & bulk offering market standard margining which isn't available ~anywhere~ else in crypto
Cory L retweeted
How long to reach $10M OI:
Perpl — 9+ months
GRVT — 10 months
Variational — 6–8 months
Phoenix — 6 months
Txflow — 5 months
Hyperliquid — 5 months
Extended — 4 months
Lighter — 3 months
Arcus — 3 months
Pacifica — 3 months
RisEx — 3 months
BULK — 30 days
Thank you x
The microstructure @bulktrade has created is the real edge.
1.Oracle: All pairs update atomically, so there’s no leg risk. Your hedge is never priced with one side fresh and the other stale.
2.Liquidation: It runs at the portfolio level and preserves hedges, so there’s less forced selling and far less risk of one liquidation cascading into the next.
The margin requirement for these positions on any other onchain venue today is over $10,500
BULK requires just $3,600.
Almost 70% savings! That is money back in your pocket simply by choosing the right venue
@bulktrade will lead the margin efficiency meta
Cory L retweeted
The margin requirement for these positions on any other onchain venue today is over $10,500
BULK requires just $3,600.
Almost 70% savings! That is money back in your pocket simply by choosing the right venue
@bulktrade will lead the margin efficiency meta
Cory L retweeted
4.05M$ volume on Zeron the last 7 days.
Most used perp is still @bulktrade and @Lighter_xyz on RobinHood
20% more users compared to last week
Higher
