Aevo Futures Review: Perps+, Fees and Crypto Markets

Aevo's strongest reason to make a shortlist is the relationship between its perpetuals and options. You can start with a directional BTC or ETH position and examine an options-based change to its outcome without treating that as an entirely unrelated product. The current interface exposes Perps+ next to the perpetual order ticket, so the connection is more concrete than simply putting two product names in a navigation bar.

The account also introduces a cash-management issue that matters even without options: accepted collateral and USDC settlement cash are not identical. Holding ETH or USDT can support a documented margin arrangement while fees or settled losses require USDC and trigger conversion. Understanding that mechanism is part of deciding whether the added flexibility is useful.

Our 6 October 2026 market response contained 2,878 instrument records. Of these, 2,776 were options and 102 were perpetuals. Filtering the perpetual entries by their asset category left 55 crypto perpetual markets; the other 47 covered equities, commodities, ETFs, foreign exchange, pre-IPO exposure and computing-related exposure. All 102 perpetual entries in that collection were marked active.

An options chain produces many records because each strike, expiry and direction is a separate contract. Adding those rows together does not tell a crypto trader how many coins can be leveraged. Likewise, a new equity perpetual is not an expansion of the altcoin selection.

The leverage setting belongs to the instrument

BTC, ETH and SOL each showed a 20x maximum in the collected configuration. Examples including JUP, PENDLE, ARB and AEVO showed 3x, while ZEC was another 20x entry. Those differences are important if a trader opens the account for one particular coin after reading a BTC-focused review.

BTC quantities advance in steps of 0.001, alongside a separate $10 order-value floor. If Bitcoin trades at $85,000 in a simple example, one quantity step is already worth $85. The nominal $10 value minimum does not mean that every $10 BTC order can satisfy the quantity increment. Both restrictions must fit at the same time.

An active flag establishes catalog status, not guaranteed liquidity or account permission. Our unsigned session showed a populated BTC book and market statistics, but we did not perform fills or sample every listed crypto contract. For a smaller market, the relevant follow-up is the depth near your intended price and the quantity a protected order could actually execute.

The current official perpetual-fee page lists 0.05% for makers and 0.08% for takers. It also contains a notice about a forthcoming reduction following a governance proposal. A statement that fees will be reduced is not evidence that the lower schedule is already active. We corrected our own central venue record to match the published standard rates rather than retaining the older 0.02% / 0.05% figures.

At those standard rates, opening and closing $8,000 of exposure with taker fills costs $12.80 in commission if both legs have the same notional. Two maker fills cost $8.00. A maker entry followed by a taker exit costs $10.40. These examples exclude funding, execution slippage, liquidation charges and any account-specific discount.

That difference matters for a trader repeatedly taking small targets. A strategy cannot judge the fee only against deposited collateral or quote one side of the round trip. The charge applies to each executed notional. In a real trade, the exit price can also change the closing notional, so the two sides need not have identical fees.

Options use a different calculation

The options fee schedule lists 0.03% maker and 0.05% taker on underlying notional, capped at 12.5% of the premium. For a hypothetical option with $4,000 underlying notional and a $10 premium, the uncapped taker charge would be $2, but the premium cap reduces it to $1.25. This is not a 0.05% charge on the $10 premium.

The schedule also describes a settlement fee for applicable in-the-money expiries, with stated exceptions. That belongs in the cost of an options addition when relevant. It should not be attached indiscriminately to an ordinary perpetual close or ignored because the feature appears within the perpetual interface.

Our public session did not populate an authenticated fee quote. The documented standard schedule is therefore the baseline used here, not a claim about an individually negotiated account or a future promotional tier. A lower rate needs an active schedule or actual account confirmation before it becomes part of a cost comparison.

Perps+ offers three ways to attach options to an existing perpetual position. The launch documentation covers BTC and ETH, with support for both long and short trades. It should not be advertised as a tool for every altcoin in the catalog. The interface tells the unsigned visitor to open a position before using the feature; we inspected the controls and documentation without creating a trade.

“Limit My Loss” buys a protective option. For a long, that is a put; for a short, it is a call. The trader pays a premium for a defined expiry and strike. The point is to change the combined payoff if the market moves against the perpetual, not to make protection free.

“Get Paid to Hold” sells an option and receives a premium in exchange for giving up some favorable price exposure. On a long BTC trade, selling a call can offset further gains above its strike. The payment is compensation for that obligation, not yield added without changing the trade. An aggressive bullish view and a low profit ceiling may be a poor match.

“Lock My Range” combines purchased protection with a sold option, aiming for approximately offsetting premiums. The favorable and adverse boundaries need not be symmetrical. Nor does roughly zero net premium mean zero trading cost, zero funding or a guaranteed risk-free position. A reader should judge the actual two boundaries and expiry, not just the feature's name.

The protection percentage is not your margin-loss percentage

Consider one BTC bought through a perpetual at $80,000, backed by $8,000 before costs, alongside a protective put with a $72,000 strike. The strike is 10% below the starting BTC price. A move to that level represents an $8,000 adverse change in the perpetual's value, not a loss of just 10% of the $8,000 collateral.

This example deliberately isolates the units; it is not a liquidation forecast or an options quotation. Maintenance requirements and expenses can force action before that price is reached. It explains why an interface label about a percentage price boundary must not be interpreted as a promise about the percentage of account equity at risk.

Aevo's Perps+ FAQ explicitly says that the options are separate positions and do not alter the perpetual's margin, leverage or liquidation price. Their benefit comes through their own profit and loss. Buying a protective option is therefore not a substitute for maintaining sufficient collateral on the perpetual position.

If the perp is liquidated, the options are not automatically closed under the documented Perps+ behavior. They become independent positions. A profitable protective option may offset some losses, but the trader still needs to inspect what remains rather than assuming the entire combined strategy disappeared together.

Expiry changes the trade even if BTC has barely moved

The documented durations range from one week to two months. When the options expire, they settle according to their result while the perpetual can remain open. There is no automatic rollover. A position that had a protective put yesterday may be an unprotected long today without any new perpetual order having been entered.

Closing also requires a deliberate choice. The documented Close Position action closes only the perpetual; Close Position and Perps+ includes the attached options. Leaving the options open can be intentional, but their new standalone exposure should be evaluated as a separate trade. The correct action depends on whether the trader is ending the combined idea or only removing its futures leg.

Configuration is not a reversible cosmetic setting. Changing an active enhancer requires closing the existing options and placing new ones, with new premiums and potentially more fees. This is where Aevo's convenient interface still needs a careful decision: the buttons simplify construction, but they do not remove the economic consequences of live options trades.

The collateral framework documents support for USDC, USDT, aeUSD, ETH, WBTC and weETH, with different recognized values. USDC and aeUSD are listed at 100%; USDT at 99%; ETH and WBTC at 90%; and weETH at 85%. These percentages describe margin recognition, not a permanent discount on the market price you would receive when selling the asset.

A hypothetical $2,000 ETH holding contributes $1,800 at a 90% collateral factor. If ETH's value falls to $1,600, that contribution falls to $1,440 even before considering any futures loss. A trader who backs an ETH long with ETH may therefore see the position move against them while the supporting asset also loses value.

Why a positive portfolio can still need settlement cash

Aevo settles trading profit and loss in USDC under the documented framework. Fees, funding and realized losses can leave a negative USDC balance even if the account holds other valuable assets. The rules describe conversion when the negative USDC amount reaches the stated threshold, using eligible balances in a specified order.

USDT conversion is listed with a 0.01% fee; ETH and WBTC conversion with 0.1%. The documentation's priority starts with USDC and then USDT, aeUSD, ETH, WBTC and weETH, but the presence of an asset in a collateral table does not establish that every conversion route is enabled. The actual available conversion and withdrawal functions remain part of the account check.

Suppose a trader wants to retain an ETH holding while using it as collateral. Realized USDC losses could require some of that holding to be converted once earlier eligible balances are exhausted. The useful question is therefore not only “Does Aevo accept ETH?” but “Am I willing for this balance to serve settlement needs under the published rules?”

Using USDC for a straightforward perpetual strategy avoids adding a second asset-price movement and collateral haircut to the account calculation. Other collateral may still suit someone who deliberately wants that exposure. The choice should be made for the balance-sheet effect, not because the interface shows a larger total portfolio number.

No. Aevo documents standard margin and portfolio margin as different models. Standard margin calculates requirements from individual positions rather than automatically recognizing every attractive-looking hedge. Having an option and a perpetual in the same account is not enough to claim a margin offset.

Portfolio margin evaluates combined risk through scenarios and floors. That can recognize relationships between positions, but the result depends on the actual instruments and account configuration. Old illustrative parameters in the documentation are not a reliable current quote for a newly constructed position. The account's current requirement is more useful than reproducing a historic risk table in a review.

For a trader mainly using Perps+, the more direct guide is its own documented behavior: the options do not change the underlying perp's liquidation price. We do not infer that its convenience layer activates portfolio margin or makes the perpetual safe at higher leverage. The two subjects should not be blended into a single promise of capital efficiency.

An advanced user building a custom options book should compare Aevo's live instrument availability and applicable margin model with Deribit. A user who simply wants one directional perpetual should compare simpler execution and funding conditions. Those are different purchase decisions; adding a complex product menu does not improve every account.

The BTC perpetual ticket separates Cross mode, a leverage control, Market and Limit orders, Reduce Only and TP/SL. It displays required margin, order value and an estimated liquidation price when the necessary account inputs are available. In our unsigned inspection, account-dependent values remained blank rather than providing a usable funded-trade quotation.

The visible slippage control showed an estimated figure and a maximum tolerance. A maximum tolerance is a boundary for the requested execution, not evidence that the order will fill at that loss of price quality. The public book and the quantity requested determine how much liquidity is actually available inside that boundary.

The API documentation supports post-only and reduce-only instructions, plus time-in-force and trigger fields. Post-only is relevant when the trade specifically requires maker execution; reduce-only is relevant when an order should decrease an existing position. Neither replaces checking the remaining quantity after other orders or manual reductions have changed the account.

Judge the quote at your size, especially outside BTC and ETH

A $500 trade and a $50,000 trade can have very different execution quality in the same market. The BTC book at inspection contained multiple quoted levels, but a single snapshot is not a stress test and does not establish deep liquidity across every altcoin. An active instrument with a sparse book may still be unsuitable for a large market exit.

A useful first assessment compares the current spread, cumulative depth and expected execution for the intended size without assuming that the catalog's position ceiling is executable liquidity. We preserve that distinction in our execution research: a published maximum and an observed fill-cost estimate answer different questions.

Aevo's perpetual funding documentation describes hourly settlement. The standard construction uses an eight-hour rate divided across hourly payments, with different periods specified for some markets. The trading screen we inspected displayed a one-hour BTC funding rate and a countdown. Multiplying that one-hour figure as though it were already an eight-hour charge would misstate the cost.

For illustration, an unchanged hourly rate of positive 0.002% on a $12,000 long produces $0.24 for that hour and $1.44 over six identical hours. The example holds notional and the rate steady. Actual payments use the relevant position, index-price valuation and changing market rate, so the account history should be used to reconcile the result.

Perps+ does not switch off the perpetual's funding. A premium paid for protection or received for a sold option is a separate cash flow. Comparing the combined strategy requires keeping commission, option premium, any applicable expiry fee and perpetual funding in separate lines; otherwise a premium receipt can disguise the ongoing holding expense.

A near-zero funding display at one observation is not a durable advantage. For an overnight or multi-day trade, the recent funding sequence and whether the market is persistently expensive in the intended direction matter more than the reading visible when opening the page.

Aevo's pre-launch documentation describes contracts that can trade before a reliable external token index is available. The documented starting framework uses 2x leverage, 50% initial margin and 48% maintenance margin, with separate position limits. These are not the same conditions as a normal BTC perpetual, and the narrow gap between initial and maintenance requirements deserves attention.

Before conversion to a standard market, the documentation says these contracts do not use normal index-based funding. That should not be interpreted as a cheap substitute for a mature market: the absence of the normal reference also changes how a trader can assess price and exit quality. The quoted pre-launch value is not proof of a future token's eventual spot price.

The conversion process normally carries positions into the standard perpetual once a reliable index is established. A token-supply rebase can have additional consequences, including cancellation of open orders. An exit instruction prepared before such an event should not be assumed to remain in force afterward.

We do not list a named crypto pre-launch opportunity as currently tradable here without a matching current instrument and announcement. The catalog also contains a separate pre-IPO category, which must not be confused with pre-launch crypto. This section explains a documented product capability, not a recommendation to trade an unverified upcoming listing.

The withdrawal documentation describes an approximately three-hour process for Ethereum mainnet, while withdrawals to Arbitrum, Optimism and Base can take minutes depending on conditions. Some withdrawals may be flagged for a 60-minute delay. These are documented route characteristics, not timings we verified by moving funds.

The published withdrawal-fee table lists 25 USDC for Ethereum USDC withdrawals and 25 USDT for Ethereum USDT withdrawals. It also lists 0.01 ETH and 0.0003 WBTC for the corresponding Ethereum assets. At a $250 USDC withdrawal, a 25 USDC venue fee alone would consume 10%; at $2,500, it would consume 1%. That makes the route particularly relevant for smaller balances.

Arbitrum and Optimism are listed without a venue withdrawal fee in that table. Base appears in the withdrawal route documentation but is absent from the same fee table, so we do not infer that Base is free. A current in-app quote is needed where the published material does not settle the price.

Deposits have their own network treatment and can incur the stated layer-two deposit charge. An exchange's zero venue fee is also not a promise that every wallet transaction or bridge action is gas-free. The receiving wallet or exchange must support the selected network and asset; the correct dollar amount on the wrong chain does not complete the intended transfer.

Open positions and margin commitments constrain what can be removed. The gross value of collateral is not necessarily the available withdrawal amount, especially after haircuts or unsettled account changes. The account should be evaluated after the planned withdrawal, because the remaining collateral will continue supporting any position left open.

Aevo's current app terms name restricted territories including Singapore, Canada, the United Kingdom and mainland China, along with a longer sanctions-related list. The definitions address residence, citizenship and entity location, not merely the IP address used to load the trading page. The terms also reserve the ability to request identity information. A wallet-based interface is not an unconditional promise that identity checks will never apply.

Country eligibility and local derivatives rules should be settled before treating Aevo as an available alternative. We do not infer authorization from a country being absent from an abbreviated summary or from the website successfully loading. The country cluster handles those local decisions in more detail.

The architecture combines offchain order matching with onchain settlement. This supports an exchange-like interface, but it does not eliminate dependencies on the frontend, matching service, chain and bridge. We did not test emergency withdrawal procedures or recovery during an outage, and do not treat the non-custodial label as proof of uninterrupted access.

Liquidation has additional costs. The published schedule distinguishes perpetual tiers, listing 1% for tier one and 3% for tier two, with 5% for pre-launch markets and 0.5% for options. The liquidation process can cancel orders and reduce positions, followed by insurance and auto-deleveraging mechanisms where applicable. Those exceptional charges should not be confused with the ordinary maker/taker schedule or assumed identical across all coins.

For a trader who wants only a frequently adjusted directional position, the additional products may contribute little. Compare Paradex for its interactive retail model and dYdX for its active markets and account controls. The relevant choice depends on actual availability, total trading expense and the exposure being requested, rather than a universal “best DEX” label.

Deribit is the more direct comparison when the options book itself is the center of the strategy. Its maturities, settlement choices and margin arrangements warrant a dedicated comparison with the intended instruments. Aevo's appeal here is the integration with a perp-first workflow; that is not evidence that it has superior quotes for every strike or expiry.