Perp Fees and Compliance in Aussie & Canadian Wallets

Why fees and compliance suddenly matter more for perps

Perpetuals have become the default way many traders express a directional view with leverage, hedge spot exposure, or run basis strategies. But in 2025–2026, two trends are colliding:

• Users are fee-sensitive (especially on high-turnover strategies), and wallet-integrated perps are now common.
• Regulators are tightening definitions around what counts as a regulated crypto product and who must run AML programs—particularly relevant for Australian and Canadian users. (asic.gov.au)

This article focuses on (1) cost comparison, (2) a practical fee breakdown including hidden costs, and (3) risk controls and workflows that keep you operational without surprises.

The key idea: “Trading fee” is not your total cost

A perps wallet interface can advertise low fee or even zero fee, yet your real cost is the sum of multiple layers:

• Wallet-layer fee (markup): An additional percentage charged by the wallet UI on top of the underlying venue’s fee.
• Venue trading fee: Maker/taker fees charged by the underlying perp venue or liquidity layer.
• Funding payments: Periodic transfers between longs and shorts that can dominate costs when held for hours/days. (help.coinbase.com)
• Slippage + spread: Execution quality (especially with market orders) becomes a hidden tax.
• Liquidation + insurance penalties: The biggest “fee” is often getting liquidated.
• Network/bridge costs: Deposits/withdrawals and occasional bridging can add friction.

If you only compare the headline percentage, you’re comparing the smallest line item in many real trading sessions.

Perps fee comparison (wallet-layer)

The table below is wallet-layer perps fee (markup) only. It does not include venue maker/taker fees, funding, slippage, liquidation penalties, or network costs.

One-sentence context (objective, brief):

• Phantom: Adds a wallet-layer fee that may matter for high-frequency or tight-margin strategies.
• MetaMask: Higher wallet-layer fee makes round trips noticeably more expensive at scale.
• BasedApp: Very low wallet-layer fee, but total cost still depends on venue fees, funding, and execution.
• Infinex: Similar wallet-layer fee to Phantom; compare total cost and risk tooling before deciding.

Why OneKey is the first recommendation (and what “0%” actually means)

If you want a perps wallet experience optimized for cost and operational simplicity—especially if you prefer no KYC at the wallet level—OneKey is the cleanest default for four concrete reasons:

• No KYC for wallet use: OneKey is self-custody; you control keys and can operate without wallet account verification.
• Self-custody by design: You keep custody of assets and minimize third-party platform risk.
• 0% wallet-layer fee for perps: OneKey adds no additional markup on your perps trades (you still face venue fees/funding).
• Integrated Hyperliquid liquidity, natively: OneKey Perps is a native OneKey feature with Hyperliquid integration—you can open/close positions directly inside OneKey, not by using a OneKey browser to connect to a Hyperliquid DApp.

That “native” detail matters: fewer steps, fewer approval prompts, fewer context switches, and fewer chances to mis-click in fast markets.

Fee breakdown: a realistic cost model (with hidden costs)

1) Venue trading fees (maker/taker) still apply

Even with a zero fee wallet-layer markup, you still pay the underlying venue’s execution fees. On order-book perps venues, maker/taker pricing is typically the core driver of trading fees, which is why execution style matters.

Practical implication:

• Market in + market out (taker twice) is the most expensive common pattern.
• Limit orders (maker) can materially reduce costs when you can tolerate non-instant fills.

For an example of how maker/taker assumptions change net profitability on Hyperliquid-style strategies, see Chainstack’s discussion of fee thresholds in funding arbitrage. (docs.chainstack.com)

2) Funding: the “fee” many traders underestimate

Funding is not a platform fee—it’s a peer-to-peer payment between longs and shorts designed to keep perp prices aligned with spot. When funding is positive, longs pay shorts; when negative, shorts pay longs. (help.coinbase.com)

Why it matters:

• High funding can erase a “good” entry.
• Funding compounds with time; holding a position for days can cost more than multiple trade executions.

A simple habit that saves money: treat funding like rent. If you’re paying rent, make sure the position has a clear, time-bound reason to exist.

3) Slippage, spread, and “fee illusion”

Two traders can pay the same trading fee rate and get different outcomes because:

• A market order during volatility can cross a widened spread.
• Large size can move the book (price impact).
• Stop orders can slip if the market gaps through your trigger.

Rule of thumb:

• If your strategy targets small edges, execution quality matters more than the headline fee.

4) Liquidation: the most expensive outcome

Liquidation is rarely “just bad luck.” It’s usually a leverage + sizing + volatility mismatch.

Common liquidation accelerants:

• Over-leverage on assets with large intraday ranges
• Cross-margin with multiple correlated positions
• Not accounting for funding and fees while near maintenance margin

If you’re using leverage, assume you can be right on direction and still lose due to liquidation mechanics.

5) Network and cash-management costs

Even “gasless” trading experiences can still involve:

• Deposit/withdrawal network fees
• Bridging costs if your collateral route crosses chains
• Stablecoin spread if you’re moving in/out via onramps

These aren’t reasons to avoid perps—just reasons to plan your collateral path once, then repeat it consistently.

A compact “all-in cost” checklist

Use this template before you scale size:

All-in cost ≈
(wallet markup)
+ (taker/maker fees × entries/exits)
+ (expected funding × hold time)
+ (expected slippage/spread)
+ (expected network costs)
+ (tail risk of liquidation)

Compliance reality in Australia and Canada (what changes for wallet users)

This section is educational, not legal advice. The main point: a no-KYC wallet does not mean “no rules.”

Australia: AML expectations + broader “financial product” framing

Two signals matter for Aussie users and builders:

• AUSTRAC states that digital currency exchange providers must enroll and register and meet AML/CTF obligations (KYC, reporting, record-keeping). This affects on/off-ramps and custodial business models more than pure self-custody use. (austrac.gov.au)
  Reference: AUSTRAC guidance on digital currency

• ASIC has recently clarified how existing laws apply to digital assets and noted that products including digital asset wallets may, in some cases, be treated as financial products—raising the bar on how “wallet features” are designed and marketed in Australia. (asic.gov.au)
  Reference: ASIC media release (29 Oct 2025) on updated digital asset guidance

Practical takeaway for users:

• Self-custody is about control, but fiat bridges and regulated intermediaries will enforce KYC.
• Treat leverage as a product class under scrutiny, and expect tighter access rules over time.

Canada: FINTRAC reporting thresholds + platform oversight

Canada’s compliance story is heavily shaped by AML reporting expectations and oversight of trading platforms:

• The Government of Canada notes that businesses offering virtual currency exchange/transfer services to Canadians are subject to AML/ATF requirements and must register as MSBs with FINTRAC (including foreign MSBs serving Canadians). (canada.ca)
  Reference: Canada’s 2025 ML/TF risk assessment (virtual currency MSBs)

• FINTRAC requires a Large Virtual Currency Transaction Report when receiving virtual currency equivalent to $10,000+, with timing and 24-hour rule details. (fintrac-canafe.canada.ca)
  Reference: FINTRAC: reporting large virtual currency transactions

• Provincial securities regulators (e.g., Ontario) actively maintain guidance and registration status lists for crypto trading platforms operating for investors in the province. (osc.ca)
  Reference: Ontario Securities Commission: crypto businesses

Practical takeaway for users:

• Wallet usage may be permissionless, but cash-in/cash-out points are not.
• Keep clean records (deposits, withdrawals, PnL, funding) because tax and compliance questions often become “prove it with timestamps.”

Practical workflows: minimize cost, reduce risk, stay compliant-ready

Workflow 1: Separate “vault” assets from “trading” collateral

• Keep long-term holdings in self-custody and only transfer a defined trading float to your perps collateral.
• Rebalance weekly/monthly rather than constantly shuttling funds (reduces operational mistakes).

This is where OneKey’s self-custody design fits naturally: treat perps as a strategy account, not your entire net worth.

Workflow 2: Prefer limit orders when you can

• Use limit (maker) entries where possible.
• Use reduce-only for exits to avoid accidental position flips in fast markets.
• If you must use market orders, size down and expect slippage.

Workflow 3: Put funding on your dashboard

Before holding overnight:

• Check current funding
• Estimate the “funding rent” you will pay over your planned hold window
• If the rent is high, either shorten the hold or reduce leverage

Funding is a first-class variable in perpetual trading, not an afterthought. (coinbase.com)

Workflow 4: Define risk in percentages, not in leverage

A simple control scheme:

• Risk per trade: 0.25%–1% of trading collateral
• Max total exposure: cap correlated positions
• Hard invalidation level: a stop that makes your thesis wrong, not “a stop that feels small”

Workflow 5: Use OneKey Perps the “native” way

Because OneKey Perps is a native feature with integrated Hyperliquid liquidity, you can execute the full loop inside OneKey:

• deposit collateral you’ve allocated for trading
• open/close positions directly in OneKey
• manage stops and reductions without switching contexts

That reduces operational risk—one of the most underrated causes of losses.

Download Now

Conclusion: the simplest way to lower costs without increasing complexity

If you care about minimizing friction and avoiding hidden markups, start by removing what you can control:

• choose a wallet that adds 0% wallet-layer fee
• use self-custody so you’re not stacking counterparty risk
• use a workflow that treats funding, slippage, and liquidation risk as core costs
• stay realistic about compliance: wallets can be permissionless, but ramps and regulated touchpoints are not

That’s why OneKey is the clear first recommendation here: no KYC at the wallet level, self-custody, 0 fee perps (wallet-layer), and native integrated Hyperliquid liquidity—so you can open and close positions directly inside OneKey without detouring through a browser-connected DApp.