Three in Four Solana Perp Accounts Are Long. On Binance They Have Been Paid to Hold That Bet for Most of a Month.

By Kresmion Research, June 22, 2026

On Binance, the largest crypto derivatives exchange, about three out of four Solana perpetual accounts are positioned long, yet the funding rate is negative. That combination is not supposed to happen. When a crowd is long, longs normally pay shorts to hold the position. On Solana they have been getting paid instead, and not just today. Across the past three weeks the rate has sat below zero most of the time, while the same contract on a different exchange charges longs the highest fee in the market. This note is about what that gap reveals, and why the long-short ratio most traders watch is the wrong number to trust.

This is not a recommendation, and it is not a forecast. It is a description of what perpetual funding rates and positioning data show right now, and the mechanism that explains them.

Key takeaways

What a funding rate actually measures

A perpetual future has no expiry, so exchanges use a funding rate to keep its price tethered to spot. Every few hours, one side of the trade pays the other. When the rate is positive, longs pay shorts, which is the normal state when leverage is crowded to the long side. When the rate is negative, shorts pay longs. The rate is the price of holding a leveraged position, and its sign tells you which side is paying to keep that position open.

The long to short ratio is a different and more famous number. It counts accounts. A 2.57 ratio on Solana means there are roughly two and a half long accounts for every short account. What it does not capture is size. Ten retail accounts each long one contract and one desk short fifty contracts will show a heavily long account ratio while the real, size weighted pressure on the book is short. The funding rate, because it is driven by who is actually paying at the margin, is the better read of where the size sits.

The Solana contradiction

Here is the gap. On Binance today, about 72 percent of Solana perp accounts are long, a 2.57 long to short ratio, and the funding rate is negative, about negative 2.9 percent annualized. Bitcoin and Ethereum, by contrast, both carry positive funding right now, near plus 4 and plus 5 percent, meaning their longs are paying to stay in, the ordinary arrangement.

The Solana reading is not a one day quirk. Over the past 21 days the funding rate on Binance has been negative about 64 percent of the time and has averaged negative 2.37 percent, even as the account ratio stayed above 70 percent the entire stretch, in a roughly 71 to 80 percent long band. Bitcoin funding was negative only about 24 percent of that window and Ethereum about 30 percent. So Solana stands out twice over: most accounts long, and yet for most of a month the shorts have been paying the longs to hold. The crowd and the cost of carry have been pointing in opposite directions for weeks.

The same coin, two opposite rates

Look across exchanges and the split sharpens. In the same snapshot, Solana funding is negative about 2.9 percent on Binance but plus 10.95 percent annualized on Bybit. The Bybit reading is not random. Ethereum sits at the identical plus 10.95 percent there while Bitcoin sits lower, near plus 6 percent, which is what funding looks like when the two most crowded contracts press against a venue ceiling and a less crowded one does not. So the same Solana coin, in the same minute, pays its longs on one exchange and charges its longs the maximum on another.

That is the part most people never see, because most people watch one exchange. A trader looking only at Bybit sees expensive, crowded longs and concludes the Solana leverage trade is jammed full. A trader looking only at the Binance account ratio sees 72 percent long and concludes the same. The funding rate on Binance says something the account ratio cannot: the size on that venue is leaning the other way.

The likely explanation, and the one to resist

The tempting read is that smart money is quietly short Solana and the negative funding is the tell. That read does not survive the data. Funding has been negative on Solana for most of three weeks without the price collapsing, so negative funding has plainly not been a reliable down signal. A persistent negative rate that does not precede a fall is the signature of structure, not direction.

The more likely explanation is the cash and carry basis trade. A desk buys Solana in the spot market and sells the perpetual against it, a delta neutral position that earns the spread between the two. When enough size does this, it sits on the short side of the perpetual and pushes funding negative, while the many smaller leveraged accounts on the long side keep the account ratio high. That is not a directional bet on Solana going down. It is a carry trade harvesting the funding, and it explains both halves of the contradiction at once: the negative rate and the crowded long account count can coexist precisely because the two are different populations of trader. The honest caveat is that the open interest involved is modest, near 0.77 billion dollars on Binance against more than 6 billion for Bitcoin, so this is a real but contained corner of the market, not a whole asset class.

What this changes, and what to watch

The practical takeaway is about which number to trust. The long to short account ratio is the figure plastered across most retail dashboards, and on Solana it has been telling a story the funding rate flatly contradicts for weeks. When the two disagree this persistently, the funding rate, which follows size and money rather than account headcount, is the one carrying information. Separately, where longs are paying the ceiling, Ethereum and Solana on Bybit, that is genuinely expensive crowded leverage, the kind that becomes fuel for a sharp move if spot stalls and those longs are forced to pay up or close.

The observable thing that would resolve the dislocation is convergence. If Binance funding flips positive and stays there while the account ratio holds long, the basis and short flow has cleared and the leverage is finally directional in the way the headcount suggested all along. If the long account ratio instead falls toward the funding rate, the crowd is the side that blinked. Watch the sign of the funding rate against the account ratio. The day they point the same way again is the day this particular gap has closed.

This note is part of Kresmion's daily Research Notes. Kresmion tracks the leverage and flow data behind these readings, with a Bitcoin research page, a position calculator for sizing leverage, and a learning library of methodology primers.

Frequently asked questions

What is a perpetual funding rate?

A perpetual future is a derivative with no expiry date, so exchanges use a periodic payment called the funding rate to keep its price close to the underlying spot price. When funding is positive, traders who are long pay traders who are short, which usually happens when leverage is crowded to the long side. When funding is negative, shorts pay longs. The rate is effectively the cost of holding a leveraged position, and its sign shows which side is paying.

Why is it strange that Solana funding is negative while most accounts are long?

Because a crowd of longs normally pays to hold its position, so funding is usually positive when the long to short account ratio is high. On Solana the account ratio is about 72 percent long, yet funding on Binance has been negative for most of the past three weeks. That means the size setting the funding rate is on the short side even though the count of accounts leans long, a gap between headcount and money.

Does negative funding mean Solana is going to fall?

Not on this evidence. Funding has been negative on Solana for most of three weeks without a corresponding decline, so it has not worked as a downward signal. The pattern is more consistent with cash and carry basis trades, where a desk is short the perpetual against long spot to harvest the funding spread, which is a structural position rather than a directional bet.

Why is the same Solana funding rate negative on Binance but positive on Bybit?

Because the trader mix on each venue is different. On Bybit, Solana and Ethereum perpetuals both sit at plus 10.95 percent, which appears to be the venue ceiling, indicating heavily crowded leveraged longs. On Binance, large basis and short flow pushes the same contract negative. The two exchanges can price the funding on one coin in opposite directions at the same moment, which is why looking at only one venue can mislead.

Which number should I trust, the long short ratio or the funding rate?

When they disagree persistently, the funding rate carries more information because it follows the money and size actually paying to hold positions, while the long to short ratio only counts accounts. On Solana the account ratio has stayed long while funding stayed negative for weeks, and the funding rate is the figure reflecting where the real pressure sits.