Video: Vest Markets How To Take FULL Advantage of Perpetuals Trading as a Futures Trader
Creator: Antonio Russo
Original Video: Watch the original video
Difficulty: Intermediate
The Big Idea
A familiar-looking chart does not mean a familiar contract. Moving from Nasdaq futures to an index perpetual can change how size is measured, how positions are financed, which price triggers liquidation, and what a funded-account payout actually represents.
Antonio Russo presents perpetuals as a better fit for his trading and emphasizes flexible payout policies, static drawdown, and customizable funded programs. Those are useful comparison topics, but they belong to different layers: the instrument, the trading venue, and the funded-account agreement.
Separating those layers makes the decision easier to evaluate. A more convenient payout policy does not establish a better trading edge, and a no-expiry contract does not remove holding costs or account rules.
Three Layers to Identify
| Layer | What it determines | What to inspect |
|---|---|---|
| Contract | Price exposure and profit or loss | Multiplier, settlement currency, expiry, funding, price index |
| Venue or simulator | Orders, fills, margin, and operational handling | Trading hours, fees, stop triggers, mark price, liquidation rules |
| Funded program | Evaluation and payout eligibility | Loss floors, profit targets, prohibited activity, withdrawal deductions |
A perpetual bought with personal collateral and a simulated funded-account position can display similar prices while creating very different obligations. Determine which arrangement you are actually using before applying risk calculations.
No Expiry Does Not Mean No Friction
A true perpetual contract has no scheduled maturity. A dated futures contract expires, so maintaining exposure beyond that date normally requires moving into a later contract. Perpetuals replace that expiry structure with other mechanisms, often including funding intended to keep the contract near its reference price.
For a linear contract, a useful approximation is:
Funding payment = position notional × applicable funding rate.
In an original example, a $50,000 position paying 0.01% for a funding interval costs $5 for that interval. If the same notional and rate applied over three intervals, the cost would be $15. Actual rates, calculation times, and payment direction vary; a trader may pay or receive funding. Coinbase’s perpetuals explanation describes periodic transfers between longs and shorts, separately from trading fees.
Funding is charged on exposure, rather than merely the small amount of collateral supporting it. Verify how the specific venue or simulator handles funding, and whether it is included in the displayed net result. A platform’s “zero-fee” description should not be interpreted as proof that every form of trading friction is absent.
Crypto perpetuals commonly trade continuously, but that does not establish continuous access for every stock or index product. The retrieved Vest trading page contains a weekend-pause notice for non-crypto markets. The video’s broad 24/7 claim should therefore be checked at the instrument level.
Similar Nasdaq Charts, Different Dollar Exposure
The presenter compares a NAS100-style product with Nasdaq futures and offers approximate slider-to-contract equivalents. The transcript contains inconsistent sizing descriptions, so those percentages should not become a universal conversion table.
CME specifies NQ at $20 per index point and MNQ at $2 per index point. A venue-specific NAS100 contract needs its own specification. Its name and visual similarity do not establish either multiplier.
| Position | Dollar exposure per point | Price loss over 25 points |
|---|---|---|
| One NQ | $20 | $500 |
| One MNQ | $2 | $50 |
| Hypothetical linear index position: 0.5 units at $1 per point per unit | $0.50 | $12.50 |
The third row is our illustrative contract, not a specification for Vest or MyFundedPerps. Obtain the actual unit multiplier, tick size, minimum quantity, and settlement currency from the provider. For inverse or non-linear contracts, use their stated profit-and-loss formula rather than this linear approximation.
Also inspect the reference index and price differences. A stop triggered on the venue’s mark price can behave differently from a stop placed against a CME chart or a last-traded-price display.
Leverage Is Not a Risk Budget
For a simple linear position, $2,000 of margin at 10× leverage supports approximately $20,000 of notional exposure. A 1% adverse move represents a $200 price loss: 10% of that initial margin, before costs. At 20× with the same $2,000 margin committed, exposure doubles and the same price move loses about $400.
If exposure stays at $20,000 and only the leverage setting changes, price sensitivity does not double; required margin changes. This distinction matters when a platform slider measures allocated margin, available buying power, or notional size.
The source suggests using maximum leverage. That is a platform preference, not a sizing rule. First calculate exposure from an acceptable planned loss and the stop distance. For a linear instrument:
Quantity = cash risk budget ÷ (stop distance × dollar multiplier per unit), with an allowance for costs and rounding down to permitted increments.
Then check margin and liquidation separately. Liquidation depends on maintenance requirements, collateral, funding, and the venue’s price method. It is not a substitute for a planned stop. In cross margin, other positions may consume the same collateral; isolated margin uses a different allocation model. Coinbase International’s trading rules illustrate why mark-price and maintenance-margin definitions matter, although its rules should not be assumed to govern other venues.
Static Drawdown: Calculate Remaining Room
A simplified static loss floor stays fixed relative to starting balance. In an original example, a nominal $25,000 account with a 5% fixed allowance has a $23,750 floor. Starting room is $1,250. A $250 planned loss consumes 20% of that room, even though it is only 1% of the headline account size.
At $26,000, the same floor gives $2,250 of room. Withdrawing $1,000 would reduce room to $1,250 if the floor remains unchanged. The withdrawal itself changes how much subsequent loss the account can tolerate.
That example assumes a permanently fixed floor. A real agreement can change the floor after a payout, include open losses, impose a daily limit, or define a breach at rather than below a boundary. “Static” on the sales page is not enough to settle those details.
What Current Provider Terms Add
Checked October 11, 2026: MyFundedPerps’ official site and disclosures state that evaluation and funded accounts are simulated, not live trading accounts. Its payout FAQ describes one request per New York calendar day for standard models, with no daily request limit for Elite, subject to eligibility and review.
The same FAQ says the first withdrawal on Select, Prime, and Signature locks the maximum-loss floor to starting balance; Elite’s floor does not move. Gross payout amounts are deducted from the account. Those details materially qualify the video’s broad claims about unrestricted withdrawals and unchanging drawdown. Confirm the agreement for the purchased model before relying on them.
Vest’s retrieved program terms caution that simulated or internal results need not correspond to actual market outcomes. Its funded-program disclosure also describes discretion to record trade ideas internally or route accepted trades externally. This does not independently verify every payout, plan price, or account benefit described in the video.
On-Demand Requests and Money Received
Request frequency, eligibility, approval time, and receipt time are separate facts. A plan allowing frequent requests may still require a minimum amount, identity checks, rule review, or a particular payment method. A profit split also changes the cash received.
In an original example, a $500 gross payout at an 80% trader share produces $400 before payment charges. If the program deducts the full $500 from the account, the remaining trading buffer falls by $500, rather than by the $400 arriving in the trader’s wallet.
A higher advertised split is only one input. Compare the purchase fee, reset costs, loss allowance, achievable withdrawal conditions, and account room after withdrawal. Removing a consistency rule does not remove every restriction.
A Practical Comparison Exercise
- Identify the arrangement. Record whether funds are personal collateral, simulated account values, or live firm capital, and save the applicable agreement.
- Normalize exposure. Compare instruments at the same dollars per point or the same percentage-move risk, rather than equal slider percentages.
- Replay a trade plan. Use identical entry times and intended stops. Record each venue’s quotes, fills, fees, funding, and reference-price differences.
- Recalculate the account. Apply open-equity rules, daily resets, loss floors, and gross withdrawal deductions throughout the sequence.
- Track the complete economics. Include evaluation and reset fees, failed attempts, and actual money received. Keep simulated trading profit separate from payouts.
This exercise can expose product and rule differences without inventing a trading strategy. The transcript’s selected profits and the presenter’s account preferences do not establish that perpetuals are statistically superior for all traders. His discount-code promotion is also relevant context when evaluating recommendations.
Final Takeaway
Perpetuals can change expiry handling and offer different execution and account arrangements. The meaningful comparison is exposure, total cost, liquidation mechanics, remaining loss room, and enforceable payout conditions. Translate the contract into dollars first, then evaluate the venue and agreement around it.
Risk Disclosure: This material is for educational and research purposes only and is not financial or investment advice. Leveraged derivatives can produce substantial losses and liquidation; losses may exceed deposited funds where the product and agreement permit. Backtests and simulated results are hypothetical and cannot reproduce every aspect of live execution. Commissions, spreads, slippage, funding, liquidity, gaps, order behavior, market regime changes, and discretionary decisions can materially affect results. Funded-program fees can be lost, and passing an evaluation does not guarantee a payout. Historical results do not guarantee future performance.
This article is an independent educational companion to the video and is not affiliated with, sponsored by, endorsed by, or authorized by Antonio Russo, Vest Markets, or MyFundedPerps.