Исследование с проверкой источников: Deribit / Binance

Verified source facts

1. Deribit documents European-style options that are cash-settled at expiry and automatically exercised when in the money. 2. Deribit says its final delivery price uses a 30-minute TWAP of the relevant index and that no physical underlying asset is delivered. 3. Binance documents stablecoin-priced and settled crypto options and says an option buyer pays the premium without the seller's margin obligation. 4. Binance's fee documentation separates trading, exercise and liquidation fees, so current fees must be checked independently of older introductory examples.

Comparison at a glance

1. Compare contract identity on the same job

A platform comparison becomes useful only when both venues are measured against one job. For contract identity, that job concerns underlying, strike, expiry and contract unit. Marketing pages frequently describe broad capability while the actual decision lives in a specific pair, contract, network, entity, or account tier. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then match the exact instrument. Until that check is complete, neither venue earns the point.

The comparison should distinguish a published ceiling from an executable outcome. A fee table does not reveal slippage; a product menu does not prove regional eligibility; a security feature page does not prove the control is enabled on the reader's account. Record the route from public statement to authenticated evidence. The unresolved variable is future listings, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For contract identity, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how underlying, strike, expiry and contract unit changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator match the exact instrument. The remaining uncertainty—future listings—belongs in the dated scorecard. That produces a job-specific preference instead of a permanent winner.

2. Compare exercise style on the same job

For exercise style, that job concerns when exercise can occur. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then confirm European-style expiry treatment.

The unresolved variable is rule changes, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For exercise style, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how when exercise can occur changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator confirm European-style expiry treatment. The remaining uncertainty—rule changes—belongs in the dated scorecard.

3. Compare settlement asset on the same job

For settlement asset, that job concerns currency receiving intrinsic value. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then model currency exposure.

The unresolved variable is account availability, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For settlement asset, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how currency receiving intrinsic value changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator model currency exposure. The remaining uncertainty—account availability—belongs in the dated scorecard.

4. Compare settlement price on the same job

For settlement price, that job concerns index and averaging window. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then retain the index methodology.

The unresolved variable is stress behavior, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For settlement price, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how index and averaging window changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator retain the index methodology. The remaining uncertainty—stress behavior—belongs in the dated scorecard.

5. Compare buyer risk on the same job

For buyer risk, that job concerns premium paid and expiry payoff. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then cap intended loss before entry.

The unresolved variable is gap risk, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For buyer risk, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how premium paid and expiry payoff changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator cap intended loss before entry. The remaining uncertainty—gap risk—belongs in the dated scorecard.

6. Compare seller margin on the same job

For seller margin, that job concerns collateral and liquidation mechanics. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then stress margin before selling.

The unresolved variable is portfolio offsets, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For seller margin, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how collateral and liquidation mechanics changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator stress margin before selling. The remaining uncertainty—portfolio offsets—belongs in the dated scorecard.

7. Compare automatic exercise on the same job

For automatic exercise, that job concerns ITM processing at expiry. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then verify cutoff and account state.

The unresolved variable is operational interruption, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For automatic exercise, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how ITM processing at expiry changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator verify cutoff and account state. The remaining uncertainty—operational interruption—belongs in the dated scorecard.

8. Compare fees on the same job

For fees, that job concerns trading, exercise and liquidation charges. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then use the current fee page.

The unresolved variable is tier-specific treatment, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For fees, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how trading, exercise and liquidation charges changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator use the current fee page. The remaining uncertainty—tier-specific treatment—belongs in the dated scorecard.

9. Compare liquidity on the same job

For liquidity, that job concerns spread and depth at the intended size. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then compare executable quotes.

The unresolved variable is stress-period depth, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For liquidity, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how spread and depth at the intended size changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator compare executable quotes. The remaining uncertainty—stress-period depth—belongs in the dated scorecard.

10. Compare eligibility on the same job

For eligibility, that job concerns entity, region and account permissions. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then verify inside the authenticated product.

The unresolved variable is future restrictions, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For eligibility, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how entity, region and account permissions changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator verify inside the authenticated product. The remaining uncertainty—future restrictions—belongs in the dated scorecard.

Decision scenarios

Scenario 1: when contract identity becomes decisive

Consider a reader whose main constraint is underlying, strike, expiry and contract unit. The correct response is not to infer a universal platform or product winner. It is to match the exact instrument, retain the evidence, and define a stop condition before funds or permissions are committed. If the evidence changes, the decision must be reopened. This produces a repeatable operating rule rather than a one-time opinion.

Scenario 2: when exercise style becomes decisive

Consider a reader whose main constraint is when exercise can occur. It is to confirm European-style expiry treatment, retain the evidence, and define a stop condition before funds or permissions are committed.

Scenario 3: when settlement asset becomes decisive

Consider a reader whose main constraint is currency receiving intrinsic value. It is to model currency exposure, retain the evidence, and define a stop condition before funds or permissions are committed.

Scenario 4: when settlement price becomes decisive

Consider a reader whose main constraint is index and averaging window. It is to retain the index methodology, retain the evidence, and define a stop condition before funds or permissions are committed.

Scenario 5: when buyer risk becomes decisive

Consider a reader whose main constraint is premium paid and expiry payoff. It is to cap intended loss before entry, retain the evidence, and define a stop condition before funds or permissions are committed.

Scenario 6: when seller margin becomes decisive

Consider a reader whose main constraint is collateral and liquidation mechanics. It is to stress margin before selling, retain the evidence, and define a stop condition before funds or permissions are committed.