Eterna vs Hyperliquid vs Bybit vs Binance
Four venues, four very different trade-offs. This compares base-tier perp fees, custody, KYC and machine-execution support — with the numbers taken from each venue’s own documentation, and the places where Eterna loses stated as plainly as the places where it wins.
Affiliate disclosure: This site contains referral links. If you sign up through them, the site owner may earn a share of trading fees at no extra cost to you.
Base-tier perp fees, side by side
All four figures below are the entry-level rate a new retail account pays, with no VIP status, no volume discount and no token-payment discount applied. That is the number that actually applies to most people, as opposed to the top-tier rate venues like to advertise.
| Venue | Maker | Taker | Tiers | KYC | Custody |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eterna flat | 0.014% | 0.035% | None1 | No1 | Self1 |
| Hyperliquid | 0.015% | 0.045% | 14-day vol.2 | Not stated2 | On-chain |
| Bybit | 0.02% | 0.055% | VIP3 | Yes | Custodial |
| Binance | 0.02% | 0.05% | VIP4 | Yes | Custodial |
“Tiers” means volume-based fee tiers; “Custody” is who holds your funds. Eterna rates per its AI and infrastructure page. Hyperliquid base tier 0 per its fee documentation. Bybit USDT Perpetual Non-VIP rates per its help centre. Binance USD₷-M Regular User rates per its support documentation, described there as hypothetical. Checked August 2026 — verify before trading.
What that costs on $1M of monthly volume
Fee percentages are abstract. Here is the same $1,000,000 in notional volume, split 30% maker and 70% taker, run through each schedule:
| Venue | Maker cost | Taker cost | Monthly total | vs Eterna |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eterna | $42 | $245 | $287 | — |
| Hyperliquid | $45 | $315 | $360 | +$73 |
| Binance | $60 | $350 | $410 | +$123 |
| Bybit | $60 | $385 | $445 | +$158 |
Roughly $73 to $158 per million traded. Meaningful if you turn over volume monthly, irrelevant if you place four trades a year. Adjust the maker/taker mix to your own style in the fee calculator — a heavy maker will see the gap narrow considerably.
The structural argument: hybrid CEX-DEX
The fee table is the surface. The more interesting difference is architectural. Eterna routes to centralised-exchange liquidity while keeping wallet-based, self-custodied, no-KYC access — it cites $10B+ in accessible liquidity sourced from Bybit, 200+ perpetual pairs and sub-200ms latency.1
The conventional trade-off is that you pick one side. A CEX gives you depth, tight spreads and fast matching, and asks for your documents and your coins. A DEX gives you custody and permissionless access, and historically asked you to accept thinner books and worse fills. The hybrid model is an attempt to take the execution quality of the first and the access model of the second.
CEX side
Deep aggregated order books, low latency matching, tight spreads on major pairs.1
DEX side
Wallet authentication, self-custody of funds, no identity verification.1
Machine side
MCP endpoint, official CLI, sandboxed runtime with an injected SDK for agent execution.1
Whether that holds up under stress is an empirical question and Eterna is the newest venue here. But the claim is coherent, and it is not one Bybit or Binance can make at all.
Fee payback and integrated signals
Two Eterna features have no direct equivalent in the other three.
EHX Payback. Eligible trading fees are charged in USDT and their value is then credited back as in-app EHX, at a fixed internal ledger rate of 0.0392 USDT per EHX in the current MVP model. It applies to manual trades, copy trades and Agents Marketplace execution, and it is calculated on fees rather than profit — so it pays in losing months too.5 It is not a USDT refund, not a cash rebate, and not a withdrawal-ready balance, which is why this comparison ranks the venues on USDT actually debited and treats the payback separately.5 Full mechanics: Eterna’s 0% fees explained.
Agent and signal infrastructure. Eterna’s Agents Marketplace lets you copy listed agents, including AI-driven ones, with the same fee logic applied to copied trades.5 Combined with the MCP endpoint, the venue treats automated execution as a first-class path rather than an API afterthought. See how to connect an AI agent.
Where Eterna loses
A comparison that only favours one side is an advertisement. These are real reasons to pick something else.
Track record
Binance and Bybit have operated at scale for years through multiple market cycles. Hyperliquid has a large, publicly verifiable on-chain history. Eterna is the youngest venue in this table and its payback model is explicitly described as an MVP.5
On-chain transparency
Hyperliquid’s order book and liquidations are verifiable on-chain. A hybrid that routes to external CEX liquidity cannot offer the same auditability.
Product breadth
The large centralised venues offer spot, options, margin, earn products and fiat rails. Eterna is focused on perps.
Maker-heavy strategies
If you are almost entirely maker, Hyperliquid’s 0.015% is within a rounding error of Eterna’s 0.014%, and top-tier Hyperliquid accounts can reach maker rebates.2
Verdict by trader type
| If you are… | Lean toward | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Taker-heavy, no-KYC, running agents | Eterna | Lowest taker rate in the table, flat with no tier to clear, plus native MCP execution.1 |
| Prioritising on-chain verifiability | Hyperliquid | Fully on-chain book with a long public history; base fees remain competitive.2 |
| Wanting spot, options and fiat in one place | Binance or Bybit | Broadest product range and deepest institutional track record, at higher base fees and with KYC.34 |
| Trading a few times a year | Whatever you already use | At low turnover the fee difference is not worth the migration friction. This is the honest answer. |
If Eterna fits your profile, opening an account through ehx.app/r/Steve attaches the referral code automatically. The commission is paid to me out of Eterna’s own fee share and never added to your cost — and there is no signup bonus on your side, whatever other affiliate pages claim.