Offshore access does not restore your protections
The regulatory section on this page is short because the position is simple, and worth stating plainly rather than burying.
The FCA has prohibited the sale of crypto derivatives and ETNs to UK retail consumers since 6 January 2021. Bybit does not serve US retail with these products. In the EU, crypto derivatives sit under MiFID II rather than MiCA.
The point that gets lost: if an offshore venue accepts you despite a restriction where you live, that does not make the trade regulated. It means the opposite. You are outside the compensation scheme, outside the ombudsman, and outside the leverage caps and negative balance protection that a domestically authorised firm would have to give you.
Check your regulator's register before depositing, not the platform's own page.
The mechanic that matters: closing fees inside the maintenance requirement
This is a real difference between Bybit and both Binance and OKX, and most calculators do not model it.
The usual liquidation condition is that margin plus unrealised PnL falls to the maintenance requirement. Bybit's requirement additionally includes **the taker fee you would pay to close**.
The effect is that at an identical maintenance-margin rate, Bybit liquidates marginally earlier than a venue that excludes the closing fee. The gap is small but its direction is fixed: the adverse move the position can absorb is slightly narrower.
On a 1 BTC long entered at 60,000 with 10x leverage, the difference is worth tens of USDT on the liquidation price against an equivalent mark-price model. That sounds trivial, and it scales proportionally with leverage and position size.
The calculator here models the term separately, so the gap is checkable rather than asserted.
Banded like Binance, calculated like OKX
Bybit bands maintenance-margin tiers by notional value in USDT — the same as Binance, unlike OKX's contract-count bands.
But Bybit applies the tier rate to the whole position without a cumulative maintenance amount — the same as OKX, unlike Binance.
So the three venues combine two independent choices differently:
Any calculator that treats all three as one formula is wrong about at least two of them.
- Binance: notional bands, plus a maintenance amount
- OKX: contract-count bands, tier rate applied flat
- Bybit: notional bands, tier rate applied flat, closing fee included
No platform-token discount to model
Bybit does not offer standard users a platform-token fee discount comparable to BNB. Rates are set by VIP tier, which is determined by volume and asset size.
That removes a variable from the cost model: there is no token you need to hold to lower your fee. Whether that suits you depends on what you would otherwise hold, but the arithmetic is simpler.
Funding moves every position you hold
Settlement intervals can differ between contracts and annualising needs the contract's actual one — true everywhere, and the board here infers it from historical timestamps rather than assuming eight hours.
What is particular to Bybit comes after that: funding is debited from the unified account's shared margin. A funding payment on one perpetual therefore does not only affect that position — it **nudges the liquidation price of every position in the account** in the wrong direction at the same time. Hold several positions through a high-funding stretch and the effect compounds, with nothing to announce it.
Before you open: understand how the unified account behaves
Bybit shares margin across positions, which means one position's liquidation price moves as your other positions gain or lose. If you are used to treating each trade as self-contained, that behaviour is worth understanding before you deposit — it is the reason a liquidation price you calculated per-position will not match the one the account shows.
After that: the current tier table and maximum leverage for your contract, and the VIP thresholds and rates that go with them. There is no platform-token discount layer here, so the cost model carries one variable fewer than the other two.
Withdrawal networks and their fees, two-factor authentication and a withdrawal allowlist all want setting before the first deposit.
The one claim here you can check without being liquidated
The most testable claim on this page is the liquidation price. If the closing taker fee really is inside the maintenance requirement, the order ticket's liquidation preview will sit slightly closer to entry than a formula that excludes it — put the two side by side and the difference is visible immediately. It is one of the few mechanics you can verify without being liquidated to find out.
How transfers and shared margin behave in the unified account also needs real use before anything can be said about it.
The rest carries no first-hand evidence: verification, deposit arrival per network, fill quality during volatility, support response and resolution, and withdrawal security review and arrival time. None of it contributes to a conclusion until it does.
Risk and limitations
Leveraged trading can lose your entire deposit, and in disorderly markets losses can exceed posted margin. Published rules and licensing status both change; the update date reflects when this text was last edited.
Nothing here is investment advice.
Primary sources and checked date
Checked on 2026-08-31. These documents support the public-rule and mechanism claims above; they do not convert the pending real-account tests into verified experience.
