Bullet is a perpetual-futures CLOB built as a rollup execution layer settling to Solana, from the team behind Zeta Markets. Its catalogue is mixed: crypto majors and alts alongside commodities including gold, silver and crude oil, and tokenized equities — traded from a self-custodied wallet with hourly funding.
What is Bullet?
The lineage is the most useful thing to know about it. Zeta Markets was one of the earlier derivatives protocols on Solana, so this is a team returning to a problem they have already shipped against rather than a first attempt. The architectural choice — a rollup that executes off the main chain and settles back to Solana — is aimed at getting order-book performance without inheriting the full cost and latency profile of on-chain matching.
On the incentive side, Bullet is in a closed phase ahead of an official points-programme launch, with early trading volume credited retroactively once the programme goes live. That is a genuine pre-launch farm rather than a vague promise of future consideration, but the distinction from a live programme matters: there is no published points rate, no allocation percentage and no confirmed launch date, so nobody can tell you what your volume is currently earning.
The API is explicitly Binance-FAPI-compatible by the venue's own description, which makes integration straightforward — but it is incomplete in one respect worth knowing about, covered below.
This review covers what Bullet is, its live metrics, the features that matter for active traders, the honest state of its points phase, its fee schedule, custody and chain considerations, the real risks of an early venue, and how its hourly funding compares live against every venue tracked on ORBIT.
Bullet key metrics (2026)
Bullet is an early venue and its figures should be read that way — a modest market count with liquidity concentrated in a handful of contracts. The numbers below come live from ORBIT rather than being hardcoded. One honest caveat about historical depth on this venue specifically: Bullet publishes no funding-history endpoint, so ORBIT's record for it begins when we started polling rather than at the venue's own launch. Longer-window averages fill in over time rather than being available retroactively.
| Property | Detail |
|---|---|
| Venue type | Perpetual CLOB, non-custodial |
| Architecture | Rollup execution layer settling to Solana |
| Built by | The team behind Zeta Markets |
| Catalogue | Crypto majors and alts + commodities (gold, silver, WTI) + tokenized equities |
| Funding interval | Hourly — verified live from the venue's own funding metadata |
| Base fees | 4.0 bps taker / 1.0 bps maker |
| Points | Closed phase — early volume credited retroactively at launch |
| Token / TGE | None announced |
| Public funding history | Not exposed — ORBIT history accrues from our own polling |
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Open interest (all markets) | $1.4M |
| 24h volume | $7.5M |
| Perp markets tracked | 23 |
| Average funding APR | +8.06% |
| Taker / maker fee | 4 bps / 1 bps |
| Market | Open interest | Funding APR |
|---|---|---|
| SOL | $287K | +3.80% |
| ETH | $220K | +2.00% |
| ZEC | $167K | +10.96% |
| BTC | $162K | +3.41% |
| HYPE | $129K | +4.37% |
| LIT | $83K | -39.74% |
Bullet key features for traders
The strongest argument for Bullet on pure trading merit is the fee schedule: 1 bp maker is close to free, and 4 bps taker is competitive with the cheapest on-chain venues. For a strategy that turns over capital repeatedly, that cost base does more measurable good than most incentive programmes.
The architecture is the second point. A rollup settling to Solana is an attempt to get CLOB responsiveness without paying full on-chain matching costs, and the team has prior experience building derivatives infrastructure on the same chain rather than learning it here.
- 1 bp maker / 4 bps taker: among the cheaper venues available, which matters most for high-turnover delta-neutral strategies.
- Rollup CLOB settling to Solana: order-book execution designed for responsiveness, with Solana as the settlement layer.
- Zeta Markets lineage: built by a team with prior Solana derivatives experience.
- Mixed catalogue: crypto majors and alts alongside gold, silver, crude oil and tokenized equities.
- Hourly funding: read from the venue's own funding metadata rather than assumed.
- Non-custodial: margin stays in your own wallet.
- Retroactive points credit: volume traded during the closed phase is credited when the programme formally launches.
- Live-tracked on ORBIT: Bullet funding appears next to every other venue on the Funding Screener.
Bullet points & airdrop
Bullet is in a closed phase ahead of its official points-programme launch, and early volume is stated to count retroactively. That is meaningfully better than a venue that merely hints at future rewards — the retroactive-credit commitment is explicit — but it is still not a live programme, and the difference is not cosmetic.
What is missing is everything you would need to value it: there is no published points rate, no announced allocation percentage, no token, no TGE date. You cannot compute what an hour of volume earns, because the venue has not said. Anyone quoting a specific expected return for farming Bullet is filling those blanks with assumptions.
For that reason Bullet is not modelled in ORBIT's Points Calculator. The calculator covers programmes that publish enough to estimate dollars-per-point honestly; producing a confident number for an unannounced allocation would be inventing data rather than measuring it.
The practical read is the same as for any pre-launch farm, and it is worth being blunt about: the fee schedule is the reason to use Bullet, and the points are a free option on top. At 4 bps taker and 1 bp maker the venue is cheap enough that a funding trade can stand on its own economics — and if it does, retroactive credit costs you nothing extra. Manufacturing volume purely to farm an unquantified allocation is a different proposition, and a worse one.
Bullet trading fees
Bullet charges 4 bps taker and 1 bps maker on perpetuals. On a round-trip — entry and exit, and across two venues if you trade delta-neutral — those fees are the first thing any spread has to overcome. ORBIT's backtester subtracts both legs' taker fees plus live order-book slippage, so the PnL it shows is net, not headline.
Bullet charges 4.0 bps taker and 1.0 bps maker at the base tier. That maker fee is genuinely low — close to free for resting liquidity — and the taker side is competitive with the cheapest venues in this comparison. For delta-neutral trading the deciding number remains the full round trip across both legs plus live order-book slippage, and on an early venue with modest depth, slippage is usually the dominant term rather than the fees. ORBIT's backtester subtracts both from real measured book depth.
| Cost component | Bullet | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Taker fee | 4.0 bps (0.04%) | Base tier (index 0 of the venue's tier array) |
| Maker fee | 1.0 bps (0.01%) | Base tier |
| Funding interval | 1 hour | From the venue's own funding metadata |
| Round trip, one leg | ~8 bps | Taker in + taker out, before slippage |
| Slippage | Usually dominant on an early venue | Measured live from the book by ORBIT |
Funding rates on Bullet
Bullet settles funding every 1h. Funding is the payment between longs and shorts that anchors the perpetual to spot — and because every venue computes its own rate, the same asset can pay very differently on Bullet than on another exchange at the same moment. That gap is a tradeable, delta-neutral edge.
Is Bullet safe?
Bullet is non-custodial: your margin stays in your own wallet, so the exchange-insolvency and withdrawal-freeze failures that define centralized venue collapses do not apply. What replaces them is smart-contract, rollup and chain risk.
The rollup architecture adds a layer worth understanding rather than glossing over. Execution happens on the rollup and settles back to Solana, which means you depend on both — the rollup's sequencer and its settlement path, plus Solana itself. Solana has a documented history of network outages, and during a halt a leveraged position cannot be adjusted or closed; there is no operator to restore access on your behalf.
The Zeta Markets background is a real mitigant. A team that has previously run derivatives infrastructure on this chain has seen how it behaves under stress, which is more informative than any audit summary. As always that is evidence of competence rather than a guarantee of outcome.
One transparency gap is worth naming because it affects what you can verify: Bullet exposes no public funding-history endpoint and no candlestick data. ORBIT builds its record for this venue from our own polling, so historical windows fill in going forward rather than being available retroactively. Practically, that means longer-horizon averages for Bullet are shorter and less settled than for a venue that publishes its own history — worth knowing before you lean on a multi-week average here.
Bullet risks and considerations
- Points programme not formally launched. Retroactive credit is committed, but there is no published rate, allocation or date — so the value of farmed volume is genuinely unknown.
- Rollup plus chain dependency. You depend on the rollup's operation and on Solana settlement. Solana outages have occurred, and a leveraged position cannot be managed during one.
- Early-venue liquidity. Depth is modest and concentrated. A striking funding APR on a thin market is usually a symptom of the thinness.
- No public price or funding history. Long-window statistics for Bullet are built from our own polling and are shorter than for venues that publish history — treat multi-week averages here with more caution.
- No token announced. There is no TGE, so any valuation of the eventual reward is speculation.
How to get started with Bullet
- Open Bullet and connect a wallet — the venue is non-custodial, so there is no centralized account step.
- Deposit margin and start small. On an early venue, place a probe position and watch it through a funding settlement before scaling.
- Open the Funding Screener and find where Bullet's hourly funding diverges from another venue on the same asset. The trade should work on funding alone before points enter the calculation.
- Check depth on both legs with Size & Depth — with fees this low, slippage is what will decide whether the spread survives.
- Confirm the net edge in the backtester, and treat any eventual points as upside rather than as part of the expected return.
Bullet vs Phoenix
The closest comparison is Phoenix, the other Solana-ecosystem perpetual venue in ORBIT's coverage — both are on-chain order books from teams with prior Solana experience, competing on low fees rather than on depth. Against Hyperliquid the gap is maturity: far deeper books and a live token there, against Bullet's cheaper maker fee and pre-launch points phase. For funding arbitrage the question is never which venue is better overall but which is mispriced against the other right now, and whether both books can absorb the size you intend to trade.
Bullet is also frequently weighed against Hyperliquid — see the Bullet vs Hyperliquid comparison for the full breakdown.
Bullet review: verdict
Bullet is a credible early venue: a rollup CLOB settling to Solana from a team that has built derivatives infrastructure on that chain before, with a fee schedule — 4 bps taker, 1 bp maker — cheap enough to justify using it on trading merit alone. The points phase is honestly positioned as closed and pre-launch with retroactive credit, and that is exactly how you should treat it: a free option on trades you would take anyway, not a quantified return, because no rate or allocation has been published. The genuine limitations are early-venue depth, dependence on both a rollup and Solana settlement, and a shorter statistical history than other venues because Bullet publishes none of its own. Size small, verify depth before committing, and let the funding trade stand on its own economics — if the backtester says it loses money before points, no plausible allocation repairs that.