After AiBot staking-to-contract went live, many users asked the same question: AiBot is still generating returns normally, the principal has not been redeemed, and the funds do not seem to have actually left the account. If that is the case, why is a service fee still required? From the user’s perspective, it seems like there is only an additional limit available for contract trading, without any real “lending” of funds. But from the underlying mechanism’s perspective, this feature does not provide a simple account transfer—it provides a new way to use capital.
New Capital Utilization Capability
Many people think that AiBot staking-to-contract is essentially just moving funds from a wealth account to a contract account. In fact, that is not the case. In the past, an asset could usually play only one role: stay in AiBot and keep earning returns, or be transferred to a contract account to participate in market trading. In many cases, users had to choose between returns and liquidity.
What AiBot staking-to-contract does is add a new layer of capability to the asset without affecting the original yield. For example, suppose a user holds 1,000 USDT in AiBot assets. In the past, that 1,000 USDT could only keep generating returns according to AiBot rules. Now, without redemption, the system can generate up to 800 USDT in contract margin quota based on the user’s staking status, which can be used for market trading; meanwhile, the original 1,000 USDT AiBot returns continue to accrue normally.
In other words, the same asset now has: earning capability; margin capability; market participation capability. What actually changes is not the location of the funds, but the number of roles the asset can play at the same time.
Service Fees Are Not Charged Just Because You Stake
Another common misunderstanding is that once AiBot staking-to-contract is enabled, the full staked amount will be charged continuously. That is not the case. AiBot staking-to-contract uses an “actual usage only” billing model. After a user enables the feature, the system generates an available margin quota based on the AiBot holdings, but merely having this quota does not immediately trigger a service fee. Billing starts only when the account actually uses this staked quota as contract margin for trading.
Also, the service fee is not calculated based on the entire staked principal. Instead, it is based on: actual occupied amount × actual occupied time, with fees accumulated hourly and settled daily. For example, suppose a user receives a staking margin quota of 1,000 USDT through AiBot, but in a certain trade only 500 USDT is actually used, and only for 2 hours. Then the system will calculate the service fee only for the actual usage of those 500 USDT over those 2 hours, rather than charging for the full 1,000 USDT for the entire day.
If the trade ends and that portion of the staked quota is no longer used, billing stops accordingly. If usage increases or decreases midway, the system will automatically adjust the billing base according to the actual situation. For users, this is closer to an on-demand model: no use, no charge; use more, pay more; use longer, pay longer.
The specific fee rate will be displayed according to product rules and can be checked in real time on the page. Each service-fee charge will also generate a corresponding record according to the settlement cycle, making it easy to review and reconcile.
Why Charge Based on Actual Usage?
Because from the underlying logic, this feature is essentially providing users with additional liquidity. Although your AiBot assets remain in the yield system, the system simultaneously allows those assets to be mapped as contract margin for trading.
But this capability does not appear out of nowhere. When an asset that is still generating returns is also given the ability to participate in contract trading, the platform must continuously maintain a full set of management mechanisms behind the scenes, including margin quota calculation, risk control, real-time liquidation, and capital mapping.
For users, it simply means one more usable quota. For the system, however, it means maintaining an additional liquidity and risk-control framework over the long term. Therefore, the platform adopts a relatively fair model: only those who truly use this capability need to bear the corresponding service cost. If there is no usage, there is no extra fee simply for enabling the feature.
Why Not Make It Free?
In fact, in mature financial markets, improving capital efficiency is itself a valuable capability. Securities financing, margin trading, and asset-backed lending are all fundamentally doing the same thing—allowing assets that are already held to continue creating new value while preserving their original value. AiBot staking-to-contract follows this same logic, making returns and trading no longer separate from one another.
It allows users to gain market participation capability without redeeming their assets. For many investors, what they obtain is not a simple account transfer, but an asset that could originally create only one form of value now able to play two or even more roles at the same time.
Service Fees Pay for Asset Efficiency
The service fee is not paid for a simple fund transfer. It is paid for an asset that could originally only generate returns but has now gained the ability to participate in market trading.
In the past, an asset usually could only do one thing: either earn returns or seize market opportunities. What AiBot staking-to-contract aims to solve is precisely this long-standing conflict. It does not change AiBot’s original yield logic; instead, it adds a new layer of usability to the asset on top of that. The asset continues to generate returns. When market opportunities arise, there is no need to end the original value accumulation early just to participate in trading.
So, in a sense, what users pay for is not a simple transfer fee. They are paying for an asset that could originally create only one form of value now gaining a second capability. What AiBot staking-to-contract truly seeks to solve is not the issue of charging itself, but whether, when returns and opportunities appear at the same time, one asset really must be limited to a single choice. For investors who increasingly value capital efficiency, what matters most may no longer be how many assets they own, but whether those assets can create more value when opportunities arise.