Boros vs FIVA: funding-rate trades or TON yields? (2026)

Boros and FIVA address different jobs despite sharing an interest-rate derivatives label. Boros lets users trade perpetual funding rates as positions, either to speculate on rate changes or hedge funding costs from perpetual futures. It is built by Pendle and runs on Arbitrum. FIVA is a TON-based yield protocol: its listed products include fixed-yield locking, leveraged airdrop farming, and liquidity provision described as having near-zero impermanent loss. The details of that liquidity mechanism are not published.

Choose by the exposure you actually want. Boros is the more direct match if you already hold perpetual positions and want a funding-rate hedge, or understand rate trading and want to speculate. FIVA is more relevant if you use TON and are looking for its stated yield or airdrop-farming products. Neither is a general substitute for the other, and both include leveraged exposure that can magnify losses.

Boros’ main feature is a margin-based position on perpetual funding rates. That can give a trader greater rate exposure than their posted collateral, but the margin requirements, liquidation rules, and funding mechanics are not published. Boros also does not state its trading fees or settlement costs. FIVA’s published feature set is broader in type: users can lock in a fixed yield, farm future airdrops with up to 100x leverage, or provide liquidity under a stated low-impermanent-loss design. Its fee schedule is also not published.

Do not compare the protocols on a quoted fee figure: neither publishes one. Before depositing, check the app and official documentation for all relevant charges, including protocol, trading, liquidity, leverage, or settlement costs. Network transactions also incur gas on Arbitrum or TON, but specific amounts are not published here. For leveraged positions, understand the costs and conditions as well as the headline product before committing funds.

The public security picture is incomplete for both protocols. Boros has no audits listed, and public incident history is not stated. It is a young product, listed since August 2025, and its leveraged positions expose deposited collateral to both contract risk and market-driven liquidation. FIVA has two audits listed, but the auditors, scope, and findings are not published. An audit listing is not a guarantee against bugs or losses, and FIVA’s very small TVL means there has been limited real-world stress testing.

Treat the risk profiles as distinct, not as a simple safe-versus-unsafe choice. Boros requires understanding margin and funding-rate exposure. FIVA’s airdrop-farming product can use up to 100x leverage, which can lead to total loss. Boros does not publish margin or liquidation rules, while FIVA does not publish detailed audit information. Review current product documentation and risk controls before using either protocol, and only deposit funds you can afford to lose.

Boros operates on Arbitrum, while FIVA is built on TON. That makes chain access a practical deciding factor: users need to be comfortable with the relevant network and its wallet and transaction flows. Boros has about $8.1 million in TVL, compared with about $30,460 for FIVA. Those figures suggest a substantial difference in current scale, but they do not predict returns, guarantee liquidity, or establish security.

Boros also has a clear learning hurdle: funding rates, yield units, margin, and liquidation risk can be difficult for newcomers. FIVA’s ease of use is not published, and its product details are limited; its homepage could not be fetched. Neither protocol lists a token, and neither publishes fees. If you need clear costs, well-documented risk parameters, or a long operating history, public sources do not establish that either is a strong fit. Verify the current app and documentation before connecting a wallet.