Maker vs Taker Fees: How to Calculate and Reduce Trading Costs

A lower trading fee is not much comfort if the conversion misses a settlement cutoff. For a business selling crypto to fund a payment, the question is whether maker pricing saves enough to justify waiting for a fill—and what happens if that fill never arrives.

Maker taker fees are straightforward to calculate once you know the applicable rates. The more consequential decision is how to use them: compare the fee saving with the price, completion risk and time available for the trade.

How the maker-taker fee model works

In a standard order book, maker and taker describe the role of an execution:

• A maker adds liquidity. An order rests on the book, available for another participant to trade against. When that resting order fills, it receives maker treatment.
• A taker removes liquidity. An order executes against liquidity already available on the book. That execution receives taker treatment.

A venue can offer lower maker fees, or sometimes rebates, to encourage participants to supply liquidity. Takers receive immediate access to available orders and may pay more for that access. The incentive is not universal: check the actual schedule rather than assuming maker pricing is always cheaper.

You do not need to be a professional market maker to receive maker pricing. It is an execution role, not a business designation. The liquidity distinction also appears in equity trading, although a broker’s customer commission need not mirror an exchange’s fee schedule.

Why a limit order is not automatically a maker order

A market order takes available liquidity. A limit order controls the worst price you will accept; it does not necessarily make you a maker. A marketable limit order can execute immediately against resting orders. For example, a sell limit priced at the best available bid can take liquidity, subject to the quantity available.

One order can also have both roles: part executes immediately as taker, while the remainder rests and later fills as maker. Fees follow the individual fills, not a single label attached to the whole order.

A post-only order is designed to prevent immediate taker execution. Depending on venue rules, a submission that would cross the book may be rejected or cancelled rather than executed. Check the venue’s handling before relying on it. Post-only controls how the order enters the book; it does not guarantee a fill or completion before your deadline.

Calculating fees in money and basis points

One basis point, or bp, is 0.01%. For a percentage-based spot trading fee:

Fee = executed quantity × execution price × fee rate

When the rate is expressed in basis points, multiply the executed notional by the number of basis points and divide by 10,000. Calculate each fill using its applicable rate, then add the charges.

Consider a hypothetical sale of 10 units of a cryptoasset at $50,000 each: $500,000 of executed notional. Assume a maker fee of 0.04%—4 bps—and a taker fee of 0.10%—10 bps. All fees are charged in the dollar-denominated quote currency, with no discounts, minimums or other charges.

• All maker: $500,000 × 0.0004 = $200.
• All taker: $500,000 × 0.0010 = $500.
• Fee difference: $300, or 6 bps, holding the execution price constant.

Now suppose a single sell limit order at $50,000 fills four units immediately against resting bids. The remaining six units rest on the book and later fill at the same price:

• The $200,000 taker portion costs $200.
• The $300,000 maker portion costs $120.
• The combined fee is $320, equivalent to 6.4 bps of the $500,000 executed notional.

The effective rate is weighted by executed notional, not a simple average of the two quoted rates. If fills occur at different prices, use each fill’s actual value. An unfilled remainder incurs no percentage-based execution fee—but it also leaves the conversion unfinished.

Make sure the quoted rate applies to your trade

A headline rate is only a useful input if your account and transaction qualify for it. Before comparing crypto maker taker fees, check four details:

• Market and product. Use the schedule for the specific pair and product you will trade. A derivatives rate is not a substitute for a spot conversion rate, and special pair pricing may have limited scope.
• Account tier. Confirm the applicable maker and taker rates, how qualifying volume is measured, and whether account or subaccount aggregation matters. Do not assume an anticipated future tier already applies.
• Discount and rebate conditions. Where offered, check eligibility, activation requirements, eligible pairs and any required token balance or fee-payment method. A rebate is a negative trading fee, not proof that the overall execution is profitable.
• Fee currency and calculation rules. Check where the charge is debited, plus any minimums or rounding rules. Fees deducted from the acquired asset can leave the net amount below a payment obligation even when the gross order quantity looks sufficient.

If fees are paid in a separate token, translate their value into the same reporting currency as the trade. Include the cost and exposure of maintaining a required token balance when judging whether a discount is worthwhile.

When the lower fee produces the worse conversion

In the hypothetical example, maker pricing offers a $300 advantage at an unchanged execution price. That is the budget for any deterioration caused by pursuing the lower rate.

Suppose all 10 units could instead be sold immediately at $50,000 each. Waiting, then repricing and selling them as maker at $49,970, would reduce gross proceeds by $300. That $30-per-unit move—6 bps—would almost entirely erase the fee advantage, even though the delayed trade still earned maker pricing. This is a break-even illustration, not a forecast of market movement.

The outcome can be worse if the passive order does not fill and the deadline forces a taker sale at a lower price. You then lose both the original execution opportunity and the hoped-for maker discount on the remaining quantity. Conversely, a passive sale may achieve a better price as well as a lower fee if another participant trades against it. Neither outcome is guaranteed.

For a payment or settlement conversion, the cost of non-execution matters too. A missed obligation may require an alternative funding source or create an operational shortfall. Maker pricing is therefore most useful when you have genuine flexibility over timing or quantity—not merely when its advertised rate is lower.

Reduce avoidable costs without sacrificing completion

Start with the amount that must be delivered, the latest completion time and the execution price available for the full required size. The best displayed bid or offer may cover only a small quantity; taking the entire order can consume several price levels. Compare that realistic immediate outcome with the passive price and fee you hope to achieve.

If there is room to wait, consider working a portion passively while keeping a clear plan for the remainder. Set the point at which completion takes priority over fee savings. That point should leave time to cancel, replace and confirm execution—not coincide with the settlement cutoff itself. Confirm fills and cancellation status before submitting a replacement so that you do not duplicate the conversion.

When immediacy matters, a marketable limit order can take liquidity while bounding the worst acceptable price. That protection has a trade-off: if sufficient liquidity is unavailable within the limit, the order may remain partly unfilled. Paying taker fees does not by itself guarantee completion.

Use discounts and tiers that fit trading you already need to do. Generating extra turnover solely to obtain a lower rate introduces additional fees, spread costs and price risk; it can cost more than the future discount saves. Likewise, changing venues for a better fee only helps if executable prices, available size and the cost of moving funds preserve the advantage.

Check whether waiting paid off

Before seeking maker pricing, record the estimated net proceeds from selling the full required quantity immediately, using available book depth and the applicable taker fee. Keep the decision time and completion deadline with that estimate. After the trade, reconcile actual fill prices, quantities, maker/taker classifications and fee debits to establish what you received after fees.

In the hypothetical example, the immediate taker sale would net $499,500. A maker sale at the original price would net $499,800—a $300 improvement if completed in time. But the delayed maker sale at $49,970 per unit would net about $499,500. The fee was lower, yet waiting left almost no improvement over taking liquidity at the outset.

This comparison captures both execution-price differences and trading fees, so do not add spread or price impact again if already reflected. For a purchase, compare the actual cost including fees with the estimated immediate taker cost. Include any additional transfer, funding or currency-conversion charges if they differ between routes.

Report completion time and any remaining obligation alongside the monetary result. If only part of the order filled, do not present its lower fee as a saving on the whole conversion. A cheaper partial fill has not met the original payment need.

Conclusion

Maker pricing is worth pursuing when the expected fee and price benefits justify the risk of waiting. Calculate charges fill by fill, confirm the applicable account terms and judge the result by total execution cost and timely completion. The lowest fee is an input to that decision, not the decision itself.

For requesting more information about how we can help reach out to us. We're here to help and answer any questions you may have.

Contact us!