Maker vs. Taker Fees in Crypto Perpetuals: How Orders Are Charged

A maker leaves an order available for another participant to trade against. A taker accepts one or more resting orders and removes some of the displayed liquidity. The same account can be a maker on one fill and a taker on another; it is not a permanent label attached to a person, strategy, or account.

The distinction is about the moment of matching. A buy limit order posted below the available ask can rest in the book and later execute as maker liquidity. A buy limit order priced at or above the ask can match immediately and take liquidity. A market order normally takes available liquidity, but it can fill at several prices as it consumes the book. The exchange's execution record determines the fee role for each fill.

“Limit” describes the price boundary of an order. It does not by itself say whether the order rests or executes immediately. If a limit order crosses the book, it can be charged at the taker rate. A post-only instruction can reduce this ambiguity by canceling an order that would execute immediately, but cancellation means there is no fill and no position from that order.

Post-only also cannot promise that the order will fill later. Another participant may trade ahead of it, the market can move away, or the order can expire or be canceled. Waiting for a lower quoted fee has an execution tradeoff: a price improvement that never fills cannot open or close the intended position. A fill that occurs after the market moves may also be worse than an immediate execution would have been.

An order may fill in pieces. Some quantity can execute immediately while a remainder rests, or a resting order can later be crossed by incoming orders. Preserve the execution report's maker/taker classification and fee for each fill rather than applying one rate to the total order by assumption. Venue rules may also treat special order types differently.

A common linear-contract calculation is:

trading fee = executed order value × fee rate

For a linear contract quoted in a stablecoin, order value is commonly based on filled quantity times the execution price. The exact multiplier, rounding, fee currency, and account-specific rate come from the product specification. A fee is charged on both an opening execution and a later closing execution; the close uses its own quantity and price.

Inverse contracts can use a different value formula and settle fees in the underlying coin. Bybit's published examples, for instance, calculate an inverse contract's order value using quantity divided by execution price, while its linear USDT example uses quantity multiplied by execution price. These examples show why copying one formula across contract types can produce a fee in the wrong amount or currency.

Assume a hypothetical linear long represents 0.5 BTC. It opens at $64,000 and closes at $65,000. For illustration only, suppose the maker rate is 0.02% and the taker rate is 0.05%; these are sample inputs, not a quote for a current account or venue.

The opening notional is 0.5 × $64,000, or $32,000. A maker opening fee at the assumed rate is $6.40; a taker fee is $16. The closing notional is 0.5 × $65,000, or $32,500, so the corresponding fees are $6.50 and $16.25. If both fills are maker executions, the two trading fees total $12.90. If both are taker executions, they total $32.25. The difference is $19.35 before spread, slippage, funding, or any other charge.

The position's price P&L before fees is $500. Subtracting only the example trading fees leaves $487.10 in the all-maker case and $467.75 in the all-taker case. This does not prove that the first execution path produces the better realized result: the fills may occur at different prices or times, and an unfilled order can leave the position open. Use actual fills for the realized calculation.

The maker rate is only one component of cost. A patient order can miss a fill, execute only part of the intended quantity, or remain exposed while the market moves. A marketable order may pay a higher taker rate but provide faster execution. Neither choice guarantees a better total outcome, and a fee comparison alone cannot determine which execution is suitable for a particular order.

Compare the total result using the actual execution prices, fees, funding entries, and remaining position. The crypto perpetual trading cost guide combines these components in one example. The broader futures bid-ask spread and slippage guide explains why the quoted spread and the price impact of a fill are separate from a commission.

Before comparing rates, identify the exact venue, product, contract type, account region, VIP or volume tier, and effective date. Public fee tables may be examples or base rates. Bybit notes that actual rates can vary by region and directs users to their account's fee page; other venues can use their own eligibility rules and calculation windows.

After an order, reconcile each fill's quantity, price, maker/taker flag, rate, fee currency, and timestamp. Keep the opening and closing executions separate. If the statement differs from a pre-trade estimate, check whether the estimate used a taker rate, a default fee tier, an assumed closing price, or a different contract multiplier. This guide explains fee mechanics and does not recommend a venue or order type.