What Are Maker and Taker Fees in Crypto?

Maker and taker fees describe two distinct cost structures applied when traders interact with crypto exchanges, influencing how orders enter the market. Trading platforms apply these fee types in both spot markets and perpetuals, where execution mechanics differ but fee logic remains consistent.

Maker fees are charged when traders place orders that rest on the order book providing marketplace liquidity for extended periods. Taker fees apply when traders accept existing orders removing available liquidity through immediate execution at the best currently listed price, regardless of market type.

Here are the main differences when comparing maker vs taker fees in crypto:

Maker vs Taker Fees on Crypto Exchanges

Maker and taker fees vary widely between exchanges, trading products, and tier structures, meaning traders experience very different execution costs across platforms. Understanding these differences helps traders choose the most efficient venue for spot markets, perpetual futures, and DeFi trading.

Maker vs Taker Fees for Spot Trading

Spot trading refers to buying and selling assets for immediate delivery, where trades settle directly and fees depend heavily on liquidity added or removed.

Spot maker-taker structures differ across major exchanges:

• Binance: Offers 0.100% maker and taker for regular users, decreasing to 0.011% maker and 0.023% taker at VIP 9 levels to incentivize deeper liquidity participation.
• OKX: Charges 0.080% maker and 0.100% taker for basic tiers, offering 0.000% maker and 0.030% taker at VIP 5 to support high-volume market makers.
• Coinbase: Starts at 0.40% maker and 0.60% taker, decreasing to 0.00% maker and 0.05% taker above $400M volume for institutional-level participants.
• Crypto.com: Begins with 0.250% maker and 0.500% taker, reducing significantly when CRO lockups activate deeper volume-based discounts tailored for active retail traders.
• Nexo: Charges 0.20% maker and taker initially, falling to 0.04% maker and 0.07% taker for $500M+ traders who consistently contribute substantial liquidity.
• CoinSpot: Uses 1% for limit orders and 0.1% for market orders, avoiding traditional maker-taker structures entirely while offering straightforward consumer pricing.

Maker vs Taker Fees in Futures and Derivatives Trading

Futures trading involves leveraged perpetual contracts that do not settle like spot assets, making fee structures crucial because positions open and close frequently.

Futures CEXs apply maker-taker fees across their tier and discount systems:

• Bybit: Lists 0.020% maker and 0.055% taker, with VIP 5 reducing fees to 0.010% maker and 0.032% taker for heavy derivatives participants.
• Binance Futures: Charges 0.020% maker and 0.050% taker for beginners, dropping to 0.000% maker and 0.017% taker at VIP 9 to attract liquidity providers.
• Gate: Starts at 0.020% maker and 0.050% taker, decreasing toward 0.000% maker and 0.016% taker for top VIP levels on both BTC and USDT contracts.
• Kraken Pro: Lists 0.020% maker and 0.050% taker, offering -0.005% maker rebates and 0.010% taker fees for highest tiers targeting institutional hedging flows.
• Gemini: Begins at 0.02% maker and 0.07% taker, eventually offering -0.01% maker and 0.03% taker for advanced traders using high-volume futures strategies.
• MEXC: Frequently provides 0.000% maker and 0.000% taker on major perps, while certain pairs use 0.010% maker and 0.040% taker to manage liquidity depth.

Maker vs Taker Fees on Decentralized Exchanges

Decentralized exchanges execute trades onchain without centralized orderbooks, using smart contracts where perpetuals platforms simulate maker-taker mechanics through staking and volume incentives.

Onchain perpetual DEXs show wide differences in maker-taker costs:

• Hyperliquid: Charges 0.015% maker and 0.045% taker, lowering maker fees to 0.000% for traders exceeding $7B rolling volume looking for maximized efficiency.
• Aster: Applies 0.005% maker and 0.040% taker, offering an additional 5% discount for traders paying fees using $ASTER tokens within the ecosystem.
• Lighter: Provides 0.000% maker and 0.000% taker for standard accounts, while premium users face 0.002% maker and 0.020% taker with reduced execution latency.
• edgeX: Starts at 0.012% maker and 0.038% taker, reducing to 0.000% maker and 0.024% taker for VIP 6 users trading across substantial notional volumes.
• ApeX: Charges 0.020% maker and 0.050% taker for beginners, dropping to 0.005% maker and 0.035% taker through staking and sustained fourteen-day activity.
• Jupiter Perps: Uses a flat 0.06% fee without VIP tiers, applying identical rates for opening, closing, and liquidation across all supported assets.

Note: Traditional DEXs like Uniswap and Raydium use automated market makers instead of orderbooks, meaning traders pay swap fees rather than maker-taker charges. These AMMs distribute swap fees (commonly 0.25% to 0.30%) to liquidity providers proportionally based on each pool’s configuration.

Why Crypto Exchanges Charge Maker and Taker Fees

Crypto exchanges charge maker and taker fees because these fees form the largest revenue source across leading global platforms. For instance, in 2024, Coinbase earned 61% of its $6.6 billion revenue from trading fees, while Binance typically generates 90% of its revenue from trading transaction fees.

These fees also scale significantly when volumes increase, allowing exchanges to benefit directly from market volatility and trader participation. During Q3 2025, Kraken reported over $648 million quarterly trading revenue, reflecting higher user activity and deeper market liquidity.

Difference Between Maker and Taker Orders?

Maker orders occur when limit orders rest on the book, applying maker fees only when they are eventually executed later. These maker fees are typically around 0.00%-0.10% for spot markets and roughly 0.00%-0.02% for perpetual futures overall.

Taker orders execute immediately using market orders or aggressive limits, applying taker fees the moment existing liquidity is removed. These taker fees usually range from 0.05%-0.20% on spot markets and about 0.015%-0.06% on perpetual futures normally.

Let's look at two examples directly comparing maker vs taker type orders:

• Example A: A trader places a limit buy at $40,000 for 0.25 BTC, allowing it to sit until someone sells. Because it adds liquidity and waits for execution, it becomes a maker order with lower fees.
• Example B: A trader submits a market buy for 0.25 BTC, instantly filling at the best available ask of $40,015. This removes liquidity immediately, making it a taker order and triggering the higher taker fee.

How Maker Fees Affect Crypto Traders

Maker fees affect crypto traders by lowering costs when they place resting limit orders that add liquidity. These lower costs matter most in perpetual futures, where frequent entries, exits, and partial fills make fee efficiency directly shape long-term profitability.

For example, when a trader opens a $300,000 BTC-PERP position as a maker at 0.00%, the execution is free, but taking that same position at 0.05% instantly costs $150. If the trader rebalances this position 25 times per month, the taker-first approach burns $3,750 in avoidable fees.

A mid-volume trader running $1 million in weekly ETH-PERP rotations might face 0.01% maker and 0.04% taker fees at their tier level. Entering and closing positions as a maker costs $100 per round trip, while taker execution costs $400, creating a $300 gap every cycle.

For large positions, slippage and fee impact combine to make taker orders disproportionately expensive. A $2.5 million limit order filled as a maker at 0.005% costs $125, but hitting the book as a taker at 0.03% costs $750, plus an additional $200-$350 in slippage on most major perp pairs.

Mistakes Traders Make With Maker and Taker Fees

Crypto traders often overlook how maker and taker fee differences impact long-term profitability, leading to avoidable expenses across frequent trading cycles or when switching between exchanges.

‍Common mistakes include:

• Using market orders unnecessarily: Traders pay higher taker fees even when patient limit orders could easily achieve nearly identical execution outcomes.
• Ignoring fee tiers completely: Missing essential monthly volume thresholds prevents access to lower maker fees that significantly reduce overall trading expenses.
• Placing limit orders that auto-execute: Poorly priced limits fill instantly as taker orders, unexpectedly triggering higher fees instead of anticipated maker pricing.
• Chasing instant fills during volatility: Reactively removing liquidity increases taker fees and slippage, sharply reducing expected gains on perpetual futures trades.
• Not calculating round-trip costs: Traders analyze entry fees but forget exits, effectively doubling taker-fee impact on every completed trading position.
• Using large size at once: Executing oversized orders as takers magnifies fee percentages and slippage, severely hurting returns more than traders anticipate.
• Ignoring funding and hidden impacts: Focusing only on taker fees while overlooking funding rates produces distorted decisions that greatly reduce perp profitability.
• Missing fills by placing wide limits: Traders aim for lower maker fees but miss profitable entries when their limit orders sit too far from price.

Final Thoughts

Maker and taker fees each provide different advantages, but maker fees generally offer better long-term efficiency for traders seeking consistent cost savings.

Taker fees become worthwhile when instant execution is essential, such as scalping a violent market crash or aping immediately into a pumping meme token.

Overall, maker fees usually outperform for planned entries, yet the best choice ultimately depends on a trader’s urgency, position size, and strategic intent.