Nearly every crypto exchange charges two different rates depending on how an order interacts with the book. The split is not arbitrary; it prices two genuinely different services.
Two orders, two opposite effects
An order that rests unfilled adds a price at which others can trade. An order that executes immediately against an existing quote removes one.
The first supplies the raw material a market is made of. The second consumes it, which is why the terminology of makers and takers stuck.
A venue with no resting orders has nothing to offer. Its entire product is the collection of prices sitting on the book at any moment.
Resting orders carry a real risk
Leaving a bid on the book is an open offer that anyone may accept. It will most reliably be accepted by someone who knows something you do not.
This is adverse selection, and it is the central cost of quoting. The trader who fills your bid is disproportionately likely to be selling because the price is about to fall.
A rebate or reduced fee partially compensates for that exposure. Without it, professional firms would quote wider and less often, and the book would thin out.
The fee gap sets the effective spread
A market maker prices its quotes to cover expected losses to informed traders plus a margin. Lower maker fees reduce the required margin, allowing tighter quotes.
The taker pays for immediacy through both the spread and the higher fee rate. That combination is the true cost of demanding an instant fill.
Traders who compare venues on the taker rate alone often misjudge them. A venue with a slightly higher taker fee but far tighter spreads can be cheaper overall.
Volume tiers reward the largest participants
Both rates typically decline as a trader's monthly volume rises, and the highest tiers can reduce the maker fee to zero or turn it into a payment. Access to those tiers requires size.
The structure is deliberate, since a small number of firms provide most of the resting liquidity. Retaining them is more valuable to an exchange than the fees they would otherwise pay.
The consequence is that identical trades cost different amounts for different accounts. Published schedules describe the top of a ladder most participants never climb.
The design shapes trader behavior
Because limit orders cost less, traders with any flexibility on timing are pushed toward posting rather than crossing. That is precisely the behavior the venue wants to encourage.
The tradeoff is execution uncertainty. A resting order might not fill at all, and waiting for a better price can mean missing the trade entirely.
Every fee schedule therefore encodes a judgment about which participants a venue most wants to attract. Reading it carefully reveals more about an exchange than its marketing does.