2026-01-13 13:29:58

A certain leading exchange's fee adjustment for RWA spot trading indeed has its deeper considerations. Switching from bilateral fees to unilateral charges may seem like a way for traders to save costs, but in reality, it reshapes the entire transaction chain's cost logic.

This adjustment will directly alter the decision-making trade-offs for trading participants. When fees are bilateral, both market makers and traders share the cost burden; changing to unilateral fees concentrates the cost on one side, which can affect market liquidity depth, trading activity, and even matching efficiency. From another perspective, this is also a strategic adjustment by the platform to optimize trading experience and market competitiveness—by changing the fee structure to attract more trading volume.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

16 Likes

Reward
16
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

CryptoNomics

· 9h ago

ngl if you actually ran a correlation matrix on maker-taker fee structures vs liquidity depth, you'd realize this isn't some revolutionary insight lol. the endogenous variables here are way messier than the article suggests.

Reply0

GateUser-0717ab66

· 01-13 13:59

The move of charging unilateral fees is indeed ruthless. On the surface, it reduces costs, but who is actually being squeezed?

View OriginalReply0

DefiVeteran

· 01-13 13:59

This trick of unilateral charging, on the surface, loosens restrictions for traders, but in reality, market makers are the ones who should be crying.

View OriginalReply0

WhaleMistaker

· 01-13 13:48

Once the unilateral fee rate was announced, market makers were directly overwhelmed. Who exactly is this wave really hurting?

View OriginalReply0

SatoshiHeir

· 01-13 13:42

It should be pointed out that this guy only sees the surface. Based on market data I have verified, the impact of the unilateral fee structure on liquidity depth is much more complex than what the article suggests—it's basically a marketing hype that is drinking poison to quench thirst.

View OriginalReply0

OnlyUpOnly

· 01-13 13:35

The trick of unilateral charging is clever; on the surface, it saves on fees, but in reality, it's shifting the blame onto market makers.

View OriginalReply0