[DRC] Simplifying the fee tiers

About Nethermind Research

Nethermind DeFi Research provides technical research and advisory services to venture capital firms, hedge funds, and protocol teams. Our focus areas include protocol due diligence, quantitative modeling, tokenomics design, and risk analysis. All outputs are grounded in cryptoeconomic rigor, delivering actionable insights and technically sound recommendations.

Nethermind Research received a grant from dYdX Grants to review dYdX Chain incentives, dYdX fees, the distribution of net revenue and tokenomics, among other things.

Introduction/Abstract

On August 26, 2025, dYdX Labs published a public roadmap declaring that “dYdX is entering a new chapter of growth, innovation, and ruthless execution.” As competitive pressure intensifies, our research is directly aligned with pillars 2 and 3 of dYdX’s strategy: delivering a world-class consumer experience and maximizing token utility.

Before addressing tokenomics and incentives more broadly, our initial research phase is targeting the most immediate opportunities—on-chain parameters that are straightforward to adjust. As such, we are advancing a proposal to simplify the fee tiers. This proposal is an extension of the research on the trading rewards and simplification of incentives.

Simplifying the fee tiers

Summary

This proposal seeks to simplify the fee tiers by reducing them from 9 to 7 distinct tiers and removing the market and exchange share conditions. The goal is to lower entry barriers for market makers and encourage more liquidity on dYdX.

Abstract

The current fee tiers likely create entry barriers for new market makers, as the highest maker rebates require meeting specific exchange and maker share thresholds. This could prevent more liquidity from being deployed on dYdX, reducing its attractiveness for traders in general.

We are proposing to restructure the existing fee tiers by reducing the number of tiers (from 9 to 7) and removing the conditions linked to market share and exchange share on dYdX. This change aims to encourage new makers to onboard, and to incentivize both new and existing makers to provide additional liquidity on the platform, thereby increasing volumes and fees for the protocol.

Motivation/Rationale

The new simplified 7-tier fee structure eliminates the extra complexity of the exchange share and market share requirements while ensuring that dYdX remains competitive with leading exchanges like Binance, OKX, Bybit and Hyperliquid. Key changes include introducing new volume thresholds at $50M, $100M and $200M with more aggressive market rebates.

Below is a comparison between the current and proposed fees:

Key benefits of the new fee tiers:

1. Reduced complexity: No need to track market and exchange share metrics, reducing operational complexity while maintaining economic incentives.

2. Clearer Progression: Linear volume advancement gives predictable cost structure for traders and market makers.

3. Competitive Necessity: Combines market-leading rates with simplified access requirements.

4. Market Leadership: The new market fees at high volumes ($100M - $200M) positions dYdX as a market leader for institutional trading.

Competitors Analysis

Taker Fee Comparison

The taker fee structure has been carefully evaluated against competing exchanges and with the addition of a new $50M volume tier, remains highly competitive across all tiers.

  • Low to Mid Volume ($0-$25M): dYdX’s existing taker fees are already competitive, offering better or equal rates compared to most competitors.

  • Introduction of New Volume Tiers: The new tiers at $50M and above continue this competitiveness. The charge of 0.030% taker fees at the $50M tier provides an advantage over Binance’s 0.035% and favorable positioning against Bybit and Hyperliquid.

  • High Volume Tiers ($100M and $200M): The new $100M and $200M tiers, each with 0.025% taker fees, further strengthen dYdX’s competitive position by offering lower rates than Binance’s 0.032%, Hyperliquid’s 0.035%, and Bybit’s 0.032% at comparable volumes.

Note: For comparison purposes we have excluded any temporary promotional offers or staking requirements. Hyperliquid’s fee structure has also been normalized to a 30-day volume basis for consistency.

Maker Fee Comparison

The maker’s proposed new fee restructuring eliminates complex rebates and maintains existing competitive fees.

  • Simplified Early Tiers: Beginning at $25M volume, maker fees drop to 0% providing competitive advantage over competitors.

  • Enhanced Rebate Structure: The new $100M tier introduces -0.7% maker fees positioning dYdX ahead of other exchanges that require additional qualification, , such as market share and maker market share–based thresholds, to unlock equivalent rates.

  • Pure Volume-Based Approach: By removing exchange and maker market share requirements, it simplifies the fee structure while maintaining the same economic benefits.

Note: Given the varying liquidity requirements for rebates across exchanges, we have selected the highest rebate available at each volume tier for every exchange, excluding any temporary promotional offers or staking requirements. Hyperliquid’s fee structure has been normalized to reflect a 30-day volume. It should also noted that some exchanges requires significant more capital deployment to access the rebates,

Maker Rebates Comparison

It’s important to highlight that the proposed maker fees result in an easier path to access more advantageous fee tiers compared to competitors. A key differentiator of this proposal, and restated here, is that dYdX will potentially introduce maker rebates without volume thresholds, unlike most competitors that typically require significant volume benchmarks to qualify for rebates. This makes dYdX easier to get more advantageous fee tiers, lowering the entry barrier for accessing better fees.

When comparing dYdX’s proposed fee tiers with the aggregate of maker fees and rebates from other exchanges, dYdX consistently maintains competitive maker fees across all volume levels. The platform becomes especially compelling for higher volume participants by offering substantial rebates, which serve as a powerful incentive for liquidity providers. This tiered approach not only rewards active trading and volume growth but also contributes to deeper and healthier liquidity across the protocol.

Projected Impact on dYdX Fee Revenue

August volume data shows this fee tier adjustment will affect ~30 accounts, costing the dYdX exchange approximately $80k a month, assuming that volume remains constant. The enhanced tier benefits are expected to attract new participants and drive higher trading volumes from both existing and new traders and market makers, ultimately generating increased fee revenue for dYdX.

Future Considerations

The dYdX community is strongly encouraged to consider future opportunities for fee promotions, fee holidays, and discounted trading fees through DYDX staking. These strategies, which are planned for phase two of the roadmap, could further enhance dYdX’s competitiveness and incentivize deeper liquidity participation moving forward.

Project Milestone and Next Steps

This fee tier analysis and the ending protocol-level trading rewards proposal concludes Phase I of the grant-support research. In the coming weeks, we will work on Phase II, focused on enhancing the dYdX Chain’s performance, resilience, and the utility of the DYDX token.

Specification

To change the fee tiers, MsgUpdatePerpetualFeeParams is used to update the Fee Tiers 5-9 from:

 *{*

              *"name": "5",*

              *"absolute_volume_requirement": "125000000000000",*

              *"total_volume_share_requirement_ppm": 0,*

              *"maker_volume_share_requirement_ppm": 0,*

              *"maker_fee_ppm": 0,*

              *"taker_fee_ppm": 300*

            *},*

            *{*

              *"name": "6",*

              *"absolute_volume_requirement": "125000000000000",*

              *"total_volume_share_requirement_ppm": 5000,*

              *"maker_volume_share_requirement_ppm": 0,*

              *"maker_fee_ppm": -50,*

              *"taker_fee_ppm": 250*

            *},*

            *{*

              *"name": "7",*

              *"absolute_volume_requirement": "125000000000000",*

              *"total_volume_share_requirement_ppm": 5000,*

              *"maker_volume_share_requirement_ppm": 10000,*

              *"maker_fee_ppm": -70,*

              *"taker_fee_ppm": 250*

            *},*

            *{*

              *"name": "8",*

              *"absolute_volume_requirement": "125000000000000",*

              *"total_volume_share_requirement_ppm": 5000,*

              *"maker_volume_share_requirement_ppm": 20000,*

              *"maker_fee_ppm": -90,*

              *"taker_fee_ppm": 250*

            *},*

            *{*

              *"name": "9",*

              *"absolute_volume_requirement": "125000000000000",*

              *"total_volume_share_requirement_ppm": 5000,*

              *"maker_volume_share_requirement_ppm": 40000,*

              *"maker_fee_ppm": -110,*

              *"taker_fee_ppm": 250*

            *}*

To as follows:

          *{*

              *"name": "5",*

              *"absolute_volume_requirement": "50000000000000",*

              *"total_volume_share_requirement_ppm": 0,*

              *"maker_volume_share_requirement_ppm": 0,*

              *"maker_fee_ppm": 0,*

              *"taker_fee_ppm": 300*

            *},*

            *{*

              *"name": "6",*

              *"absolute_volume_requirement": "100000000000000",*

              *"total_volume_share_requirement_ppm": 0,*

              *"maker_volume_share_requirement_ppm": 0,*

              *"maker_fee_ppm": -70,*

              *"taker_fee_ppm": 250*

            *},*

            *{*

              *"name": "7",*

              *"absolute_volume_requirement": "200000000000000",*

              *"total_volume_share_requirement_ppm": 0,*

              *"maker_volume_share_requirement_ppm": 0,*

              *"maker_fee_ppm": -110,*

              *"taker_fee_ppm": 250*

            *}*

Next Steps

We invite the dYdX community to provide feedback on this proposal. If there is no significant objection, we plan to submit the on-chain proposal on September 18, 2025

Disclaimer

It is important to note that this report only contains research data points and theoretical proposals for their independent evaluation by readers. All of the proposals in this report would require an active governance decision by the dYdX community to be implemented(and, in certain cases, and in addition, the collaboration of certain ecosystem participants, such as the treasury subDAO, for example). Nethermind has no control over any decision to implement any of the proposals mentioned in this report or the way that they may be implemented.

Nothing in this report should be considered as financial, legal, tax or any other form of advice, nor as an instruction or invitation to act by anyone. This report has been prepared and is being published for informational and educational purposes only.

Kindly note that this proposal is not intended to create a contractual relationship between Nethermind and the receiving party. Any engagement of services shall be subject to a separate agreement that outlines the terms and conditions of the engagement. Please note that the contents of this proposal may be subject to intellectual property rights owned by Nethermind.

1 Like

1. General Position

We want to start by emphasizing our support for the overall direction of this proposal. dYdX maintaining the most competitive fee model among perpetual exchanges is an important strategic advantage, and the intent to strengthen this position is well aligned with community interests.

That said, we believe the proposed structure at the higher tiers (6 and 7) skews too aggressively to the downside, which risks creating imbalances without delivering additional competitive value.


2. Comparative Analysis

When benchmarking against major competitors (Binance, OKX, Bybit, Hyperliquid), the data shows that dYdX already offers the most favorable fees by a wide margin. The average maker fee curve across competitors looks as follows:

Exchange $0 Entry $1M $5M $25M $50M $100M $200M
dYdX 0.010% 0.010% 0.005% 0.000% 0.000% -0.007% -0.011%
Binance 0.020% 0.020% 0.020% 0.016% 0.014% 0.012% 0.012%
OKX 0.020% 0.010% 0.005% 0.005% 0.005% 0.002% 0.000%
Bybit 0.020% 0.020% 0.020% 0.016% 0.013% 0.012% 0.012%
Hyperliquid 0.015% 0.015% 0.015% 0.012% 0.012% 0.008% 0.005%
Average (Excl. dYdX) 0.0188% 0.0163% 0.015% 0.0123% 0.011% 0.0085% 0.0073%
dYdX vs. Avg. Diff. -0.0088% -0.0063% -0.010% -0.0123% -0.011% -0.0155% -0.0183%

This table makes it clear that the curve tilts sharply downward in the final tiers, extending rebates far beyond what is needed to remain best-in-class.

3. Suggested Adjustment

We believe a more moderate stance would achieve the same strategic objective while avoiding unnecessary downside skew:

  • Tier 6 → Adjust to -0.05% (a -0.0135% shift versus the competitor average).

  • Tier 7 → Adjust to -0.09% (a -0.0153% shift versus the competitor average).

This adjustment keeps dYdX firmly positioned as the cheapest venue by a comfortable margin, while smoothing the curve and avoiding rebates that may prove excessive relative to industry norms.


4. Conclusion

We strongly support the broader proposal and its intent, but recommend revising the higher tiers with the above adjustments. This approach strikes a balance between competitiveness, sustainability, and fairness across user segments.

We invite the proposer and the community to consider these refinements as part of the ongoing discussion.


Thank you for reading,
Govmos.
pro-delegators-sign

good point by Govmos.. what’s the reason why we are going so hard on the final tiers

1 Like

Our proposal does not suggest increasing market maker rebates. The current fee tiers already include -0.011% and -0.009% rebates for market makers. By simplifying these tiers, more market makers will gain access to these rates.

We also propose removing the maker share and exchange share., offset by raising the monthly volume threshold from $125M to $200M.

Regarding the competition bar chart for maker fees: comparing fee structures across exchanges is complex due to variations in VIP conditions, staking requirements, and market share. The chart does not reflect the lowest possible fees for market makers. For example, Hyperliquid offers up to -0.003% maker fees, while Bybit provides a -0.01% rebate for VIP users with over $2M monthly volume.

Hi Nethermind / dYdX community,

KingNodes here. First off: thanks for the thorough work in this proposal. Simplifying fee tiers is clearly important for both usability and liquidity growth. We support the general direction, but have a few concerns and suggestions to ensure the changes are sustainable and attract the right kind of participation.

What’s working well

  1. Lowering barriers to entry

    Removing the exchange share and maker share conditions will help smaller makers come in without jumping through many hoops. That should help grow maker participation.

  2. Clearer volume‐based progression

    Having discrete volume thresholds (e.g. $50M, $100M, $200M) gives transparent milestones. Users and market makers will better know what they need to grow into better tiers.

  3. Competitive rates

    The proposed maker/taker fees and rebates look strong vs peers, especially in the mid to high volume bands. dYdX can continue to edge ahead in terms of attractiveness for large/liquid traders and makers.

Concerns & Risks

  1. Aggressive rebates in top tiers

    As noted by Govmos, some of the final tiers seem very generous. Deep negative maker fee (i.e. rebates) levels could cut into protocol sustainability if volumes fluctuate downward, or if many participants hit those tiers simultaneously.

  2. Volume thresholds & concentration risk

    Raising the volume thresholds (e.g. to $100M / $200M) helps ensure only serious liquidity providers hit top tiers — but it also means the benefit is concentrated. If a small number of players dominate, there could be centralization risks (i.e. large makers having outsized influence). It’s important to ensure sufficient distribution of incentives.

  3. Incentive alignment across market cycles

    During bear markets or reduced trading activity, market makers may find the proposed thresholds hard to meet. If tiers are too aggressive, many may drop out or reduce activity, hurting liquidity exactly when it’s needed. A fallback or flexible mechanism (e.g. temporary tier relief, reduced volume requirement under certain conditions) might help keep continuity.

  4. Operational / measurement clarity

    With simpler rules it’s better, but still important to ensure everyone has clarity on how volume is counted, over what period, how maker vs taker is measured, etc. Any ambiguity can lead to disputes or unexpected outcomes.

Kingnodes

This is a strong step forward for dYdX. Moving from 9 to 7 tiers and removing the exchange/maker share requirements meaningfully lowers entry barriers for new market makers, while also creating a clear and linear progression of costs. This added simplicity should encourage broader participation, deepen liquidity, and strengthen dYdX’s positioning in an increasingly competitive environment.

Importantly, at higher volumes ($100M–$200M), the proposed taker fees and maker rebates would make dYdX the most attractive venue versus Binance, Bybit, OKX, and Hyperliquid. This should help attract larger institutional players—well aligned with the recent ETP launch—while still making it easier for smaller makers to onboard.

That said, a few considerations to keep in mind:

  • The protocol will see a short-term revenue reduction of roughly ~$80k per month, though this should be offset as trading volumes scale.

  • Larger rebates could result in liquidity concentrating among a handful of big players, so it will be important to monitor distribution closely.

  • Competitors may adjust their own fee schedules in response, making it essential for dYdX to stay flexible and adaptive.

Overall, this proposal strikes a valuable balance between accessibility and competitiveness, and positions dYdX for stronger long-term growth.

1 Like

We are supportive of this proposal and believe it is an important step for strengthening dYdX’s competitiveness and liquidity profile.

Key reasons for support:

  • Lower Barriers for Market Makers: By removing exchange- and market-share requirements, new participants can more easily access maker rebates. This encourages onboarding of additional market makers and helps broaden liquidity provision.

  • Simplification & Predictability: A linear, volume-only progression makes the fee structure easier to understand and plan for. Traders and market makers alike benefit from clearer, more transparent cost structures.

  • Improved Competitiveness: The revised tiers (especially at $50M, $100M, and $200M) position dYdX more favorably against top competitors like Binance, Bybit, and Hyperliquid (both on taker fees and maker rebates).

  • Alignment with Roadmap: This proposal reflects the Labs’ stated priorities around enhancing user experience and token utility while maintaining an aggressive push for growth.

  • Positive Long-Term Impact: While near-term revenue adjustments are expected, the increased attractiveness for high-volume trading and deeper liquidity should strengthen protocol fee revenue over time.

On the higher tiers (6 & 7):
We recognize the concern raised by other community members (e.g. Govmos) that the rebates at the very top end may be too aggressive relative to competitors, potentially skewing the curve more than is necessary to remain best-in-class. From our perspective:

  • dYdX should indeed remain the most competitive venue, but smoothing the rebate curve at the very top could strike a better balance between sustainability and competitiveness.

  • We encourage the proposer and community to further explore whether slightly more moderate rebates in the final tiers (while still leading the market) could reduce unnecessary downside skew without changing the spirit of the proposal.

To conclude, we support the simplification of fee tiers as a positive step for dYdX. The proposal lowers barriers, improves transparency, and enhances competitiveness. We also appreciate the constructive discussion on fine-tuning the highest tiers and would welcome more analysis on this.