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.
