Skip to content

feat(models): add fee tiers to perps fee schedule#185

Merged
kartojal merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
feature/dev-432-add-fee-tiers-to-perps-fee-schedule-in-sdks-and-docs
Jul 24, 2026
Merged

feat(models): add fee tiers to perps fee schedule#185
kartojal merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
feature/dev-432-add-fee-tiers-to-perps-fee-schedule-in-sdks-and-docs

Conversation

@kartojal

@kartojal kartojal commented Jul 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Adds a PerpsFeeTier model (min_volume_30d, taker_fee_rate, maker_fee_rate) and a tiers tuple on PerpsFeeScheduleEntry, matching the updated GET /v1/info/fees contract. Exported from polymarket.models (root export omitted, following the PerpsRiskTier precedent for nested tier models).

The public-reads integration test now also asserts the fee schedule returns tiers.

Part of DEV-432.


Note

Low Risk
Additive Pydantic schema and export changes for fee parsing; no auth, trading, or withdrawal logic touched.

Overview
Aligns perps fee schedule models with the updated GET /v1/info/fees response by modeling volume-based tiers alongside the existing category-level maker/taker rates.

Introduces PerpsFeeTier (min_volume_30d, taker_fee_rate, maker_fee_rate) and adds a required tiers tuple on PerpsFeeScheduleEntry. PerpsFeeTier is exported from the perps and top-level model packages (same pattern as nested tier types like PerpsRiskTier).

The public perps integration test now asserts the live fee schedule includes at least one tier.

Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 0083c9e. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.

@kartojal
kartojal requested a review from cesarenaldi July 20, 2026 16:21
@kartojal
kartojal merged commit 02d7bcc into main Jul 24, 2026
7 checks passed
@kartojal
kartojal deleted the feature/dev-432-add-fee-tiers-to-perps-fee-schedule-in-sdks-and-docs branch July 24, 2026 09:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants