Skip to content

The maker_fee and taker_fee attributes of FuturesContract #2663

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
q351941406 opened this issue May 23, 2025 · 5 comments
Open

The maker_fee and taker_fee attributes of FuturesContract #2663

q351941406 opened this issue May 23, 2025 · 5 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@q351941406
Copy link

The maker_fee and taker_fee attributes of FuturesContract are fee rates, but if it's a fixed fee (e.g., 10 yuan per contract), the fixed fee needs to be converted into a proportional rate. However, this conversion depends on the price, which cannot be obtained before backtesting. Are there any solutions to this problem?

@q351941406 q351941406 added the enhancement New feature or request label May 23, 2025
@faysou
Copy link
Collaborator

faysou commented May 23, 2025

Yes, you can search the code base for something called FeeModel.

@q351941406
Copy link
Author

Yes, you can search the code base for something called FeeModel.

But it can only be used in the lower-level API. The one I used is the higher-level API.

@faysou
Copy link
Collaborator

faysou commented May 23, 2025

It will be possible in the next release, or if you use the develop branch

@q351941406
Copy link
Author

It will be possible in the next release, or if you use the develop branch

That's great! I can wait and hope that the fill_model of BacktestVenueConfig will also be usable in the new version.

@faysou
Copy link
Collaborator

faysou commented May 23, 2025

Yes I've made all remaining models work with the backtestnode

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants