bella964hadid
28 Jan 2025, 06:28
( Updated at: 14 Feb 2025, 18:20 )
The MinCommissionAsset field in the exchange info response seems redundant given the presence of Symbol.MinCommissionAsset.
Here's a breakdown of your points and a possible explanation:
Your Arguments:
Redundancy: Symbol.MinCommissionAsset already provides the asset for minimum commission calculation. Limited Use Case: The only potential use case seems to be checking if the commission is in the quote asset currency, but this can be achieved with Symbol.MinCommissionAsset and a simple comparison. Possible Explanation:
Historical Reasons: The MinCommissionAsset field might be a remnant from an earlier version of the API or a design decision made during initial development. Potential Future Use Cases: While currently limited, the field might be used for future enhancements or integrations that are not yet apparent. Clarity/Readability: It might have been included for improved clarity or to explicitly indicate the asset type associated with the minimum commission value. Recommendation:
Since the field appears redundant and its current use case is limited, it might be beneficial to:
Provide Feedback: You could provide feedback to the API developers about the potential redundancy of this field. Monitor for Changes: Keep an eye on future API updates to see if any changes are made to this field or its usage. In Summary:
While the current use case for MinCommissionAsset seems limited, it's possible that it serves a purpose that's not immediately obvious.
bella964hadid
28 Jan 2025, 06:28 ( Updated at: 14 Feb 2025, 18:20 )
The MinCommissionAsset field in the exchange info response seems redundant given the presence of Symbol.MinCommissionAsset.
Here's a breakdown of your points and a possible explanation:
Your Arguments:
Redundancy: Symbol.MinCommissionAsset already provides the asset for minimum commission calculation.
Limited Use Case: The only potential use case seems to be checking if the commission is in the quote asset currency, but this can be achieved with Symbol.MinCommissionAsset and a simple comparison.
Possible Explanation:
Historical Reasons: The MinCommissionAsset field might be a remnant from an earlier version of the API or a design decision made during initial development.
Potential Future Use Cases: While currently limited, the field might be used for future enhancements or integrations that are not yet apparent.
Clarity/Readability: It might have been included for improved clarity or to explicitly indicate the asset type associated with the minimum commission value.
Recommendation:
Since the field appears redundant and its current use case is limited, it might be beneficial to:
Provide Feedback: You could provide feedback to the API developers about the potential redundancy of this field.
Monitor for Changes: Keep an eye on future API updates to see if any changes are made to this field or its usage.
In Summary:
While the current use case for MinCommissionAsset seems limited, it's possible that it serves a purpose that's not immediately obvious.
@bella964hadid