Explore Hub: Risk Management And Execution

Post-only order rejection checklist answers one narrow evergreen question: verify whether maker-only orders are resting, rejected, or converted before using them in a scalping system. The goal is a repeatable decision rule, not a prediction, promotion, or broad market recap.

Owner fit: CryptoSigy treats order flags as exchange execution risk.

Define the decision first

Write the action that post-only order rejection checklist is allowed to change. Name the market, account, contract, dapp, route, or lineup state; set the maximum exposure; and define the condition that forces a pass.

Post-only behavior protects maker fees only if the venue rejects crossing orders exactly as expected. Tick-size rounding, price protection, order amendments, and latency can turn a planned maker entry into no fill or repeated rejects.

Verify the governing mechanism

Use the first-party or authoritative references below as the documentation layer, then verify the live product, contract, interface, lineup, account, or chain state. Documentation explains the rule; current state proves whether the rule is active for this decision.

The mechanism matters because Counting rejected post-only orders as missed alpha rather than execution evidence can create overtrading. A bot that retries aggressively may chase the book and lose queue priority. Keep rule, timestamp, identifier, executable size, and settlement path together so the comparison can be audited later.

Build the verification sheet

Complete every field before post-only order rejection checklist changes an entry, transfer, bet, vote, claim, or order. A blank field is uncertainty; it is not permission to assume the favorable version.

  • Record tick and lot size.
  • Log reject reason.
  • Separate maker and taker routes.
  • Measure queue position after amend.
  • Cap retry frequency.

Record source URL, retrieval time in UTC, account or contract identifier, and the final state that was actually accepted. If two sources disagree, prefer the live first-party state and stop until the discrepancy is explained.

Compare equivalent routes

Create separate rows for routes with different settlement windows, limits, chain IDs, margin rules, order flags, lineup exposure, or admin assumptions. Normalize those fields before comparing odds, fees, speed, yield, or convenience.

Test the smallest practical size first when the action is reversible. Measure accepted price, credited balance, order state, transaction receipt, lineup confirmation, or settlement result before scaling.

Keep raw observations separate from interpretation. A screenshot, transaction hash, lineup card, contract address, accepted ticket, or API response is evidence; the conclusion is the decision built from that evidence. Separating the two makes later correction possible without rewriting the whole review.

Use a simple version log when the same checklist is reused. Mark what changed since the previous pass: a new rule, different market depth, another client release, a lineup change, revised contract role, or a changed account setting. Reusing the same conclusion without this comparison is how stale operational risk enters otherwise careful workflows.

Worked decision example

A post-only buy is rejected because a fast quote update made it marketable. The bot should recalculate price and queue state instead of immediately sending a taker order.

The example is procedural. It does not promise profit or safety; it shows how a fuzzy headline becomes a reproducible decision with a pass condition.

Failure modes and invalidation

Counting rejected post-only orders as missed alpha rather than execution evidence can create overtrading. A bot that retries aggressively may chase the book and lose queue priority.

A second common failure is editing the thesis after the original trigger disappears. Keep invalidation beside the plan. If the state changes, close the old decision and create a new one from fresh evidence.

When waiting is correct

The default pass rule is to disable the strategy when rejection cause, tick rounding, or retry rules are not logged. Waiting preserves optionality and protects the integrity of the comparison.

A pass is still a completed outcome. Log why no action was taken, which source blocked the decision, and what evidence would reopen the review. This keeps the checklist useful without pressuring the user toward action just because research time has already been spent.

Post-only order rejection checklist is complete only when the action, no-action result, and supporting evidence are logged. Recheck first-party rules before future use because product, protocol, lineup, and account controls can change.

Primary references

These sources frame the checklist. Recheck live versions before acting.

Continue this cluster

Continue with closely related checks in the crypto order entry integrity cluster.