Symptom
Pushing an approved Bitget order can fail with exchange error 40774: the account position mode (one-way / unilateral) does not match the order shape Bitget expects for that mode (or the reverse).
Push correctly ends as rejected. The user only sees the raw Bitget message, with no product-level explanation of the position-mode requirement.
Observed on BitgetMain: BUY GOOGL 0.08 @ 3x → submitted 0 / rejected 1.
bitget {"code":"40774","msg":"The order type for unilateral position must also be the unilateral position type."}
Need
Decide the product stance and close the gap either way:
- If Bitget trading must stay hedge-mode-only — say so clearly, with an actionable hint (not only a post-approval raw
40774). Prefer surfacing this when the user adds Bitget credentials in UTA, and again before or at push if still mismatched.
- Otherwise — systematically support both one-way and hedge position modes so approved orders can submit under either account setting.
Acceptance
- Users know whether one-way, hedge, or both are supported for Bitget.
- If hedge-only: incompatible position mode is caught when adding Bitget credentials (and still blocked with a clear hint at push if it later changes).
- Supported modes can place orders without this class of mismatch rejection.
- Any unsupported mode fails with a clear product hint, not only the exchange error dump.
Symptom
Pushing an approved Bitget order can fail with exchange error
40774: the account position mode (one-way / unilateral) does not match the order shape Bitget expects for that mode (or the reverse).Push correctly ends as rejected. The user only sees the raw Bitget message, with no product-level explanation of the position-mode requirement.
Observed on BitgetMain: BUY GOOGL 0.08 @ 3x → submitted 0 / rejected 1.
Need
Decide the product stance and close the gap either way:
40774). Prefer surfacing this when the user adds Bitget credentials in UTA, and again before or at push if still mismatched.Acceptance