Foreign media commentators argue that many cryptocurrency exchanges overestimated the importance of interface, fees, and listing selection in their early stages, while underestimating the decisive impact of liquidity on platform competitiveness. The article states that centralized exchanges that truly establish regional advantages often treat order book depth and market-making arrangements as core operational decisions.
The order book decides which to retain first.
The article points out that when users first enter an exchange, their first impression is not of the brand or interface, but of the trading costs. Spreads, order book depth, and slippage directly influence whether traders continue to use the platform.
Taking BTC/USDT as an example, if a platform's spreads are significantly higher than those of similar exchanges, experienced traders will usually quickly switch to another platform. Based on this, the article argues that while interface, fees, and asset availability can help a platform attract customers, its ability to retain active traders depends primarily on execution quality.
Market making cooperation is not just about quoting prices
The article cites research from the Bank for International Settlements on the microstructure of the crypto market, stating that the bid-ask spreads and market depth of centralized exchanges directly impact price efficiency and user retention. Platforms with tighter spreads and deeper order books typically attract more trading volume, and this advantage continues to accumulate over time.
According to the article, providing professional liquidity is not simply about continuously placing orders for a few trading pairs. Mature market makers typically need algorithmic trading systems, their own capital, multi-platform inventory management capabilities, and the ability to maintain spreads and manage risk in a highly volatile environment. If exchanges clearly define the trading pairs, target depth, spread range, and performance evaluation methods from the outset of a partnership, the results are usually more stable.
The window of opportunity for emerging markets is narrowing.
The article specifically mentions Southeast Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East, arguing that these markets are experiencing rapid growth in crypto users, and local exchanges still have an opportunity to establish an advantage before global platforms fully localize. However, as large international platforms strengthen their fiat currency channels, settlement capabilities, and regional services, this first-mover advantage will gradually shrink.
The article also mentions that the funding structure in liquidity arrangements alters the incentives for cooperation. Common models include exchanges providing token inventory, or market makers participating in market making with their own funds. The former relies more on governance and risk constraints, while the latter more tightly links market maker revenue to inventory management and spread performance. The article's core argument is that liquidity building creates a self-reinforcing effect; the earlier it is completed, the harder it is for latecomers to catch up in terms of competitive barriers.
