Categories
Liquidity is one of the core competitive advantages of cryptocurrency exchanges. High liquidity not only provides investors with lower trading costs but also ensures efficient execution of large orders and market price stability. This article analyzes the liquidity performance of three mainstream trading platforms—B*T , B*X, and Tapbit in BTCUSDT and ETHUSDT perpetual trading pair, exploring the differences in trading experiences across three dimensions: order book depth, bid-ask spread, and slippage, to help investors make more scientific choices.
II. Research Methodology
– Comparison Objects : B*T, B*X, and Tapbit
– Comparison Targets : BTCUSDT and ETHUSDT
– Main Liquidity Indicators :
– Order Book Depth
– Bid-Ask Spread
– Slippage
III. BTCUSDT Perpetual Contract Liquidity Analysis
BTCUSDT contract trading depth, bid-ask spread, and slippage across major platforms are as follows:
Trading Depth Analysis :
In the BTCUSDT perpetual contract, B*X stands out in order book depth, especially in higher depth ranges, with a significantly superior ability to absorb large orders compared to other platforms. Tapbit demonstrated strong market-carrying capacity within the 0.10% depth range, suitable for medium-scale trading. B*T’s depth level is relatively low, more appropriate for small-amount traders.
2. BTCUSDT Contract Slippage:
Slippage Analysis:
Tapbit performs best in bid-ask spread, providing investors with lower trading costs. B*X comes second, while B*T’s spread is relatively large, potentially increasing costs for frequent or large-scale trading.
In slippage control, Tapbit excels, especially maintaining low slippage levels in medium-scale trading. B*T’s slippage is slightly higher but still within a reasonable range, particularly suitable for small orders. Although B*X has higher depth, its slippage fluctuates significantly, making it less attractive for high-frequency or large-volume trades.
Summary:
Comprehensively, Tapbit, with its low spread and low slippage, is suitable for users focused on trading costs; B*X holds an advantage in depth, ideal for large orders; while B*T is more appropriate for small-scale and simple trading needs.
IV. ETHUSDT Perpetual Contract Liquidity Analysis
For the ETHUSDT contract, the platforms show the following highlights:
Trading Depth Analysis:
In the ETHUSDT perpetual contract, B*X performs exceptionally well in the 0.50% depth range, effectively supporting large trades. Tapbit’s depth is next, suitable for small to medium-scale traders, while B*T’s depth is relatively low but stable, appropriate for small-amount trading needs.
2. ETH Contract Slippage :
Slippage Analysis:
Tapbit continues its advantage in spread control, offering more competitive trading costs. B*X, while having a slightly wider spread, still maintains some competitiveness, whereas B*T’s spread is larger, potentially less friendly to cost-sensitive users.
Tapbit maintains its lead in slippage control, providing low price deviations even for large orders. B*T performs similarly in small orders but shows more significant slippage fluctuations in large orders. B*X’s slippage levels are higher, posing challenges for investors requiring precise execution.
Summary:
In ETHUSDT perpetual contracts, Tapbit, with its low-cost and stability advantages, is suitable for small to medium-scale investors; B*X, with outstanding depth performance, is more appropriate for large trades with high liquidity requirements; B*T is suitable for simple, low-frequency trading.
VI. Comprehensive Assessment
By comparing the liquidity of BTCUSDT and ETHUSDT contracts, we can observe that each platform has its unique strengths: B*X : Best performance in order book depth, effectively supporting large orders, but with higher slippage. Tapbit : Excellent comprehensive performance, with the smallest bid-ask spread and low slippage, suitable for cost-conscious investors.B*T : Although liquidity is relatively limited, performance remains stable, appropriate for novices or small-scale traders.
