Don | @doncrypto_ - Twitter Profile

Pinned Tweet

6 days ago

i came across a very interesting rwa perps liquidity comparison, sourced from exchange order books/api’s, and some things stood out immediately… you’d want to read this! 👇 first, the gap between the top three and everyone else is larger than i expected bitget, binance, and hyperliquid seem to be operating in a different tier when it comes to depth, while okx and bybit are noticeably behind based on the data observed second, bitget consistently comes out on top across most of the pairs measured at both 5bps and 10bps depth on the ai and semiconductor side, bitget ranked #1 in depth across nvda, tsm, and mu, arguably three of the most important names in the entire ai supply chain [nvda dominates ai chips, tsm manufactures a huge portion of the world’s advanced semiconductors, and mu sits at the center of the hbm memory story, powering modern ai infrastructure] on the mega-cap side, the gap was also interesting msft’s depth was roughly 4x higher than the next closest venue, while tsla was around 2x higher this is pretty important because liquidity is the part of rwa that almost nobody talks about why? everyone loves discussing listings, partnerships, and tokenized stocks but none of that matters if traders can’t execute size without getting hit by excessive slippage also, the gap isn’t small either at 10bps depth, bitget’s aggregate liquidity was over 5.8m usdt, ahead of binance, hyperliquid, okx, and bybit this i found really interesting lol the industry keeps focusing on who launches the next rwa product any exchange can launch an rwa product but not many can create an environment where traders can actually move size efficiently that’s what ultimately determines adoption if rwa is going to attract larger traders, funds, and eventually more traditional market participants, depth matters just as much as the asset itself in this market, liquidity isn’t a marketing metric it’s the product

DonCrypto_'s tweet photo. i came across a very interesting rwa perps liquidity comparison, sourced from exchange order books/api’s, and some things stood out immediately…

you’d want to read this! 👇

first, the gap between the top three and everyone else is larger than i expected

bitget, binance, and hyperliquid seem to be operating in a different tier when it comes to depth, while okx and bybit are noticeably behind based on the data observed

second, bitget consistently comes out on top across most of the pairs measured at both 5bps and 10bps depth

on the ai and semiconductor side, bitget ranked #1 in depth across nvda, tsm, and mu, arguably three of the most important names in the entire ai supply chain

[nvda dominates ai chips, tsm manufactures a huge portion of the world’s advanced semiconductors, and mu sits at the center of the hbm memory story, powering modern ai infrastructure]

on the mega-cap side, the gap was also interesting

msft’s depth was roughly 4x higher than the next closest venue, while tsla was around 2x higher

this is pretty important because liquidity is the part of rwa that almost nobody talks about

why?

everyone loves discussing listings, partnerships, and tokenized stocks

but none of that matters if traders can’t execute size without getting hit by excessive slippage

also, the gap isn’t small either

at 10bps depth, bitget’s aggregate liquidity was over 5.8m usdt, ahead of binance, hyperliquid, okx, and bybit

this i found really interesting lol

the industry keeps focusing on who launches the next rwa product

any exchange can launch an rwa product

but not many can create an environment where traders can actually move size efficiently

that’s what ultimately determines adoption

if rwa is going to attract larger traders, funds, and eventually more traditional market participants, depth matters just as much as the asset itself

in this market, liquidity isn’t a marketing metric

it’s the product

66

1K

39

75

4M

Don |

@DonCrypto_

Who to follow

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users