پن کیا گیا ٹویٹ
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
English
