BitMart posts deepest BTC and ETH perpetual liquidity among major CEXs
BitMart recorded consistently deeper top-seven order-book liquidity for Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) perpetual futures than competing centralized exchanges during the observed window. Comparative measurements (USD value across seven price levels) show BitMart maintained larger top-of-book depth, steadier recoveries during volatility and a late-window build in ETH liquidity while peers showed flatter or uneven profiles. Deeper top-of-book liquidity typically produces tighter bid-ask spreads, lower slippage and more predictable execution for large orders — benefits that matter most during volatile market conditions. The analysis indicates BitMart’s market-making and liquidity infrastructure outperformed peers over the measured period, though the report did not disclose exact sample duration. Traders should note that deeper perp liquidity on BitMart can reduce execution risk for sizable BTC and ETH positions, improve fill quality and potentially lower short-term transaction costs compared with other CEX venues.
Bullish
Deeper top-of-book liquidity on BitMart reduces execution risk, slippage and effective trading costs for large BTC and ETH perpetual orders. In the short term, this can attract larger taker flows and institutional flow to BitMart for execution, supporting demand and potentially tightening perp basis and spreads on that venue — a modest positive for BTC and ETH price action. Over the medium to long term, sustained superior liquidity can increase market confidence in execution quality, encourage larger order placement on BitMart and slowly shift some volume away from venues with shallower books. However, the effect on spot prices is indirect: improved perp execution mainly affects funding rates, spreads and trading efficiency rather than creating direct buy pressure. The overall expected price impact is mildly bullish for BTC and ETH because reduced execution costs and better fill quality make large directional trades easier to place, but the report’s lack of sample-duration and broader market context limits the strength of the conclusion.