Ethup70%
😂 ETH gained 70%. So why does its liquidity look weaker?
That sounds bearish.
But the data tells a more interesting story. 👀
ETH jumped roughly 70% in Q3, crushing BTC’s 42% gain.
Yet ETH’s median daily order-book depth was only around 35–45% of BTC’s, versus at least 60% a year earlier.
Here’s the number most people miss:
ETH still had roughly $13–14M of depth within ±0.15% of price.
So ETH didn’t necessarily become “illiquid.”
BTC simply got much deeper.
BTC’s comparable depth reached roughly $29M on bids and $37M on asks, after gaining about 50%.
And here comes the plot twist:
ETH attracted around $3.1B in spot ETF inflows during Q3, yet much of that capital never sits inside the CEX limit-order books being measured.
So ETH can rally hard while exchange liquidity remains relatively thin.
That matters because large orders can move ETH more aggressively in either direction.
🧠 Square Insight:
A thinner order book doesn’t predict direction — it amplifies the move.
So what matters more for ETH next: fresh capital or deeper liquidity? 👀
#Ethereum #Crypto #Liquidity #DEFİ $ETH
ETHUSDT Perp 2,700.69 -0.16%" means that ETH’s price rose strongly, but the amount of buy and sell orders sitting close to its market price did not grow as quickly as Bitcoin’s.
Order-book depth is a measure of how much capital is available to absorb trades near the current price. $ETH
having about $13–14 million of liquidity within ±0.15% means it was still tradable with meaningful depth; it was not necessarily illiquid. However, BTC’s order book became much deeper—around $29 million on the bid side and $37 million on the ask side—so ETH looked weaker relative to BTC.
The post also highlights that $ETFT.ETF
inflows do not automatically appear as exchange limit orders. Investors can gain ETH exposure through ETFs, custodians, or other channels without placing orders on centralized exchanges. That can support demand and price while leaving visible exchange liquidity comparatively thinner.
