Quote from: Alexandros Tziolisis on Today at 02:32:10 PM

I think it's a choice, sir. Some are happy to take bigger risks and some are willing to play it safe, especially altcoins. I don't think it's wrong for users, exchange owners are also wrong because they enrich the wrong developers.

They should check the tokens that will be listed on their exchanges, don't just display an attractive white paper, list it immediately, then the token owner also sells and lowers the price periodically significantly, the ones who lose are still the exchange users. Finally, the coin is delisted from the exchange but goes home with victory by bringing home tens of thousands of dollars from buyers.

I would not be surprised if in the mainstream world exchanges (marketplaces) that have an actual interest in the goods they trade are deprecated, indeed even regulated to be so possibly; but it has always seemed to me in this field that one of the really big problems with exchanges is precisely their lack of interest in the projects that merely by listing they supposedly "support".

I do not actually know why other DMDers tell folk looking for someone to contact about a listing "you do not need our permission, you are free to list it or not as you choose" but for me at least listings whose only interest is fees, and therefore volume rather than sheer size and depth of the buy-side order-book if not both sides of the order-book, seem as likely to be harmful as helpful.

The DMD team does of course like to point out that every sell is a corresponding buy and vice-versa and of course that is absolutely correct, but as I have also learned over the years takers are takers whichever side they are taking from, and volume is a measure of taking.

Volume is the destruction of offers, the taking of them.

I think some usages of "liquidity" sometimes is a/the unit more important than volume, because who really cares whether it takes moments or years to get for your goods what one considers them to be worth, unless of course one's offered goods are not in the first place what you can afford to lose, which I am fairly sure almost everyone here is well aware precisely what such goods supposedly ought to be?

So in usages where what we mean by liquidity is basically the total order-book of offers that are still in place despite liquidity's destruction (taking) of offers, liquidity seems to be what one wants, and if the exchanges were actually interested in the things they list it ought also to be what they want and which thinking about it I just realised maybe is a form of "total volume locked": the amount of value tied up in offers that at a given moment have not yet been taken.

I wonder how Amazon would be doing if it were always sold out of every good it trades in?

And also all on back-order so all its buy-side asset ("money") also sold out?

That would be highest possible volume but maybe not for long.

Maybe a marketplace that isn't eager to add your wares to its offerings isn't really worth driving your wagon to and setting your stall up at in the first place?

-MarkM-