Conversation

I generally agree with this -- joint orderbooks tend to provide more liquidity than split orderbooks. The counterpoint is that some jurisdictions have not-quite-compatible compliance requirements and want 'walled gardens'.

Quote Tweet

Binance

@cz_binance

Jul 31

From our interactions, some countries want a segregated orderbook (liquidity). This is a BAD IDEA for a number of reasons. Large liquidity is one of the best Consumer Protection mechanisms. It protects against market manipulation, volatility, and reduces liquidations. 1/5

Show this thread

4:00 PM · Jul 31, 2022Twitter Web App

Replying to

Crypto replaces tat entire paradigm. They just haven’t learned how to think about their walled gardens yet…

Replying to

That's not a counterpoint. You are saying the same thing

Replying to

and

not really, when CZ even capitalized the "BAD IDEA" part. that was CZ's point

Show replies

Replying to

SBF subtly showing CZ who the true king of crypto is...

Replying to

That's not a counterpoint it's an obstacle

Replying to

don’t you need a neutral party to act as the clearinghouse though? wouldn’t that undermine a lot of the market structure innovation

Replying to

Also - doesn't Alameda do an incredible amount of business LP'ing because there is no unified orderbook across these different venues?

Replying to

and

SBF claims he has zero knowledge of trading done by Alameda these days 😂

Replying to

Their concern is not unjustified because in some under developed market, the regulators worry the domestic investors might experience another Asia financial crisis in the 90s by sophisticated global institutional investors.

Replying to

and

Or they want to have their own people with their own money to influence(manipulate) the market without worrying about competing with global money.