由于破碎，技术设计差异，加密流动性继续落后于传统金融

该研究分析了关键的流动性指标，数量，出价差价，市场深度和滑倒，遍布集中和分散的交易场所

Crypto market liquidity is still lagging behind traditional finance due to fragmentation, technical design differences, and exposure to external shocks, according to a new report from S&P Global.

根据标准普尔Global的一份新报告，由于分裂，技术设计差异和外部冲击暴露，加密市场流动性仍然落后于传统金融。

The study, which analyzed key liquidity metrics—volume, bid-ask spreads, market depth, and slippagestyling across major crypto and stablecoin pairs—found that while crypto trading platforms are becoming more efficient, they remain fractured across hundreds of markets.

这项研究分析了关键的流动性指标 - 批量，出价，市场深度以及在主要的加密货币和稳定币对之间的偏斜，虽然加密货币交易平台越来越有效，但它们仍然在数百个市场中脱颖而出。

The report showed that spot trading volumes on exchanges like Binance still fall well short of traditional venues like the NYSE, and fiat-based trading pairs consistently exhibit shallower order books compared to crypto-native pairs.

该报告显示，与加密本地对相比，Binance等交易所的现货交易量仍然远远没有落在纽约证券交易所（NYSE）和基于菲亚特（FIAT）的交易对中。

CEX vs. DEX

CEX与Dex

Centralized exchanges (CEXs) mirror traditional stock markets in their reliance on order books and custodial accounts. They offer high speed and low spreads on popular stablecoin pairs, especially large-cap coins like Bitcoin.

集中式交流（CEXS）在依赖订单书籍和托管帐户的依赖中反映了传统股票市场。他们在流行的Stablecoin对上提供高速和低价，尤其是像比特币这样的大型硬币。

In contrast, decentralized exchanges (DEXs) allow users to maintain custody through automated market makers (AMMs), but introduce price slippage and impermanent loss, especially during volatile periods or large trades.

相比之下，分散交流（DEX）允许用户通过自动做市商（AMM）维持监护权，但会引入价格滑倒和无常损失，尤其是在波动期或大型交易中。

Despite these challenges, some digital assets, particularly BTC, ETH, and USDT, display comparable or even narrower (smaller) bid-ask spreads than mid-cap equities like Broadcom.

尽管面临这些挑战，但与Broadcom这样的中型股票比中股票相比，一些数字资产，尤其是BTC，ETH和USDT，显示出可比甚至更狭窄（较小）的出价。

Overall, CEXs continue to dominate volume in the market and provide higher liquidity compared to their decentralized counterparts, which provide deeper access.

总体而言，与分散的同行相比，CEX继续在市场上占据主导地位，并提供更高的流动性，这提供了更深入的访问。

The report also noted that the launch of Bitcoin and Ether ETFs in the US has increased trading activity and deepened liquidity on crypto exchanges, although ETF trading volumes remain smaller than their underlying assets.

该报告还指出，尽管ETF交易量仍然小于其基本资产，但在美国，比特币和Ether ETF的推出增加了交易活动并加深了加密交易所的流动性。

Infrastructure constraints

基础架构约束

S&P also highlighted how political instability and exchange hacks can significantly impact localized liquidity, a prevalent issue in the crypto industry.

标准普尔还强调了政治动荡和交流黑客如何显着影响局部流动性，这是加密货币行业普遍的问题。

A political crisis in South Korea triggered a 30% drop in BTC-KRW pricing on Upbit and a substantial decline in trading volume, while a February breach at Bybit led to a sustained decrease in ETH trading volume. These rapid price changes and limited market depth underscore the fragility of fragmented order books.

韩国的一场政治危机引发了30％的BTC-KRW价格下降，交易量大幅下降，而2月份的违规行为导致ETH交易量的持续下降。这些快速的价格变化和有限的市场深度强调了零散的订单书籍的脆弱性。

The report also highlighted that stablecoin liquidity remains higher in crypto-to-crypto trades than in fiat pairs, due to banking hurdles and compliance friction. However, their growth combined with easing regulations could enforce their role in finance.

该报告还强调，由于银行障碍和合规性摩擦，加密货币到核心交易的稳定流动性仍然高于菲亚特对。但是，它们的增长与缓和法规相结合可以在金融中发挥作用。

Meanwhile, slippage analysis on Uniswap shows that low-volatility stablecoin pairs maintain near-zero slippage, while ETH pairs can show high variation, especially during sharp price moves.

同时，对单务工程的滑倒分析表明，低挥发性稳态对保持接近零的滑移，而eth对可以显示出较高的变化，尤其是在价格上涨期间。

According to the report, while crypto market liquidity is maturing with the entry of institutional investors and regulated products, fragmentation, design limitations, and inconsistent depth continue to hinder full-scale efficiency.

根据该报告，尽管加密货币市场流动性正在与机构投资者和受监管产品的进入，但分裂，设计限制和深度不一致，继续阻碍了全尺度的效率。