Two rankings, one venue, two different positions. The usual explanation is that one of them is wrong. The more common explanation is that they measured different things and both reported honestly. A volume ranking is a methodology before it is a fact, and the methodology is a series of choices that each move a venue up or down.
A ranking is a choice with a number attached
Every published volume figure starts with four decisions: which pairs count, which quote currencies are converted, how long the sample runs, and what gets filtered out as non-economic activity. Change any one of them and the order changes.
None of these choices is usually hidden. They are simply rarely read. A reader sees a number, compares it with a number from another ranking, and concludes that one source is lying. More often both sources are internally consistent and externally incomparable.
Our own board is not exempt. It ranks 24 venues on sampled 24h volume as of October 2026, and the top row carries roughly a third of that sample. That ordering is a statement about one sample under one method, not a verdict about which venue is largest in every sense.
Wash trading inflates the numerator
Volume is the easiest metric to manufacture, because every trade has two sides and a venue can be on both. Round-tripping between accounts under common control produces turnover with no change in economic exposure.
Filtering it is a judgement call. Rules that flag self-matching, identical sizes and sub-second round trips remove some of it. They also remove legitimate market making, which looks similar from outside. Set the filter tight and you delete real flow. Set it loose and you count fake flow.
The consequence for the reader is simple. A venue’s volume is an estimate produced by a filter, and the filter is part of the estimate. Two rankings with different filters will disagree about the same venue without either being dishonest.
Pair universe: spot, perpetual, or both
Spot only
Spot volume counts delivered trades. It excludes leveraged exposure, which is most of the activity on many venues, so a spot-only ranking will rank derivatives-heavy venues lower than their overall business suggests.
Perpetual only
Perpetual volume counts contracts, and the notional depends on how the contract is specified and whether the figure counts one side of each trade or both. A venue that reports one side reports half of what a venue reporting both sides reports for identical activity.
Both, summed
Summing spot and perpetual is common and produces a number that no single order book supports. It is a market-share figure. Read as liquidity, it overstates by the amount of leverage in the mix.
Quote currency and the sampling window
Conversion inflates the total
Most pairs quote in stablecoins, and stablecoin supply reached $292.40B in October 2026, per RWA.xyz. When a venue reports volume in USD, it converts every quote currency at a rate taken at a time.
Two venues can therefore disagree from the conversion step alone. A pair quoted in a local currency trading at a premium converts into a larger USD figure than the same trade quoted in dollars. The premium is a friction price, but the ranking records it as volume.
The window is a definition too
A rolling 24-hour window and a calendar-day window are not the same measurement. The rolling window spreads a venue’s bad hour across the day. The calendar window puts it in one bucket and moves on.
Sessions matter as well. A venue whose flow is concentrated in one region will show a different 24-hour figure depending on when the window closes relative to its local trading hours.
| Choice | Effect on rank | What the reader can check |
|---|---|---|
| Pair universe | Derivative-heavy venues rise when perps are included | Whether spot and perp are summed or shown apart |
| Wash filter | Loose filters favour venues with round-tripping flow | Whether the filter rules are published |
| Quote currency | Local-premium pairs inflate USD totals | Which conversion rate and which date |
| Sampling window | Rolling windows smooth spikes that calendar days expose | Whether the window definition is stated |
| Double counting | Counting both sides doubles a venue’s figure | Whether one side or both are counted |
What a disagreement means
If two rankings disagree by a position or two, the likely cause is a methodological choice, not fraud. If they disagree by an order of magnitude, look at the pair universe first. Perp inclusion is the largest single source of gap between otherwise similar methodologies.
The useful response is to read both methodologies and see which choices differ, rather than to pick the flattering ranking.
Verdict
A ranking is a methodology, and a methodology is a set of checkable choices. Volume figures are estimates produced by filters, pair definitions and conversion rates. They are useful for comparison inside one method and misleading across methods.
Read the methodology before you quote a rank. Then check the monthly fee page changes, because a venue’s fee tier explains part of why its volume mix looks the way it does. Neither number is a fact about liquidity. Both are facts about a sample.
0 comments
No comments yet — ask a question and we will answer it here.