Practical

How much liquidity does your token actually need?

2026-08-236 min read

Every token team eventually asks the same question and gets the same unhelpful answer: it depends. It does depend, but not on anything mysterious. You can size this yourself in about twenty minutes with a method that works on any venue. The trick is to stop asking how much liquidity is enough and start asking what you want your market to be able to do.

Start with the trade you want to survive

Pick the largest single trade you want your market to absorb without an ugly move. For most early-stage tokens that is a realistic retail or small-fund ticket, not a whale exit. Say you decide a $5,000 sell should not move your price by more than a couple of percent.

That one decision sets everything downstream. You now need enough resting bid depth within a couple of percent of the mid-price to absorb $5,000. Not spread across the whole book, near the price. That is your depth target, and it is a number rather than a feeling.

Worth remembering

Depth near the mid-price is what protects the chart. Depth ten percent away protects nothing, because the damage happens before the order reaches it.

Then set the spread

Spread and depth trade off against each other for a fixed amount of capital. Tighter quotes sit closer to the mid-price, which means they get hit more often and turn over your inventory faster. Wider quotes are safer but make the market look and feel worse.

A practical starting range for a newly listed token is wider than you would like, then tightened as you observe fills. Going out at the tightest spread the tick size allows, on a market with no trading flow, mostly means donating to whoever has better information than you. Start conservative. Tighten deliberately.

Check the tick size first: it sets the physical floor on how tight you can quote.
Account for the maker fee. A spread narrower than your round-trip fee is a structural loss.
Widen automatically when volatility spikes rather than trying to react manually.

Working out the working capital

Your depth target tells you the quote-currency side: to absorb a $5,000 sell you need roughly that much in stablecoin or the quote asset sitting as bids, plus headroom so the book is not emptied by a single fill. The base-token side needs the mirror image, enough of your own token resting as asks to serve buyers.

Two things teams get wrong here. The first is funding only one side, which produces a bot that can only sell. The second is treating this capital as spent. It is not spent, it is deployed, and it remains yours. But it is committed, and it is exposed to price movement while it sits there, which is a real cost worth naming.

Do this per venue, not once

Liquidity does not travel between exchanges. A deep book on one venue does nothing for a trader looking at another, and the gap between them is an arbitrage opportunity that someone will take at your expense. Each listing needs its own configuration, its own inventory, and its own review.

This is also why teams end up running the same bot across several venues from one account rather than picking a single flagship listing. It keeps the price aligned and closes the gaps.

Review it on a schedule

The parameters that were right at launch are usually wrong a month later, because volatility, trading flow, and the venue's own conditions have all changed. Put a recurring review in the calendar: check realised spread against target, check whether depth is being consumed faster than expected, and check whether inventory has drifted to one side.

Nothing about this requires a trading background. It requires looking at the numbers on a schedule instead of only when something has already gone wrong.

Questions this raises

There is no single figure, because tick size, fees, and volatility differ by pair. The practical target is a spread tight enough that a buyer does not visibly lose money crossing it, reached gradually rather than set aggressively on day one. Start wider than your goal and tighten as you observe fills.

Work backwards from the largest trade you want your market to absorb near the mid-price, then fund both sides of the pair to roughly that depth with headroom. That figure, rather than the cost of the software, is usually the binding constraint.

Up to a point. Depth near the mid-price is what makes a market usable and protects the chart. Capital parked far from the price does very little, and inventory sitting on an exchange carries price exposure, so over-committing has a real cost.

On every venue where you want people to actually trade, yes. Liquidity does not move between exchanges, so a thin book on a secondary listing stays thin regardless of how healthy your primary market looks, and the price gap between them invites arbitrage.

For the fundamentals, read the guide to crypto market making, or see how a bot runs on a specific exchange or chain.

Run your own market maker bot

Your keys, your limits, your inventory. Live in about 30 minutes, or talk to our team first.