When almost 1.3B dollars’ worth of crypto positions get wiped out in seven days, you either learn fast or donate. Earlier in the week, reports like “Massive Liquidations Shake Up the Crypto Market” were already tracking a short squeeze; later, KuCoin’s data showed long liquidations near 680M; the rest was bears getting steamrolled earlier in the move.
I look at that kind of week through two lenses. In one life, I’m a forecast hunter who lives and dies by direction. In the other, I’m a liquidity provider who gets paid to stand in the spread. I’ve done both, and after trying Market Making programs on a few venues, I’ve ended up sticking with WhiteBIT’s.
Here’s how that sort of week would have looked for me as a pure “directional genius” – and how it actually played out with a market-making program behind me.
Without Market Making: one XRP long, one SOL short
With a 20,000 USDT account in a week like this, my “forecast hunter” version of reality was simple: I chased an XRP squeeze from the low 2s, went long around 2.85 with roughly 10,000 USDT notional on 5×, and then watched the pair roll over into the 2.30–2.40 zone as late longs got liquidated. I bailed near 2.35, locking in about –1,750 USDT plus roughly –40 USDT in taker fees - one trade, close to 10% of the account gone.
To ‘fix it’, I faded a sharp move on SOL: short around 158 with ~12,000 USDT notional on 3×. The first leg worked — I took profit on part of the move — but between late covers and a couple of intraday re-entries around SOL and other majors, I ended up roughly –800 USDT net on everything I did after that first XRP trade. By the end of the week, my PnL sat around –2,100 USDT, or about –11% down.
With Market Making on WhiteBIT: getting paid to sit in the middle
Same 20,000 USDT, same week, but I’m trading as a market maker. I’d already tried MM setups on a few exchanges; spreads were fine in some places, but clunky tools or fee tiers killed the edge.
On my current tier under the WhiteBIT Market Making program, my spot maker fee sits slightly below zero (around –0.01%), and taker is in the 0.02–0.03% range, instead of the default 0.1%, and between sub-accounts and a light API, I can keep limit orders resting on both sides of the book instead of mashing market.
On XRP, I’m no longer all-in long; I’m quoting a range roughly 2.30–2.95 with many small orders of 500–700 USDT. That week, I turned over about 250,000 USDT as a maker: the average spread I captured was ~0.18% (around +450 USDT), maker rebates and fee discounts added roughly +120 USDT, and marking down leftover inventory at the end of the week cost about –220 USDT. Net: +350 USDT on XRP instead of –1,750.
On SOL, the pattern is similar but a bit tighter: working roughly 135–165 USDT, about 300,000 USDT in maker volume, spread plus rebates around +480 USDT, inventory adjustment about –150 USDT, so roughly +330 USDT net.
Two smaller pairs added another +250–300 USDT, which put my total PnL for that kind of liquidation-heavy week at about +900 USDT on the same 20,000 USDT account. Both liquidation waves just meant more flow through my quotes instead of a second chance to blow up.
Weekly PnL: about –11% without MM vs +4.5% with WhiteBIT market making:
Once you see that kind of spread between –11% and +4.5% on the same week, a lot of clichés about market making start to sound different.
FAQ: Five Myths About Market Making From the Liquidity Side
Myth 1: “If I nail direction, I’ll always beat a market maker.”
I did believe XRP would probably be higher months from now. The market didn’t disagree; it just punished my entry, leverage, and patience. In the MM version, I don’t need a perfect path, only movement inside my range.
Myth 2: “Market making is only for funds and HFT shops.”
The stereotype is a hedge fund in a data centre. My reality is simpler: a normal workstation, a public API, and a rule set for how I quote and when I pull risk. On the MM program, my fees depend on how much liquidity I actually provide — volume and activity — rather than just raw click trading.
Myth 3: “In extreme volatility, the liquidity provider dies first.”
For a market maker, volatility is not the enemy – it’s the raw material. The forecast hunter bets a few big positions on a specific scenario; the MM spreads risk across a price range, trims inventory when it grows too large, and treats every spike as more flow rather than a personal attack.
Myth 4: “Market making is just averaging into losers.”
Blind averaging is what you do because you’re emotionally attached to a level. Market making is much more straightforward: pre-define the range where you’ll hold size, the maximum inventory you allow, and the point where you stop quoting and focus on exiting.
Myth 5: “Once you join an MM program, it’s passive income.”
Better fees, sub-accounts, a stable API, and solid support help, but the decisions are still on you: which pairs to quote, what ranges you accept, and how much inventory you’re willing to carry during double liquidation waves. I don’t watch the screen 24/7, but
I also don’t pretend the program prints money if I ignore it.
Core myths about market making vs how a real liquidity provider actually works:
Takeaway: being a prophet or a counterparty
That week, with roughly 1.3B in liquidations, didn’t prove that directional trading is dead. I still sometimes take pure directional setups when they’re worth it.
What it did prove to me is that, in a market obsessed with guessing the next move, there’s underrated value in being the one quietly providing liquidity to everyone else.
I’ve cycled through several MM programs. I stayed with WhiteBIT’s because the fee structure and tooling finally made that role economically sane for me: I get paid to be the counterparty instead of paying the market for the privilege of being “almost right” on direction.
As a forecast hunter, I’m down double digits. As a liquidity provider, I finish slightly tired – and up around 900 USDT.
For a market that can run two full liquidation waves in seven days, that difference is enough to decide which side of the order book I want to be on.
Top comments (0)