Understand the Market Like a Puzzle: Decoding the Inner Logic of Liquidity, Spread, and Market Movement
Original Article by: TradeStream | Improve Your Trading
Original Article Translated by: DeepFlow Tech
Trading: If we choose to act in a place where most people are willing to trade based on common sense... then this may mean that we do not have more valuable information than others.
One Metaphor of Market Behavior: Jigsaw Puzzle
I like to use a jigsaw puzzle to describe market behavior. You can imagine the overall market as a person trying to complete a puzzle, with the trading volume being the puzzle pieces. The market will strive to put all the pieces together. By analyzing the distribution of trading volume, we can more clearly see where "pieces" are missing. When the market finds areas with more pieces (i.e., higher trading volume and time accumulation), it will try to allocate these pieces to areas with fewer pieces (i.e., lower trading volume and time).
How the Market Chooses Direction
Sometimes, when both sides of the market lack "pieces," how can we determine which side it will fill first?
This reminds me of a theory about human behavior in the book "Atomic Habits." In such situations, we need to focus on two key points:
Attraction: People usually hope that their actions will bring rewards, and the market is the same because it reflects human behavioral patterns. As we discussed earlier, we tend to avoid overly crowded trading scenarios, and a more attractive strategy is often trading against the majority of mispositioned participants, especially when we have clear structural reasons.
Reducing Resistance: According to the "law of least effort," the more effort something requires, the less likely it is to happen. If the resistance is too high, the difficulty of achieving our goal will also increase.
Another Metaphor of Market Behavior: Trolley Problem
Imagine the market as a train, and this train is like an "executioner" eager to "hunt." When we take action in the fair value area, both sides of the market are crowded with participants, making it difficult to predict which side the market will "hunt" more people. However, once the market chooses a side, the other side becomes the only choice, making our decision-making simpler.

What is Liquidity?
Liquidity refers to whether there are enough counterparties in the market to trade with. When we trade, we are either consuming liquidity or providing liquidity. If the price is stable in a certain area (i.e., a balance area) or unable to fluctuate smoothly, it is because buyers have not consumed enough liquidity; conversely, if the price can fluctuate smoothly, it means that buyers have successfully consumed enough liquidity.
Limit Order vs. Market Order
A limit order is a tool for "adding liquidity," while a market order is a tool for executing a trade and consuming this liquidity. Passive liquidity (limit orders) is often more impactful because limit orders typically determine market structure, while aggressive market orders will be absorbed at key points.
Why is a limit order more impactful? Because when you execute a market order, you need to cross the bid-ask spread, which means you will immediately be in an unrealized loss position after placing the order.
What is the Spread?
The spread is the difference between the asset's buy price (advertisement bid) and sell price (advertisement ask). Market makers provide liquidity through the spread, meaning the price to immediately buy an asset is usually slightly higher than the market price, while the price to immediately sell is slightly lower than the market price.

Let's assume an asset's current price is $10.00, and an asterisk (*) represents one contract. If we want to buy immediately, there is no $10.00 quote in the market because if there were, the market maker would not profit. Therefore, they would set the advertised liquidity slightly higher, for example, placing four contracts at $10.01 to capture this small difference.
If we decide to buy three contracts, we would transact at the $10.01 price. But what if we want to buy more, say 15 contracts? We would need to cross the spread until we find enough orders to fulfill the trade. As a result, the price would eventually be pushed to $10.03 because only at this price level are there enough contracts to meet our demand.

Through this example, we can understand why limit orders are usually more impactful. Small-scale traders have a negligible impact on the price as they will not encounter significant slippage. However, if someone wants to buy 500 contracts and there is not enough liquidity nearby, they will have to cross a significant spread, causing substantial price fluctuations.
If traders choose to place orders where liquidity is abundant, they can avoid significant slippage. So, where is liquidity usually concentrated? The answer is above swing highs and below swing lows. This is because most technical analysis-based traders exhibit similar behavior in setting stop-loss orders, and these locations are often where stop-losses cluster, making price reversals likely at these points.
So, their stop-loss is your entry point? Indeed.
Summary
· Impatient buyers or sellers are driving the price through market orders (taker), consuming liquidity.
· More patient buyers or sellers are preventing price fluctuations through limit orders (maker).
We can use a metaphor to describe this: market orders are like a hammer, while limit orders act as the floor or ceiling of a building. Breaking through the floor or ceiling requires sufficient hammer force to do so.

What happens when the floor is broken? The price quickly moves to the next floor.

Once the price reaches the next floor, upward movement becomes easier because the ceiling has been broken, creating a "gap" that allows the price to more easily fluctuate in areas of scarce liquidity.

Liquidity cascading is a very effective way to make money because at this point, we are trading with a price-insensitive group that is forced to transact (e.g., liquidated traders). But we need to be clear about what we are trading.
If you are trading liquidity premium, this effect is usually very short-lived, lasting a maximum of 10-15 seconds. In a cascading environment, this situation changes. In this case, you need to assess whether liquidity has fully recovered from the initial volatility.
Although the chain reaction of momentum shifts is not as reliable as liquidity premium, its sustainability is stronger (many people think they are trading liquidity premium when, in fact, they are trading this momentum effect).
The first method (liquidity premium) is more suitable for PNL attribution (i.e., analyzing the reason for making money) and is also the more ideal way to operate. The second method (momentum effect) captures the core part of large fluctuations but comes with greater volatility and looser risk control.
Overall, liquidity cascades lead to a supply-demand imbalance as a large number of price-insensitive traders enter, causing the order book to not withstand so many aggressive traders. But once the market stabilizes, the price will more easily return to those areas that failed to accumulate enough volume due to rapid fluctuations.
After all, the market is a two-way auction mechanism that usually tests low-volume areas for two reasons:
· There is less path resistance;
· The market seeks efficiency and will test these areas to see if anyone is willing to trade at those price levels.
As a result, the market will experience a "mechanical bounce back," as the order book needs time to rebalance. During this time, only a small amount of trading volume is needed to drive price fluctuations. Once the market settles, price movements will rely more on momentum, accompanied by increased volatility, but also allowing for greater profit potential.
Remember, high volatility often begets high volatility, while low volatility often begets low volatility, a phenomenon known as volatility clustering. Therefore, seize the opportunity and adjust your risk management strategy based on each change in market conditions.
You may also like

ZachXBT: Humanity private key leak and abnormal surge in H token should be viewed separately
On June 9, according to related disclosures, on-chain investigator ZachXBT posted an update on Humanity’s roughly $31 million security incident, saying that after further analyzing fund flows, he currently tends to believe the project team was not involved in an “inside job” or a self-staged attack. According to him, the official explanation about the private key leak was broadly accurate, but before the token unlock, the price of H had been artificially pushed higher, and the hacker later took advantage of that market environment; therefore, the private key leak and the earlier abnormal price pumping should be regarded as two separate and independent events. This reframing has shifted the market’s understanding of the nature of the incident. Earlier discussion around Humanity had focused on whether the team directly participated in the attack or used the security incident to cover up internal operations. ZachXBT’s latest remarks shift the focus from “whether it was self-theft” to “whether there were pre-unlock market structure issues.” He also questioned whether the team may have.

Morning Report | OpenAI has submitted an S-1 registration statement draft to the U.S. SEC; Morpho completes $175 million financing

Morning Report | BitMine increased its holdings by 126,971 ETH last week; trader Eugene announced his exit from the crypto market

Wang Chuan: How can one not feel anxious after the neighbor Old Wang made thirty times profit by investing in storage stocks? (Seven) - A quarter-century cycle

Cryptocurrency CEXs are flocking to sell US stocks, and traditional brokerages are facing an "uninvited guest."

$75 billion in foreign capital has fled, and South Korean retail investors have absorbed it all using leverage

Japan’s Three Megabanks Plan Joint Stablecoin Issuance in Fiscal 2026
MUFG, SMBC, and Mizuho reportedly plan to jointly issue fiat-pegged stablecoins in fiscal 2026, signaling Japan’s growing push into bank-led digital payment infrastructure.

Humanity Discloses H Token Dual-Chain Attack Details, With Losses on Ethereum and BSC Exceeding $36 Million
Humanity said the H token attack across Ethereum and BSC caused more than $36 million in losses after leaked ProxyAdmin keys enabled malicious contract upgrades and token minting.

White House Discusses CLARITY Act With Law Enforcement Ahead of Senate Vote
The White House discussed the CLARITY Act with law enforcement ahead of a Senate vote, focusing on illicit finance risks and developer protections.

Bitcoin Trading Guide 2026: Strategies for Experienced Traders

What Is XAUT and PAXG? Why Tokenized Gold Is Booming in 2026

Will the SpaceX IPO Hurt Bitcoin? Here's What Traders Are Watching

Foreign selling in the South Korean stock market accelerates, with cumulative net sales reportedly reaching $75 billion this year
On June 9, The Kobeissi Letter, citing Goldman Sachs data, reported that global investors are selling South Korean stocks at an unusually rapid pace. In the latest trading session, foreign investors sold about $801 million worth of Kospi constituent stocks again; total foreign outflows last week reached about $10 billion, and the market has been in net foreign selling on nearly every trading day over the past month. According to the data cited in the report, foreign investors have sold about $75 billion worth of South Korean stocks so far this year. Meanwhile, South Korean retail and institutional investors together recorded roughly $69 billion in net buying over the same period, suggesting that the market’s main buying support has come from domestic capital rather than returning overseas funds. The information currently disclosed still mainly comes from The Kobeissi Letter’s retelling and Goldman Sachs data summaries, while public details on the statistical period and the specific definition of “selling” remain relatively limited.

Fortune Warns of Strategy’s Financing Structure Risks as Bitcoin Premium Narrows
Fortune warned that Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury model faces growing financing risks as MSTR’s net asset premium narrows and preferred stock dividend pressure increases.

Ferrari Challenge Le Mans: Carl Moon to Dominate in WEEX Livery

Sahara AI Responds to SAHARA’s Sharp Drop: No Contract or Product Security Issues Found, Internal Investigation Underway
Sahara AI responded to SAHARA’s 60% price drop, saying no token contract or product security issues have been found and an internal investigation is underway.

WEEX Deposit/Withdrawal Dynamic Island: Your Asset Status, Always in Sight

Scaling Crypto Derivatives: The Digital Asset Infrastructure Behind High-Volume Trading
In the fast-moving digital asset ecosystem, derivatives platforms face an extreme architectural test. High-leverage futures markets demand more than just standard security—they require absolute operational precision, zero-latency matching engines, and ironclad structural scalability, all while navigating intense market volatility.
As global platforms scale to meet these demands, the industry is shifting away from rigid, monolithic setups toward a more agile, "decoupled" infrastructure philosophy.
The Blueprint for High-Volume Copy TradingFor elite global exchanges like WEEX (founded in 2018), this architectural choice becomes critical when scaling high-volume retail features like social copy trading. When thousands of users automatically mirror the real-time strategies of elite traders simultaneously, it triggers sudden, monumental spikes in concurrent transactional volume.
To prevent execution latency or settlement bottlenecks during these peak volatility events, a platform's primary engine must remain entirely dedicated to risk management, copy-trade synchronization, and order matching.
The Architectural Rule: New-generation platforms must separate front-end user execution engines from heavy backend infrastructural overhead to eliminate operational friction.
By separating these layers, platforms can maintain complete sovereignty over their trading environments and user experiences while strategically aligning with institutional-grade infrastructure ecosystems. This strategic framework allows modern exchanges to leverage advanced Digital Asset Custody infrastructure such as Cobo’s behind the scenes, ensuring that backend wallet management scales elastically alongside trading spikes.
Capitalizing on Market Momentum and 400× LeverageIn a derivatives arena where platforms offer up to 400× leverage on perpetual contracts, capital efficiency and market agility are core business metrics. To capture market momentum, an exchange needs the ability to rapidly expand its asset offerings, supporting everything from legacy crypto assets to sudden, trending altcoins across a massive library of trading pairs.
Adopting a flexible, scalable Wallet-as-a-Service (WaaS) solution such as Cobo’s could completely rewrite the development timeline for high-growth exchanges. Instead of spending months of engineering capital building out custom backend wallet architectures for every new blockchain network, platforms can deploy localized infrastructure in days.
This agility allows platforms to instantly scale their listings to over a thousand trading pairs without compromising security or delaying time-to-market. It mirrors the exact operational advantages seen during high-velocity market events, similar to how advanced wallet infrastructure empowers platforms during sudden asset surges; allowing exchanges to pass that speed and liquidity directly to their global user base.
A Mature Foundation for GrowthThe synergy between trusted infrastructure ecosystems and global trading platforms represents the natural evolution of a maturing crypto market. As WEEX continues to scale its global spot and derivatives offerings for over 6 million users, adopting robust backend paradigms proves that platforms no longer have to compromise between cutting-edge trading velocity and uncompromised structural security.
ZachXBT: Humanity private key leak and abnormal surge in H token should be viewed separately
On June 9, according to related disclosures, on-chain investigator ZachXBT posted an update on Humanity’s roughly $31 million security incident, saying that after further analyzing fund flows, he currently tends to believe the project team was not involved in an “inside job” or a self-staged attack. According to him, the official explanation about the private key leak was broadly accurate, but before the token unlock, the price of H had been artificially pushed higher, and the hacker later took advantage of that market environment; therefore, the private key leak and the earlier abnormal price pumping should be regarded as two separate and independent events. This reframing has shifted the market’s understanding of the nature of the incident. Earlier discussion around Humanity had focused on whether the team directly participated in the attack or used the security incident to cover up internal operations. ZachXBT’s latest remarks shift the focus from “whether it was self-theft” to “whether there were pre-unlock market structure issues.” He also questioned whether the team may have.

