[cinntaile]

I took the financial definition, there is no special crypto definition. Here's a few paraphrased definitions:

> liquidity describes the degree to which an asset can be quickly bought or sold in the market at a price reflecting its intrinsic value.

> A liquid asset has some or all of the following features: It can be sold rapidly, with minimal loss of value, anytime within market hours. The essential characteristic of a liquid market is that there are always ready and willing buyers and sellers.

Now read the first definition for example and the first paragraph of my previous post, follow the logical structure of my argument and tell me what doesn't add up. You make the assumption that it's worthless, the implicit assumption in the definition is that you don't sell for a loss basically. Since you're always above zero, it fits snugly in there.

[defaultprimate]

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/liquidity.asp

>without affecting its market price

[cinntaile]

I have replied to this before, but I can add some additional info. No regular buyer or seller has the capital to affect the market price in any significant way. Huge orders don't end up on the market, just like on regular exchanges, precisely for this reason.

[defaultprimate]

> No regular buyer or seller has the capital to affect the market price in any significant way

Which is absolutely not the case in crypto, further evidence of how illiquid it is.

[cinntaile]

What do you base this on? I don't see how you can affect the market price of any of the big crypto's in any significant way as a regular buyer or seller, there are simply too many market participants. This is not the case for the smaller ones obviously, although even there you'll likely need a bit of capital (compared to the other market participants for that specific crypto). The smaller ones are basically a drop in the ocean compared to the big ones.