2025-12-25 05:31:57

I have always been curious about how exchange rankings are determined. It wasn't until I read CoinGlass's 2025 Crypto Derivatives Market Annual Report that I realized—it's not just a simple ranking, but a result of multiple dimension indicators weighted and combined.

The core weight is on basic trading data, including trading volume, open interest, order book depth, slippage, and other hard metrics. But that's not comprehensive enough; the report also incorporates factors such as product line richness, platform security coefficient, information transparency, and trading market quality into the evaluation system.

This multi-dimensional scoring model is quite interesting. Different indicators are scored separately, then weighted and aggregated to produce the final comprehensive ranking. This means that for an exchange to rank high, it's not enough to excel in just one area; it must have strong capabilities across multiple aspects—sufficient trading depth, a complete product lineup, reliable security measures, and guaranteed transparency. This approach is also very useful for investors when choosing a platform.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

15 Likes

Reward
15
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ETH_Maxi_Taxi

· 8h ago

Oh, I see. No wonder I keep seeing the rankings fluctuate; it's actually a combination of multiple metrics. When choosing a platform, slippage reveals the true nature most clearly. No matter how fancy the ranking is, it can't withstand poor liquidity.

View OriginalReply0

GreenCandleCollector

· 8h ago

Ha, you're right. Relying solely on trading volume to boost prices is useless; a comprehensive and solid strength is necessary.

View OriginalReply0

GasGuzzler

· 9h ago

Ah, this kind of scoring is quite scientific, unlike some exchanges that blow their own horn about being number one haha

View OriginalReply0

PrivacyMaximalist

· 9h ago

Oh, I didn't realize the ranking was so complicated. I thought it was just based on trading volume. --- Multi-dimensional scoring sounds good, but in reality, it's still dominated by a few top players. --- So, to put it nicely, small exchanges won't turn things around no matter how hard they try. --- I'm a bit skeptical about the safety coefficient weight. How does CoinGlass quantify it? --- After all this, it's still the same standards. It doesn't really provide new insights for retail investors choosing platforms. --- Can the slippage metric truly reflect trading quality? It seems a bit far-fetched. --- Transparency? Ha, who in the crypto world has ever been truly transparent? --- It sounds reasonable, but I feel it's just endorsing the top players. --- Multi-dimensional sounds scientific, but in practice, the weight distribution might be manipulated behind the scenes. --- I just want to know how the specific data is collected. That's the key.

View OriginalReply0

GasWaster

· 9h ago

I'm awake now, so many tricks behind the rankings. However, the safety factor still seems to vary quite a bit across different exchanges. That sounds reasonable, but I still have some doubts about which platform's data is the most transparent. Multi-dimensional evaluation is indeed more reliable than just looking at trading volume. In plain terms, you need to be versatile; there's no such thing as a one-trick pony. Slippage is a good metric; finally, someone has brought this issue up. This report would be even more convincing if the data were publicly available.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeBarbecue

· 9h ago

After looking for a long time, I still can't understand those weighting algorithms. Anyway, I just go with the platform with the highest trading volume. --- Multidimensional scoring sounds professional, but honestly, it's still about which platform has the most vigorous trading volume. --- So the top-ranked exchanges are all versatile players; they must have no weaknesses. --- This report is quite interesting. I finally understand why some exchanges, despite their fame, are no longer top-ranked. --- For security and transparency, the weight should be increased. I'd rather choose a slower platform than risk getting scammed. --- I feel like I need to actually use it to know; good data doesn't necessarily mean a good experience. --- As for metrics like depth orders, active traders can definitely feel the difference.

View OriginalReply0

PortfolioAlert

· 9h ago

Haha, finally someone explained this thoroughly. I used to think it was just simple ranking. --- Multidimensional weighting—this way of ranking is much more reliable. It’s not just a certain exchange boosting their rank through wash trading. --- Basically, you need to be versatile. High trading volume alone is useless; poor security and transparency will still lead to failure. --- This report is very helpful for retail investors choosing platforms. No more blind selection. --- Interesting, this set of standards seems much more reliable than previous single-dimension rankings. --- Slippage and order depth are also included, which truly assess trading quality. --- But on the other hand, with so many indicators weighted, could platforms pay to manipulate the results? --- It looks like CoinGlass put effort into this report. Multi-dimensional evaluation is indeed more fair.

View OriginalReply0