Bitcoin and ether order books deepen while altcoin liquidity erodes

Bitcoin and ether order books were deeper on October 7 than on the day of the October 2025 flash crash, while a basket of smaller tokens showed less dollar liquidity than at the start of 2025, according to a new CoinDesk Research comparison.

The snapshot matters because it suggests market-making capital has returned selectively to the two largest cryptoassets, not evenly across the market. It does not show that trading conditions are universally stronger: centralized-exchange spot volume remains far below the crash week, and some of the rebuilt depth disappeared during this week’s selloff.

More orders sit close to bitcoin and ether prices

CoinDesk Research compared order-book depth across major centralized exchanges on January 1, 2025; October 10, 2025; January 1, 2026; and October 7, 2026. Market depth is the displayed value of resting buy and sell orders within a stated distance of the current price. More depth generally means a large order can be absorbed with less immediate price impact.

For bitcoin, approximately $11.7 million sat within 1% of the market price on October 7. CoinDesk measured that as roughly 75% more than on the 2025 crash day, compared with about $9 million on January 1, 2026 and $6.9 million on January 1, 2025.

Ether showed a similar recovery. Depth within 0.5% of its price exceeded $4.2 million on October 7, more than double the crash-day observation. Within 1%, approximately $5.3 million was available, about three-quarters more than on October 10, 2025.

Those figures are dollar-denominated snapshots, not executed trading volume. They also do not establish that every exchange improved. CoinDesk did not identify the venues or disclose the full sampling and normalization method in the published article, limiting independent reconstruction.

Altcoins and spot activity tell a weaker story

The same comparison found declining dollar depth for CoinDesk Research’s altcoin basket. Orders within 5% of the price totaled approximately $2 million on October 7, about one-third below January 1, 2025. Depth within 1% was down about one-sixth over the same interval.

The article did not list the basket’s constituents. Falling token prices also mean the same number of tokens can represent fewer dollars, so CoinDesk compared both dollar and token-unit measures. Its conclusion was that the apparent recovery in token units largely reflected lower prices rather than more capital committed by market makers.

Activity was also thinner. Weekly centralized-exchange spot volume averaged about $279 billion during the four weeks through September 27. That was nearly two-thirds below the $801 billion recorded during the 2025 crash week, although it was approximately double an August 2026 low near $135 billion. These are platform-wide aggregates, not bitcoin-only volume, and coverage depends on the provider’s exchange universe.

A rebuilt book can still retreat quickly

The October 2025 crash remains the relevant stress benchmark. ESMA’s March 2026 risk monitor described approximately $19 billion in automated derivatives liquidations as a market estimate and warned that the figure could be understated. The regulator identified thin liquidity, leverage, exchange disruptions and pricing weaknesses as vulnerabilities exposed by the event.

Current depth does not prove those vulnerabilities have disappeared. CoinDesk measured bitcoin’s 1% depth falling about 12% from October 7 to October 8 as prices sold off. That one-day contraction shows displayed liquidity can be withdrawn precisely when demand for execution rises.

Order books also omit derivatives, decentralized exchanges, over-the-counter trading and orders hidden from public view. Resting orders may be canceled before execution, while a four-date comparison cannot establish a continuous trend between observations.

The narrow conclusion is that displayed capital near bitcoin and ether prices had rebuilt by October 7, while smaller-token depth and overall spot activity lagged. That divergence supports a market-structure shift toward the largest assets, but it is not proof that another leveraged shock would be absorbed smoothly.