Recently, there’s a small detail about #USD1 that I wonder if everyone has noticed.

When trading BTC futures, most people default to using USDT or USDC for settlement, including my friends and myself—we’ve always done it that way.

Over the past few days, I placed a few orders for comparison and could feel that the order book depth for BTC/USD1 is currently thicker than that of BTC/USDC.

At key price levels, there are relatively large orders, with buying and selling sides connecting more smoothly.

On the USDC side, most price levels are dominated by small retail orders, the order book is thinner, continuity is weaker, and when trades actually execute, the slippage for USD1 is relatively smaller—there’s a noticeable difference in experience.

The reason is actually quite simple: USD1 has a lower spread, and combined with the zero maker fee rule, the cost of placing orders is lower for market makers and high-frequency traders.

Capital naturally flows to places with lower trading costs and better liquidity—that’s a normal market rule.

Before, many people’s perception of USD1 was still at the level of being a supporting tool for the WLFI ecosystem. But judging by its current trading performance, its practicality in real trading scenarios is indeed improving, and liquidity is gradually accumulating.

For those who usually run strategies with USDC or USDT, you can add this trading pair to your watchlist. No need to rush adjusting positions—first try with small orders a couple of times. The execution feel and cost level are best understood through your own experience. Of course, trading involves risk, so everyone must #DYOR.

As for whether the depth will hold and whether liquidity will continue to rise, we’ll have to keep observing. Trading inherently involves uncertainty. Comparing more and staying alert is always the safer approach.