Tracking raw exchange volume is the wrong metric to follow

Raw exchange volume feels like the wrong metric to trust by itself

I’ve been looking at exchange rankings lately, and the more I look at them, the less useful raw 24h volume seems on its own.

A venue can show huge reported volume, but that does not tell you much unless it lines up with other things:

Is there real depth on the book?

Are spreads normal?

Does the traffic look believable?

Do the active pairs look natural, or does the activity look mechanical?

Would the book actually hold up if you tried to route size there?

I’m not saying exchange rankings are useless. I’m saying I don’t think volume should be treated as the answer. At best, it’s one signal.

The way I’d sanity-check an exchange is:

Use rankings as a first-pass filter

Check liquidity and depth before trusting the rank

Look at the main pairs, not just total venue volume

Be skeptical of long-tail exchanges with huge volume but thin books

Treat confidence/liquidity-style labels as warnings, not proof

Check the order book before doing anything real

My current view is that raw volume is noisy, but rankings that include liquidity, traffic, confidence, and pair-level quality are still useful as a starting point.

They just don’t replace due diligence.

How do you usually check an exchange before using it? Do you start with aggregator rankings, or do you go straight to the order book?