> There is no magical equilibrium Your understanding is exactly backwards. Market makers provide the "magical equilibrium" by bridging supply and demand across

> There is no magical equilibrium Your understanding is exactly backwards. Market makers provide the "magical equilibrium" by bridging supply and demand across time. > and if there was, there would be no profit. Wrong again. Even with infinite shares on the bid/ask, there's still a spread for market makers to collect. More generally, what exactly do you think your comment proves? If a retail investor buys the sole 100 shares at top-of-book, the price (mid) moves up, but there's one buyer and one seller. Where's the "delta"? And if a big hedge fund buys 100,000 shares from 10 market makers... 100,000 shares demanded and 100,000 shares supplied. Magic! You're arguing against an accounting identity. I know what you're trying to say: what moves prices is relative eagerness of buyers and sellers. You're just too inexperienced to be able to explain it.