I know, but I don't believe that is relevant here, as my point relates to the sum total of all USD coming in to purchase BTC or equivalents. In your model, the

I know, but I don't believe that is relevant here, as my point relates to the sum total of all USD coming in to purchase BTC or equivalents. In your model, the math is even worse as there isn't any direct USD to equivalents trading I'm missing, but a lot more indirect trades. The point I was making is that the vast majority of the liquidity is synthetic, not real USD trading. Both the regulators imposing fines and the electric companies only accept bona fide fiat. I think there's a big shortage of real liquidity. > This statement is false and what I'm reacting to. There is literally no way to measure it. For example, I could take USD, sell it for Mexican Peso's and buy BTC because there is a arb opportunity where I get more peso's for my USD and BTC happens to be less expensive on this Mexican exchange that I'm dealing with. In that case, you don't see the USD volume at all. There is, because there's only USD:BTC, equivalents make it look worse. Re: MXN that's MXN volume. USD:MXN and MXN:BTC. Not the point I'm making. And I do believe Coinlib captures all major foreign currency trading pairs, the JPY and EUR are both included. If you have other data I'm happy to look it over but from where I'm sitting... I'm not claiming its 60% of all fiat liquidity just all USD.