Nasdaq is pushing toward near-24-hour trading. But here's the thing—plenty of Wall Street players aren't buying it.
The push to extend trading hours sounds modern, sounds inevitable given how crypto markets never sleep. Yet institutional traders, market makers, and some risk managers are raising real concerns. Their arguments? Thinner liquidity during off-peak hours could spike spreads. Smaller players without 24/7 monitoring capabilities get squeezed out. And system stability during weird hours when volumes tank—that's a legitimate headache.
It's the classic tension: innovation vs. operational reality. Crypto folks already live in 24/7 markets, and yeah, it works. But traditional equity markets have different DNA. Different participant bases. Different infrastructure expectations.
The debate matters because it hints at something bigger—how legacy financial systems are getting pressure to adapt, whether from regulatory push or competitive anxiety. Sometimes evolution is smooth. Sometimes it creates friction. This one's looking like the latter.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
15 Likes
Reward
15
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
DaoResearcher
· 12-17 12:02
According to the liquidity model in Chapter 2.1 of the white paper, Nasdaq's recent actions are essentially copying the 24/7 mechanism of the crypto market, but they overlook the governance structure differences of traditional stock markets. From on-chain data... No, from exchange data, the dilution of off-peak liquidity will directly undermine the incentive compatibility of market makers, which has long been confirmed in the AMM models of decentralized exchanges.
The current issue is: vested interests (institutions and market makers) will definitely oppose because their excess profit models rely on asymmetric information. But in the long run, this kind of "friction" is actually an inevitable stage of systemic evolution, similar to the transition of DAO governance from centralized snapshots to on-chain voting—short-term pain, long-term convergence.
But to be fair, if it really becomes 24/7, can risk management keep up?
View OriginalReply0
retroactive_airdrop
· 12-16 22:01
Nasdaq wants to learn crypto and run 24-hour trading, but the traditional finance DNA can't be changed.
When liquidity is diluted, spreads blow up, and retail investors suffer even more... This isn't progress, it's just harvesting the little guys.
System stability is really a pit; who is responsible when it crashes at 3 a.m.?
View OriginalReply0
zkProofGremlin
· 12-16 21:58
tbh Nasdaq's 24-hour trading system really makes me want to learn crypto, but what about wire... The traditional financial infrastructure simply can't hold up.
View OriginalReply0
DeepRabbitHole
· 12-16 21:36
NGL, Nasdaq's approach is basically trying to learn crypto, but the traditional financial infrastructure simply can't handle it.
When liquidity is diluted, the spread skyrockets, and retail investors get wiped out... That's why crypto natives aren't afraid of 24/7 trading, but Wall Street folks are panicking.
Nasdaq is pushing toward near-24-hour trading. But here's the thing—plenty of Wall Street players aren't buying it.
The push to extend trading hours sounds modern, sounds inevitable given how crypto markets never sleep. Yet institutional traders, market makers, and some risk managers are raising real concerns. Their arguments? Thinner liquidity during off-peak hours could spike spreads. Smaller players without 24/7 monitoring capabilities get squeezed out. And system stability during weird hours when volumes tank—that's a legitimate headache.
It's the classic tension: innovation vs. operational reality. Crypto folks already live in 24/7 markets, and yeah, it works. But traditional equity markets have different DNA. Different participant bases. Different infrastructure expectations.
The debate matters because it hints at something bigger—how legacy financial systems are getting pressure to adapt, whether from regulatory push or competitive anxiety. Sometimes evolution is smooth. Sometimes it creates friction. This one's looking like the latter.