部分用戶對網格交易平台的疑慮 Some users' concerns regarding grid trading platforms

我在其他平台關於加密貨幣的討論區，看到兩則關於網格交易的發文，但內容我並沒有求證過，不能保證正確性，只是提出來給未來想要接觸網格交易，或剛開始網格交易的人參考。

第一個平台是幣安上的網格交易，有用戶發現將資金丟進去一陣子後，機器人被停止運作，經過跟客服反應的到的回答，是因為劇烈波動，交易次數頻繁導致預留手續費不足，所以網格交易因此而遭到停止。

這一段回應雖然好像很有道理，但實際上聽起來是幣安在設計網格機器人的時候，賺取的利潤不足以支付手續費，以扣掉手續費的報酬率吸引投資者，將資金放入幣安的網格機器人中，藉此自動化吸取投資者的交易手續費，照常理來說要永續經營，應該是扣掉手續費讓投資者還有賺頭，才能讓機器人不斷的運作下去，幣安也才有持續的手續費用可以賺取。

但是幣安身為老交易所，這點會想不透嗎? 我自己是抱持一個懷疑的態度，如果這麼明顯的失誤，一下就可以被投資者用簡單的邏輯推斷出來，那就是一種殺雞取卵的概念，我在這邊也只是將別人的經驗做分享，如果正在或未來使用幣安網格交易的時候，可以稍微注意一下，我自己目前是沒有使用，所以也不太確定說法的正確性。

第二個平台是派網的網格交易，有位分享者提到有可能是假交易，也是在沒預警的情況下被停止機器人，導致在前幾日的幣價大漲之中沒吃到利潤，不過也有其他人回應，在創建有槓桿的機器人，當下就有提醒當機器人控管資產達到多少就會停止交易，所以算是鬧了一個烏龍。

我自己有放一點資金在派網，與上面的經驗分享比較，沒有因為手續費不足而停止的情況，因為都有預留手續費後還有利潤，運行了兩年都還沒出現過手續費不足而停止運作的情況，我覺得這才是比較正常的情況。

再來談到派網有明確的提醒，但仔細一想還是有點不合理之處，派網是一個以網格交易作為宣傳的交易平台，照理說用戶的資產越滾越大，交易量越來越多，抽的手續費也會隨之增加，但怎麼會設下一個倉位達到多少就停止運作的條件，也許派網有他的考量。

我往壞的方面想，也許派網在這些就有槓桿的機器人運作上，沒有進行實質性的交易，而是單純的對賭行為，我猜想也許有可能是因為派網身為一個小型交易所，並沒有真的那麼多交易量去支撐高槓桿帶來的交易需求，特別是這個平台主打的是網格交易，大多數的用戶應該也是因此而使用派網，所以大多數的人交易策略應該是雷同的，而交易的完成應該是要有去接受這個訂單，如果多數人都使用一樣的交易策略，又有誰去接這個訂單呢? 可能有少數在複數平台間賺取的價差的人接單，但可能沒法完全應付這些槓桿訂單的需求，所以我才有虛假交易的推論。

雖然我在coingecko這種觀測網站上查詢派網交易量不小，但我是抱持懷疑態度，不知道這些交易量是否百分之百為真，如果正在使用或未來想使用派網，也可以好好想想是否要投入大量資金。

The following text was translated by ChatGPT, and there may be some areas where the sentences are not very smooth, so please forgive any imperfections.

I came across two posts on another platform regarding grid trading in the cryptocurrency market. However, I haven't verified the content and cannot guarantee its accuracy. I'm sharing this information for those interested in or just starting with grid trading.

The first platform discussed grid trading on Binance, The person who shared it found that after putting the funds in for a while, the robot stopped functioning. According to feedback from customer support, the reason was attributed to intense market volatility, resulting in insufficient reserved transaction fees and consequently stopping grid trading.

While this explanation may seem reasonable, it raises suspicions that Binance designed the grid trading bot to attract investors with a return rate that couldn't cover the fees. In a sustainable model, investors should be able to profit after deducting fees, ensuring the continuous operation of the bot and providing ongoing transaction fees for Binance.

As a well-established exchange, it seems unlikely that Binance would overlook such a crucial aspect. I remain skeptical and suggest caution for those using or considering Binance for grid trading, although I cannot verify the accuracy of these claims as I am not currently using it.

The second platform is Pionex, where a user mentioned the possibility of false trading. The trading bot was unexpectedly stopped, leading to a missed opportunity for profit during a recent surge in coin prices. However, others responded that when creating a leveraged bot, there is an immediate alert that notifies when the bot's asset management reaches a certain level, preventing further trading. Therefore, it was considered a misunderstanding or false alarm.

I have invested some funds in Pionex, and in comparison to the previous shared experience, I haven't encountered a situation where the bot stopped due to insufficient fees. With reserved transaction fees, the bot has been operational for two years without any issues related to fee shortages, which I consider a more normal scenario.

Speaking of Pionex, it provides clear alerts. However, upon closer inspection, there seems to be a somewhat illogical aspect. Pionex is a trading platform promoted for grid trading. Ideally, as users' assets grow, trading volumes increase, and the collected fees should also rise. Nevertheless, the condition of setting a position level to stop operations raises questions. Perhaps Pionex has its reasons for this decision.

Considering a negative perspective, it's possible that Pionex, in the operation of leveraged bots, may not engage in substantial trading but rather conduct speculative gambling. This speculation arises from the idea that as a smaller exchange, Pionex might lack the necessary trading volume to support the demand generated by high-leverage trading, especially since the platform emphasizes grid trading. As a result, most users might employ similar trading strategies, and if the majority follow the same strategy, there may be a challenge in finding counterparties to accept those orders. While a few individuals may take advantage of price differences across multiple platforms, they might not fully meet the demands of these leveraged orders, leading to the assumption of false trading.

Although Pionex's trading volume appears substantial on observation sites like CoinGecko, I approach this with a skeptical attitude, questioning the authenticity of these figures. For those currently using or considering Pionex in the future, it's advisable to carefully consider whether to invest significant funds.