Three scenarios showing how trade size, tolerance setting, and order splitting change the arithmetic of a fill. Start with what is slippage in crypto if the terms here are unfamiliar.
How to read these examples
Every number on this page is invented. The prices, sizes, and depths below are round hypotheticals chosen because they make the arithmetic easy to follow — they are not market data, not real fills, not any platform’s actual figures, and not a prediction of what any trade would do. The point of each table is the shape of the relationship, not the specific values.
Scenario 1: same market, three trade sizes
A hypothetical token quoted at $2.00, traded against a pool with limited depth. As each order consumes more of the available depth, its average fill price rises. This is the liquidity-driven cause described in why slippage happens.
| Amount spent | Tokens if no slippage | Tokens actually received | Average price paid | Slippage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $100 | 50.00 | 49.95 | $2.002 | 0.1% |
| $1,000 | 500.00 | 495.00 | $2.020 | 1.0% |
| $10,000 | 5,000.00 | 4,650.00 | $2.151 | 7.0% |
The relationship is not linear. Ten times the order size produces far more than ten times the slippage, because each additional slice of the order consumes progressively worse-priced depth.
Scenario 2: same trade, three tolerance settings
The same $1,000 order at a $2.00 quote, under three different tolerance values. Tolerance does not change what the market gives you — it changes the worst outcome you have agreed to accept, which is also the ceiling described in sandwich attacks and slippage.
| Tolerance | Minimum tokens you accept | Worst price this permits | Most this permits losing vs. quote |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.5% | 497.50 | $2.010 | $5 |
| 2% | 490.00 | $2.041 | $20 |
| 15% | 425.00 | $2.353 | $150 |
Raising tolerance from 0.5% to 15% does not make a trade thirty times more likely to succeed. It makes the worst acceptable outcome thirty times worse. See the slippage tolerance setting for how to choose a value.
Scenario 3: one large order versus four smaller ones
The same $10,000 from Scenario 1, split into four $2,500 trades instead of one. Each smaller trade consumes less depth at once, so each fills closer to the quote — but each also pays its own network fee. A hypothetical $3 fee is used here.
| Approach | Tokens received | Slippage cost | Network fees | Total cost vs. quote |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| One $10,000 order | 4,650.00 | $700 | $3 | $703 |
| Four $2,500 orders | 4,910.00 | $180 | $12 | $192 |
Splitting wins here because the slippage saved is far larger than the extra fees. That will not always be true — on a small trade in a deep market, the fees can easily exceed the slippage saved, which is why splitting is a technique rather than a rule.