> There is also a special order type called post-only. It is designed to only supply liquidity, never take liquidity. If the market moves between the decision to send out an order, and the order reaching the exchange, the order will not cross. Instead, it will be hidden, or cancelled. This makes it easier for algorithm designers to get the behavior they intend (that is, resting orders will not accidentally be converted into crossing orders).
I'd argue that an order that'd immediately be filled does provide liquidity to the market overall.
One reason to use "post-only" is explained in TFA:
> Many markets use the maker-taker fee structure. Traders that place orders that rest on the exchange earn a maker fee, and traders that “take” liquidity, that is execute orders against the existing resting orders, pay a taker fee. The taker fee is higher than the maker fee
If you do post-only, you'll get maker fees.
I'd argue that an order that'd immediately be filled does provide liquidity to the market overall.
One reason to use "post-only" is explained in TFA:
> Many markets use the maker-taker fee structure. Traders that place orders that rest on the exchange earn a maker fee, and traders that “take” liquidity, that is execute orders against the existing resting orders, pay a taker fee. The taker fee is higher than the maker fee
If you do post-only, you'll get maker fees.