RFQ vs Order Book for CS2 Skin Options
Request-for-quote trading asks a maker for a firm, time-bound quote. For CS2 skin options, RFQ can be more honest than displaying shallow or stale public order-book depth.
RFQ in plain language
A user requests or views a quote for a specific market, strike, expiry, and side. A maker responds with terms that can be accepted within a short TTL.
Why not a public order book?
CS2 skins are heterogeneous and liquidity can be thin. RFQ avoids implying depth that may not exist and lets makers price specific inventory and settlement constraints.
What users should expect
Quotes may not always be available, prices can change, and beta controls may limit supported markets or trade sizes.
RFQ vs order book comparison
| Dimension | RFQ on CSfi | Public order book |
|---|---|---|
| Quote certainty | Terms are firm only during a short TTL after maker pricing. | Visible orders may be stale, shallow, or disappear before execution. |
| Skin specificity | Quotes can account for eligible skin, custody state, strike, expiry, and maker limits. | Standard books can struggle with heterogeneous skins and option terms. |
| Liquidity signal | Availability is explicit: either a quote exists or it does not. | Displayed depth can imply more liquidity than actually executable. |
| Best use case | Bespoke or thin markets where makers need to price current constraints. | Highly standardized, liquid markets with continuous two-sided depth. |
FAQ
Is an RFQ quote firm?
A quote is intended to be firm only while its TTL is active and all required checks pass.
Does RFQ hide market risk?
No. RFQ changes how quotes are sourced; it does not remove price, liquidity, custody, or settlement risks.