What is the difference between geometric and arithmetic grid spacing?

Arithmetic spacing divides the range into equal dollar gaps, for example a rung every $5,000. Geometric spacing divides it into equal percentage gaps, where each rung is the previous one times a constant ratio. For narrow ranges they're similar; for wide crypto ranges they behave very differently.

Which grid spacing is better for crypto?

For most crypto grids, geometric. Volatility scales with price, so equal-percent rungs fill at a roughly even rhythm across the range and earn the same percentage per cycle everywhere. Equal-dollar rungs fill constantly at the top and rarely at the bottom, and pay inconsistent amounts per cycle.

Why doesn't Anello offer an arithmetic option?

Three reasons: most users never change defaults, so shipping a worse one hurts exactly the people who trust it; every extra option adds support burden without buying anything here; and Anello's constant-USD-per-order sizing already handles dollar fairness. The toggle would only let people opt into a worse-behaved version of the same strategy.

How is geometric rung spacing calculated?

Each rung is the previous rung multiplied by a constant ratio r = (upper/lower)^(1/(N−1)), where N is the number of levels. That makes every gap the same percentage move from top to bottom. Anello also enforces a minimum step of 0.3% per rung so fees don't eat the edge.

Geometric vs Arithmetic Grid Spacing: Why Anello Only Ships One

Most trading platforms offer two grid-spacing modes: arithmetic and geometric. Anello uses geometric spacing for every grid. The reason is in how each mode changes the return and fee margin at different points in the range.

This one assumes you know what a rung is. If grids are new to you, read What Is Grid Trading? and come back.

The two ways to slice a range

Say you’re building a grid from a lower bound L to an upper bound U with N levels.

Arithmetic spacing divides the range into equal dollar gaps. Each rung sits a fixed dollar amount above the last: $50,000, $55,000, $60,000, and so on. It’s what you’d draw with a ruler, and it feels natural, which is exactly why it’s usually the default elsewhere.

Geometric spacing divides the range into equal percentage gaps. Each rung is the previous one multiplied by a constant ratio r = (U/L)^(1/(N−1)). The dollar gaps grow as price rises, but every gap is the same percentage move.

For narrow ranges the two are nearly indistinguishable. Crypto ranges are not narrow.

Where arithmetic spacing breaks down

Take a BTC grid from $50,000 to $100,000 with 11 levels, a perfectly ordinary “I think we chop in this band” range where the top is 2x the bottom.

Arithmetic gives you ten equal $5,000 gaps. But a $5,000 step is not the same move everywhere in that range:

Rung pair	Dollar gap	Percentage move
$50,000 → $55,000	$5,000	10.0%
$70,000 → $75,000	$5,000	7.1%
$95,000 → $100,000	$5,000	5.3%

The same grid, geometric: every gap is 2^(1/10) ≈ 7.2%, top to bottom.

Why does this matter? Because a grid’s profit per completed round trip is the gap between rungs. With arithmetic spacing, the same bot pays you almost twice as much per cycle at the bottom of its range as at the top. Where the market spends its time determines what each fill is worth, even though the grid settings have not changed.

It also interacts badly with fees. Each fill has to clear the round-trip fee cost with room to spare, and that math is done in percent, not dollars. An arithmetic grid that’s comfortably profitable per-cycle at the bottom of a wide range can shave its top-of-range gaps thin enough that fees eat most of the edge: same grid, same settings, very different economics depending on where price is trading. A geometric grid clears the fee bar by the same margin at every rung, so checking it once means it’s checked everywhere. (Anello enforces a minimum step of 0.3% per rung for exactly this reason, see fees and risks.)

And percentage moves are how crypto actually behaves. Volatility scales with price: BTC at $100k oscillates in dollar swings roughly twice the size of BTC at $50k. Equal-percent rungs fill at a roughly even rhythm across the whole range; equal-dollar rungs fill constantly at the top and rarely at the bottom.

Why not just offer both?

The standard answer is to ship the toggle and let users choose. We think that’s the wrong call for this product, for three reasons.

The default decides everything. Most users never change defaults. If arithmetic is the default, most grids run with top-of-range economics worse than the bottom-of-range preview suggested. If geometric is the default, the toggle exists only to let people opt into a worse-behaved version of the same strategy.

A second mode adds complexity. With geometric spacing, the percentage gap is consistent across the range. An arithmetic option would add another setting while making per-fill returns depend on where price is trading.

Anello’s sizing already does the dollar-fairness job. Each level is funded with the same USD amount per order: sizing is constant in dollars while spacing is constant in percent, so every rung risks the same capital and pays the same percentage when it cycles.

Why Anello uses geometric spacing

Spacing decides whether profit per cycle stays constant or drifts with price. Equal-percent rungs keep the economics consistent across the range, reduce the fee check to a single calculation, and match how crypto volatility scales with price. That is why Anello uses geometric spacing only.