Hi - I had the same problem right at the beginning of the month, and a lot of what you are saying is not correct.
It is not the unmatched bets being counted that is the issue, but forcing people to replace bets and charging for it. It happened to me twice on the same day - I literally re-entered a load of bets and you suspended a second time, and I had to do it all again.
Also - having liquidity in markets should be your number one aim, so to actively discourage it is crazy. I dont mind the concept of a limit on volume, but to apply it without thinking about one-off exceptions or areas that are not foreseeable is self-defeating.
How can a participant plan for your suspensions? Are you saying “just dont bother putting up prices as we might take them down?”. Who fills the order book then? Or do you just want people to take prices and not make them?
Finally, there should be symmetry in all things market related, but your volume calculations massively penalise layers. There is no offset or any concept of market interaction. It goes without saying that backing the favourite at 1.1 for £10,000 is exactly the same trade as laying 100 rags at 1000/1 for £10 each. They both leave you up £1000 on the favourite and down £10,000 on all of the outsiders. Yet in your model the first on is £10,000 of volume and the second way is £1m of volume and gets you banned.
The only thing this creates is false markets as people are more incentivised to go bid side than offer side, and again you have no-one posting prices, and hundreds waiting on the sidelines looking to take prices that never arrive.
I hope that you are able to realise that banning market participants leads to empty markets and eventually no business.