Author: BigTime
Research scope: Market-making service partnerships and information disclosure | Data as of 2026-09-13, from public reports | Produced by BigTime, grounded in market making, liquidity, and trading technology practice
Core Views
- Industry statistics from April 2026 show that fewer than 1% of crypto projects disclose the terms of their market-making partnerships, and news of a "market maker coming in" cannot distinguish between purchasing a service and arranging distribution.
- Market-making partnerships typically include five types of terms: token lending, option arrangements, quoting obligations, fees, and exit; when contract expiry overlaps with token unlocks, the actual selling pressure is difficult to verify.
- Readers can filter such news with four questions: the scope of service, whether terms are disclosed, the relationship between expiry and the unlock calendar, and the duration of quoting obligations.
"A certain market maker has officially come in" is one of the most commonly published partnership announcements by crypto projects. Readers usually interpret it as bullish: a professional institution is willing to provide liquidity for this token. But behind the news is a document that is almost never made public: the market-making service agreement. Industry statistics from April 2026 show that fewer than 1% of crypto projects disclose the terms of their market-making partnerships (as relayed by media). The obligations written into the contract, the number and expiry dates of options, and how fees are calculated are basically invisible to outsiders.
The transparency of this document directly determines whether "market maker coming in" news can be correctly interpreted.
I. What Is Usually Written in a Market-Making Contract
Most partnerships between project teams and market makers revolve around a similar framework:
- Token lending and inventory. The project team or foundation lends a batch of tokens to the market maker as the source of inventory for continuous quoting. Where this batch of tokens ultimately goes depends on how the contract is written.
- Option arrangements. A common structure is that the project team, while lending tokens, sells call options to the market maker: if the price at expiry is below the strike price, the market maker returns the tokens; if above the strike price, the market maker buys them at the strike price. In other words, the same "partnership" may have a future purchase right built into it.
- Quoting obligations. On which venues, for how long, and to what standards spreads and depth must be maintained—this is the core service the project team is buying.
- Fees and incentives. How the service fee is paid, whether there are token incentives, and whether they are tied to trading volume.
- Exit conditions. How long the contract lasts, under what circumstances it can be terminated early, and how inventory is handled.
A market-making partnership therefore contains three layers of arrangements at once: service, inventory, and derivatives. Which layer dominates determines the true impact of the partnership on token supply.
II. Why Opacity Is a Problem
The problem is that when terms are not public, the same piece of "market maker coming in" news has at least two readings.
Reading one: the project team purchased liquidity services, the market maker earns spreads and service fees, and both sides get what they need.
Reading two: through a structure of token lending plus options, the project team has scheduled the sale of part of its tokens for some future point. "Market maker coming in" is also the construction of a distribution channel.
Both readings exist in this market legally and compliantly; the difference lies only in the contract terms. And when fewer than 1% of projects disclose these terms, readers cannot distinguish which one they are seeing. A more practical scenario is token unlocks: when option expiry dates or inventory return dates overlap with large-scale unlocks, the selling pressure absorbed by the market may come from multiple arrangements at the same time, while outsiders can only see the price moving.
Opaque terms do not equal manipulation. Judging specific behavior requires complete trading records; a single order book screenshot cannot establish a conclusion, nor can speculation in public reports. We believe the transparency issue is about "being unable to verify," not "there must be something shady."
III. Two Samples for Comparison
It is not that there are no moves in the industry toward transparency.
One is GSR's asset management line. Its actively managed ETF (BESO, listed on Nasdaq in April 2026) discloses holdings according to public fund rules, and the Core3 model portfolio published on its website updates allocations and performance weekly. In August 2026, a single-month drawdown cited by third parties exceeded 50%, and it was still displayed as usual (as relayed by third parties). Putting the portfolio and performance out there for scrutiny is the precondition for trust in an asset management business, and this approach stands in contrast to the black box of token market-making contracts.
The other is a rule change on the exchange side. Binance tightened its market maker rules in March 2026 (as relayed by media), showing that trading platforms are also beginning to face the same information asymmetry.
Neither sample means the industry is already transparent, but the direction is worth recording: when a class of assets wants to attract institutional capital, disclosure standards will be raised passively. This is also a clue when observing the tokenized asset market—the higher the institutional participation in a market, the closer its disclosure requirements for market-making arrangements are to those of traditional markets.
IV. When You See News of a Market Maker Coming In, Ask Four Questions First
Readers do not need to wait for the industry to become transparent; they can filter such news right now with four questions:
- What is the scope of service? Does the announcement say market making, OTC, or advisory services? Different services have different interest structures.
- Are the terms disclosed? The number of tokens lent, the option structure, the expiry date—is even one of them in the announcement? When none of them are, treating this news as purely bullish should be discounted.
- What is the relationship between expiry and the unlock calendar? Compare the contract period (usually 6 to 12 months) with the project's unlock schedule; overlapping periods deserve extra attention.
- How long do the quoting obligations last? Who takes over liquidity after the service period ends is usually not written in the announcement, but this is the key to whether the "service" can settle into market quality.
These four questions do not predict prices, nor do they accuse anyone. They merely restore a one-sided bullish news item into a verifiable list of facts. The market's demands on such issues will only grow, and whoever discloses according to this standard first will be the first to gain the trust of institutional capital. This is the same evolutionary line as the overall landscape of the market-making industry. For a complete study of the company GSR, see "GSR Deep Research".
Risk Notice
Statistics such as the industry disclosure ratio come from media reports, and the sample and methodology are limited; the description of contract structures is a general summary of mechanisms and does not target any specific project or company; relevant rules and disclosure practices may change with the regulatory environment.
Source note: The market-making contract disclosure ratio comes from April 2026 industry reports (as relayed by media); the Core3 portfolio is available at GSR Insights, and its single-month performance figures are cited by third parties; the Binance rule adjustment is based on March 2026 media reports. The description of contract structures is a general industry mechanism analysis, does not target any specific project or company, and does not constitute investment advice.
Disclaimer: This report is produced by BigTime Industry Research, based on publicly available information, and does not constitute investment advice, an offer, or a promise of returns; historical performance does not represent the future. No reproduction or excerpting is permitted without written permission.
BigTime Industry Research continues to cover market making, liquidity, and institutional asset markets, with a series of reports to be released successively.
