Market makers are frequently referred to as the oil that keeps the world’s financial markets running. They guarantee that buyers and sellers can interact effectively, offer liquidity, and reduce spreads. However, market makers have not always fulfilled this admirable function in the bitcoin space. They have been embroiled in allegations of pump-and-dump schemes, price manipulation, and inflating trading volumes for a large portion of the last ten years, which have tarnished the market’s reputation.
The demands for transparency, compliance, and fair market behaviour, however, are quickly increasing as the crypto industry develops and draws in a larger number of institutional investors. The era of murky contracts and unscrupulous activities might be over with the development of on-chain infrastructure and decentralised trade systems.
This article examines the function of market makers in cryptocurrency, historical issues, developing remedies, and potential future developments for this vital component of the ecosystem.
A History of Controversy: The “Wild West” Era
Wash Trading and Manipulation
Crypto market makers are being criticised for reasons that go beyond conjecture. In the last year alone, wash trading was responsible for an astounding $2.6 billion in recorded exchange transactions, according to a recent Chainalysis research. In traditional finance, wash trading—in which the same firm purchases and sells an asset to generate artificial activity—is strictly prohibited; but, in the cryptocurrency space, it has long been accepted.
To make matters worse, almost 3.5 percent of all tokens introduced in the previous year showed obvious indications of pump-and-dump operations. Considering that over two million tokens were introduced during that time, the percentage may seem little, but it becomes concerning. Many of them never succeeded in real markets, existing only to profit from initial excitement before going extinct.
Why It Was Tolerated
Stock exchanges that are subject to regulation would never tolerate such actions. However, these were dismissed as growing pains in the still-emerging cryptocurrency business, or even subtly urged to preserve the appearance of thriving markets. Indiscriminate agreements were frequently made by projects in dire need of funding with market makers who were more concerned with inflating figures than creating sustainable ecosystems.
Crypto trading’s reputation has long been damaged by this “house of ill repute” image. But the tolerance for such behaviour is rapidly shrinking as institutional money enters the market.
The Role of Market Makers: In Theory vs. Reality
The Ideal Function
Market makers are essential to any financial system when they are functioning at their peak. In order to maintain liquidity and avoid excessive price volatility, they are prepared to buy and sell assets. They increase market efficiency by reducing the bid-ask spread, or the difference between the buying and selling prices.
This allows investors to make fast transactions without significantly altering pricing. Market makers make money by taking advantage of tiny spreads across a high number of deals.
The Murky Reality in Crypto
However, the market-making mechanisms in cryptocurrency have frequently been anything but clear in reality. Trading companies and token initiatives usually have private, customised, and ill-aligned contracts. A lot of transactions were set up to generate fictitious activity instead of real liquidity.
In the community, this has led to mistrust. A recent LO:TECH survey found that over half of respondents have low faith in cryptocurrency market makers. It’s concerning that 70% of respondents even demanded that rogue operators be held legally accountable.
Market makers are crucial to liquidity, but their reputation in the cryptocurrency space has been severely damaged. This is a glaring example of the perception issue.
Market Update: Bitcoin Holds Strong, Ethereum Consolidates, and Lyno AI Presale Gains Momentum
Toward a New Standard: Bringing Order to Chaos
The Case for Documentation Standards
Borrowing from the traditional finance playbook is one suggested option. Contracts between projects, exchanges, and market makers are regulated by explicit legal documentation in mainstream markets, which minimises disagreements and establishes roles.
Similar criteria could revolutionise the crypto industry. Template agreements that are based on regulated marketplaces but modified for Web3 are suggested by LO:TECH. Transparency, legal enforceability, and perhaps even on-chain codification would characterise such contracts.
The advantages are clear: less legal risks, less wrangling, and a move away from informal agreements towards enforced clarity.
Aligning Incentives
The interests of investors, liquidity providers, and token projects may all be better served by clear contracts. Agreements should encourage sustainable liquidity, fair spreads, and performance-based outcomes rather than rewarding volume manipulation.
EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa Program: Updated Fees Cleared for Release
On-Chain Solutions: Technology as Discipline
Automated Market Makers (AMMs)
Technology has previously shown that it can enforce discipline in the case of decentralised finance (DeFi). Algorithms known as automated market makers (AMMs) are now essential to decentralised exchanges such as Uniswap since they determine token prices based on liquidity pools.
By eliminating human intervention in price-setting, these systems lessen the likelihood of manipulation. Traditional market makers and centralized order books are still used by the majority of tokens, nevertheless.
On-Chain Limit-Order Books
Blockchain transparency and traditional trade structure are being combined in a new era of innovation. The orderly structure of stock exchanges is replicated in on-chain limit-order books, which use a fully auditable ledger. By enabling real-time monitoring of all trading activity, manipulative tactics are reduced.
Vault-Based Liquidity Models
The vault model is another innovative approach that shows promise for providing liquidity. Assets are consolidated under open guidelines into vaults under community management in this arrangement. After that, market-making techniques can be automated, and liquidity providers can receive dividends based on performance.
Incentives for projects, suppliers, and traders are aligned with this configuration. By allowing for public auditing of all regulations and outcomes, it also fosters accountability.
OECD Warns of Global Economic Slowdown as Trump’s Tariffs Bite
The Future of Crypto Market Making
From Opacity to Transparency
For years, the cryptocurrency market-making sector has prospered in secrecy. However, a significant change is being compelled by the combination of institutional demand, regulatory scrutiny, and blockchain-enabled transparency.
Market makers of the future will be evaluated more on their ability to create transparent, auditable, and decomposable systems that work well with decentralised protocols than on their ability to generate artificially tight spreads.
The Sceptics’ View
Naturally, sceptics contend that malicious actors would constantly hunt for new weaknesses. No system—no matter how transparent or automated—can completely replace the confidence that regulated institutions offer. The difficulty lies in making sure that on-chain systems don’t just open up additional ways for misuse to occur.
A Path to Respectability
Still, these changes have the potential to turn market makers from “necessary evils” into valued collaborators if implemented properly. Crypto liquidity providers can show they are more than simply opportunists; they are essential components of a long-term financial ecosystem by embracing composability, adopting standards, and aligning incentives.
Conclusion:
Crypto market makers have been the backbone of the system for more than ten years; they are respected yet distrusted, essential but regarded with suspicion. That tolerance is diminishing as the sector develops. Institutional investors expect the same level of transparency and accountability as traditional markets.
There are solutions, which is excellent news. Crypto can create a more robust market structure with automated processes, incentive-aligned vault models, standardised contracts, and on-chain enforcement.
Market makers will be viewed as professional partners rather than shady dealmakers if these measures are successful. In that regard, the industry is about to undergo a change in which sunshine will finally be the most effective disinfectant.