🚨 Crypto’s Dirty Little Secret: Market Makers Gone Wild! 🚨

by

So, there you are, minding your own business, sipping your intergalactic coffee (probably tastes like burnt asteroids, but hey, it’s trendy), when suddenly, the Movement Foundation (MOVE) token decides to take a nosedive. Not just any nosedive-a 20% plunge, courtesy of a market-maker’s $38 million dump. Retail holders? Underwater. Faster than you can say “42,” Coinbase delists it, Binance freezes profits, and the founders are left scrambling like a Vogon trying to write poetry. The media? Oh, they had a field day, churning out articles like a malfunctioning towel dispenser. 🧻💥

A Guide to Getting Screwed

Founders don’t sign these deals expecting a slap in the face, but that’s exactly what they get. Promised liquidity? Sure. Tighter spreads? Maybe. But what they often end up with are mispriced call options, distorted incentives, and a structural disadvantage that’s harder to unwind than a Babel fish’s contract. 🐟📜

Market makers aren’t evil-they’re just businesses. But after watching 1.8 million token launches fail this year alone, they’ve perfected the art of protecting their bottom line. Their weapon of choice? The “loan + call option” agreement. It sounds fancy, but it’s basically a way for them to borrow tokens, provide liquidity, and then hedge their bets by selling. Because, you know, why build a healthy market when you can lock in riskless profit? 💼🤑

On paper, it’s a win-win. In reality, it’s more like a win-lose, with founders and retail holders on the losing end. Strike prices are set so high they’d make Zaphod Beeblebrox blush, and vesting schedules are back-loaded like a bad space buffet. 🥘🚀

Why Do Projects Sign These Deals? Because They Have No Choice.

Here’s the kicker: most projects have no better options. The retainer model? Requires deep pockets. And after spending all their cash on legal fees and compliance, most teams are left with treasuries drier than the Sahara. So, they take the cheaper route: loan their tokens, cross their fingers, and hope it doesn’t blow up. Spoiler: it often does. 💣🤞

Some founders even go full-on desperate, using their tokens as collateral to bid up their own market. It works-for a while. But then the sell-offs hit, retail buyers lose faith, and the project crashes harder than a starship with a faulty improbability drive. 🌟💥

The real problem? Information asymmetry. Market makers are derivatives pros; founders are product builders. It’s like pitting a chess grandmaster against someone who’s never seen a chessboard. The result? Lopsided terms, hidden risks, and a whole lot of regret. ♟️😢

Dragging Market Makers Into the Light

What’s truly baffling is the lack of transparency. No benchmarks, no disclosures, just bespoke agreements negotiated in the shadows. And because everyone’s in a rush to launch, founders rarely realize the damage until it’s too late. It’s like signing a contract in a language you don’t understand-except the stakes are higher. 🖋️🌑

Crypto needs a better framework: standardized disclosures, benchmarking tools, and education for founders. Long-term, we need alternative liquidity models-DAOs, pooled treasuries, or founder-aligned trading desks. But these won’t emerge if the current system remains unchallenged. 🛠️🚀

For now, let’s call a spade a spade. The liquidity provisioning system in crypto is broken. If we don’t fix it, the values we claim to uphold-fairness, decentralization, user ownership-will keep eroding, one shady contract at a time. 🛡️⚖️

Shane Molidor

Shane Molidor is the founder and CEO of Forgd, a token advisory and optimization platform that provides seamless access to essential tools for blockchain projects. Probably knows more about crypto than you do, but still can’t figure out how to work a towel dispenser. 🛠️🤷‍♂️

Read More

2025-11-27 14:28