BigTime said one of the most common announcements in crypto — that a market maker has officially entered a project — often cannot be read at face value because the underlying market-making agreement is rarely public. Citing industry statistics from April 2026, the report said fewer than 1% of crypto projects disclosed the terms of their market-making partnerships, leaving outsiders with little visibility into obligations, option sizes and expiry dates, or fee calculations.
In BigTime’s view, the transparency of that agreement determines whether the announcement can be interpreted correctly.
What usually appears in a market-making contract
The report said most partnerships between token issuers and market makers follow a similar framework, usually covering five areas.
- Token lending and inventory: a project team or foundation lends a batch of tokens to the market maker as inventory for continuous quoting. The final destination of those tokens depends on the contract.
- Option arrangements: one common structure is for the project to sell call options to the market maker at the same time it lends tokens. If the market price is below the strike at expiry, the market maker returns the tokens. If the price is above the strike, the market maker buys them at the strike price. BigTime said that means a single cooperation agreement may also embed a future right to buy.
- Quoting obligations: these define where the market maker must quote, for how long, and what spread and depth standards it must maintain.
- Fees and incentives: these cover how service fees are paid, whether token incentives are included, and whether compensation is tied to trading volume.
- Exit terms: these set the contract length, conditions for early termination, and how inventory is handled at the end.
BigTime said a market-making arrangement can therefore combine three layers at once: service, inventory, and derivatives. Which layer dominates shapes the real effect on token supply.
Why opacity matters
The report said that when terms are not disclosed, the same announcement can support at least two very different readings.
One reading is straightforward: the project is buying liquidity services, and the market maker earns spread income and service fees.
The other is that the project uses a token-loan-plus-option structure to arrange for part of its token sales at a future date. Under that reading, a market maker “coming on board” can also mean a distribution channel is being set up.
BigTime said both structures can exist legally and compliantly in the market. The difference lies in the contract terms. But when fewer than 1% of projects disclose those terms, readers cannot tell which version they are looking at.
The report pointed to token unlocks as a practical example. If an option expiry date or inventory return date overlaps with a large unlock event, the market may be absorbing sell pressure from several arrangements at once, while outside observers only see price movement.
BigTime also said opaque terms do not equal manipulation. Determining specific conduct requires complete trading records, the report said, and neither a single order-book screenshot nor speculation in public reports is enough to make that call. The problem, in its framing, is not proof of wrongdoing but the inability to verify.
Two reference cases: GSR and Binance
BigTime said the industry is not entirely without examples moving toward greater transparency, and it highlighted two cases.
The first is GSR’s asset-management business. According to the report, GSR’s actively managed ETF, BESO, listed on Nasdaq in April 2026 and discloses holdings under public-fund rules. Its website also publishes weekly allocation and performance updates for the Core3 model portfolio. BigTime said a third party cited a drawdown of more than 50% for a single month in August 2026, and that result was still displayed. The report contrasted that level of visibility with the black-box nature of token market-making contracts, saying that putting portfolio composition and performance out in the open is a basic condition for trust in asset management.
The second case is a rule change on the exchange side. BigTime said Binance tightened its market-maker rules in March 2026, based on media reports, which it described as a sign that trading venues are also confronting the same information asymmetry.
The report said neither case means the industry has already become transparent. What they do show, in BigTime’s view, is a direction of travel: when an asset class wants institutional capital, disclosure standards tend to rise. The report said this is also a useful lens for tokenized assets, where markets with deeper institutional participation tend to move closer to traditional-market disclosure expectations for market-making arrangements.
Four questions to ask when a market maker “enters”
BigTime said readers do not need to wait for the whole industry to become more transparent before filtering these announcements more carefully. It suggested four questions.
- What is the scope of service? Is the announcement about market making, OTC, or advisory work? The incentive structure differs across those services.
- Are any terms disclosed? Does the announcement include even one concrete item, such as token loan size, option structure, or expiry date? If it includes none of them, BigTime said the market should discount any attempt to frame the news as a pure positive.
- How do expiry dates line up with unlock schedules? The report said market-making contracts usually run for 6 to 12 months, so readers can compare that period with the project’s token unlock calendar and pay closer attention where they overlap.
- How long do quoting obligations last? Announcements usually do not say who supports liquidity after the service term ends, but BigTime said that question is central to whether a paid service actually leaves behind lasting market quality.
BigTime said these questions are not meant to predict price or accuse anyone. They are meant to turn a one-way positive headline into a checklist of verifiable facts. The report added that market expectations around these issues are likely to rise, and that projects disclosing on this standard earlier may gain institutional trust sooner.
Risk note and source note
The report said the disclosure-ratio statistics came from media coverage and are limited by sample size and methodology. It also said the contract structures described are general industry mechanisms rather than commentary on any specific project or company, and that rules and disclosure practices may change with the regulatory environment.
In its source note, BigTime said the market-making contract disclosure ratio came from industry reporting in April 2026; the Core3 portfolio information came from GSR Insights, while the single-month performance figure was cited by a third party; and the Binance rule adjustment was based on media reports from March 2026. The firm added that the report was compiled from public materials and does not constitute investment advice, an offer, or a return commitment, and that past performance does not represent future results.
BigTime said it will continue publishing research on market making, liquidity, and institutional asset markets.
