BigTime said in a research note on market-making agreements and disclosure that partnerships between token projects and market makers are rarely just a simple liquidity service. In many cases, they combine three layers at once: service, inventory and derivatives. Which layer carries the most weight shapes the real effect on token supply.
The report covers market-making service partnerships and disclosure practices, with data current through 2026-09-13 and based on public reporting. It was written by BigTime.
Low disclosure leaves "market maker enters" headlines open to very different readings
BigTime said announcements that "a market maker has officially come on board" are among the most common partnership headlines published by crypto projects. Readers often treat them as positive news because they suggest that a professional firm is willing to support liquidity for the token.
But the note says those announcements usually sit on top of a market-making services agreement that is almost never made public. Based on industry statistics from April 2026, fewer than 1% of crypto projects disclosed the terms of their market-making partnerships, according to media-cited figures. Outside observers generally cannot see the obligations in the contract, the size and maturity of any options, or the way fees are calculated.
BigTime said the transparency of that document determines whether the announcement can be interpreted correctly.
What usually appears in a market-making contract
According to the report, most partnerships between projects and market makers follow a similar framework, with five common groups of terms.
Token lending and inventory
A project or foundation may lend a batch of tokens to a market maker as inventory for continuous quoting. The eventual destination of those tokens depends on the contract language.
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 price at maturity is below the strike, the market maker returns the tokens. If the price is above the strike, the market maker buys them at the strike price. In other words, the same "partnership" may also contain a future right to buy.
Quoting obligations
These terms define where the market maker must quote, how long the obligation lasts, and what spread and depth standards must be maintained. BigTime described this as the core service the project is paying for.
Fees and incentives
The report also lists fee payment methods, token incentives and whether compensation is linked to trading volume as standard parts of these agreements.
Exit conditions
This section covers contract length, the circumstances under which the agreement can be terminated early, and how inventory is handled at the end.
Why opacity matters
BigTime said the problem with undisclosed terms is that the same market-maker announcement can support at least two different interpretations.
Under the first reading, the project is simply buying liquidity services, while the market maker earns spread income and service fees.
Under the second, the project uses a borrowed-token-plus-option structure to arrange for part of its token sales at a future date. In that case, the arrival of a market maker also functions as the setup of a distribution channel.
The report said both readings can exist legally and compliantly in the market. The difference lies in the contract terms. When fewer than 1% of projects disclose those terms, readers cannot easily tell which version they are looking at.
BigTime pointed to token unlocks as a more practical example. If an option maturity date or an inventory return date overlaps with a large unlock, the sell pressure absorbed by the market may come from several arrangements at once, while outsiders can only see price movement.
The note also stressed that opaque terms do not by themselves prove manipulation. Determining specific conduct requires a full trading record. A single order-book screenshot is not enough, and speculation in public reports is not enough either. The issue, BigTime said, is one of verification, not proof that something improper must have happened.
Two reference cases: GSR and Binance
BigTime said the industry is not entirely without examples moving in a more transparent direction, and highlighted two cases.
The first is GSR’s asset-management business. The report said GSR’s actively managed ETF, BESO, listed on Nasdaq in April 2026 and discloses holdings under public-fund rules. Its website also publishes the Core3 model portfolio, with allocations and performance updated weekly. BigTime added that a third-party citation showed a drawdown of more than 50% in a single month in August 2026, and that figure was still displayed.
In BigTime’s view, putting portfolio composition and performance on display for scrutiny is a basic condition for trust in asset management, and that stands in contrast to the black-box nature of token market-making contracts.
The second case is a rule change on the exchange side. The report said Binance tightened its market-maker rules in March 2026, according to media reports, suggesting that trading venues are also confronting the same information asymmetry.
BigTime said neither case means the industry has already become transparent. What they do show is a direction: when an asset class wants institutional capital, disclosure standards tend to rise. The note said this is also a useful lens for tokenized asset markets, where markets with deeper institutional participation tend to face disclosure expectations closer to those in traditional finance.
Four questions to ask when a project announces a market maker
BigTime said readers do not need to wait for the whole industry to become more transparent before filtering these announcements. The report suggests four questions.
- What is the scope of service? Does the announcement refer to market making, OTC, or advisory work? Different services come with different incentive structures.
- Were any terms disclosed? Does the announcement include even one concrete item such as the amount of borrowed tokens, the option structure, or the maturity date? If none of that appears, BigTime said the news should not be treated as a pure positive without discounting it.
- How do maturity dates line up with unlock schedules? The report said contract periods are usually six to 12 months. Readers can compare that timeline with the project’s unlock calendar and pay closer attention where they overlap.
- How long do quoting obligations last? Announcements usually do not say who will support liquidity after the service period ends, but BigTime said that point is central to whether a paid service turns into lasting market quality.
The report said these four questions are not meant to predict price or accuse anyone. Their purpose is to turn a one-way positive headline into a checklist of facts that can actually be examined.
BigTime added that market expectations around these questions are likely to rise, and that projects disclosing on this standard earlier may gain institutional trust sooner. The note also referred readers to its separate report, "GSR Deep Dive," for fuller research on GSR.
Risk note and source note
At the end of the report, BigTime said statistics such as the industry disclosure ratio come from media reports and are limited by sample size and methodology. It also said the contract structures described are general summaries of industry mechanisms rather than claims about any specific project or company, and that rules and disclosure practices may change with the regulatory environment.
The source note said the disclosure ratio for market-making contracts came from industry reporting in April 2026, as cited by media accounts; the Core3 portfolio information came from GSR Insights, while the monthly performance figure was cited by a third party; and the Binance rule change was based on media reporting from March 2026. The report said the analysis does not constitute investment advice.
The disclaimer said the report was produced by BigTime Industry Research, compiled from public materials, and does not constitute investment advice, an offer, or a return commitment. It also said past performance does not represent future results and that reproduction or excerpting without written permission is prohibited. BigTime added that it will continue to cover market making, liquidity and institutional asset markets in future reports.
