Two of the most chaotic tokens explosions of the year, the Movement Labs movement scandal and the mantra om collapse, are sending shock waves through Crypto market manufacturing businesses.
In both cases, rapid prices accidents revealed hidden actors, unlocking token questionable and supposed secondary agreements that blinded market participants, and OM fell more than 90% at the end of April at the end of April without apparent catalyst.
Unlike traditional finance, where market manufacturers provide differential supply differentials in regulated places, cryptocurrency manufacturers often operate more as high -risk commercial desks.
They are not only quoting prices; They are negotiating tokens assignments to the launch, accepting blockages, structuring liquidity for centralized exchanges and sometimes taking capital actions or advice.
The result is a murky space where the provision of liquidity is entangled with private agreements, tokenomic and, often, internal policy.
An exhibition of Coendesk at the end of April showed how some executives of Movement Labs colluded with their own market manufacturer to yield $ 38 million in motion in the open market.
Now, some companies question if they have been too informal to trust the counterparts. How do you cover a position when tokens unlock schedules are opaque? What happens when the handshake treats in silence annuls the DAO proposals?
“Our approach now includes more extensive preliminary discussions and educational sessions with project teams to ensure that market manufacturing mechanics thoroughly,” he told Coindesk in an interview with headquarters in the Metalpha market, based in Hong Kong, in an interview.
“Our structures of agreement have evolved to emphasize the long -term strategic alignment on short -term performance metrics, incorporating specific safeguards against little ethical behaviors, such as excessive Token discharge and the volume of artificial trade,” he said.
Behind the scene, the conversations intensify. The terms of the agreement are being analyzed more carefully. Some liquidity desks are reassessing how they subscribe the risk of tokens.
Others demand more strict transparency, or move away from murky projects completely.
“The projects no longer accept prestigious reputations to the letter, after witnessing how even established players can exploit shadow allocations or participate in the sale of harmful tokens,” said Metalpha web3 web3 chief, Max Sun. “The era of the presumption of confidence has concluded,” he said.
Under the polished surface of the tokens launch ads and the market manufacturing agreements is another cryptocurrency layer: the OTC secondary market, where closed tokens silently change the hands before the acquisition cliffs hit the public eye.
These underlying agreements, often achieved among the first sponsors, funds and unions, are now distorting the dynamics of the supply and discovery of biased prices, some merchants say. And for market manufacturers responsible for providing ordered liquidity, they are becoming an increasingly opaque and dangerous variable.
“The OTC secondary market has changed the dynamics of the industry,” said Min Jung, a Presto Research analyst, who directs a market manufacturing unit. “If you look at the tokens with a suspicious price action, such as $ Layer, $ OM, $ Move and others, they are often those that are negotiated more actively in the secondary market of OTC.”
“All the supply and award schedule has been distorted due to these offers outside the market, and for liquid funds, the real challenge is to discover when the supply is unlock,” Jung added.
In a market where the price is fiction and supply, it is negotiated in the rear rooms, the real risk is not the volatility for merchants: it believes that the float is what the white document and the founders say it is.
Read more: Labs movement secretly promised the advisors of millions in tokens, show the leaked documents
