How to evaluate a crypto market maker

Token teams are often asked to choose a market maker quickly, sometimes in the same week as a listing announcement. Speed is a real constraint, but most of the risk sits in inventory, legal terms, and mismatched expectations. A short, structured conversation is usually enough to see whether a firm is worth a closer reading of the contract.

This is a diligence checklist, not a rating of any particular firm. An introduction, including one made through this site, is not a substitute for your own review.

Questions worth asking

Which exchanges do you already operate on, and which of our target venues would be in scope at the start?
How do you describe your quoting approach in plain language — spread, depth, and how you handle volatility or thin conditions?
Where does inventory sit, in whose name, and what does withdrawal look like at the end of the engagement or if the agreement is terminated early?
Is the commercial model a retainer, an inventory loan, a call option or similar instrument, or a mix? What exactly is being paid, and what is being lent?
What reporting will we receive, how often, and what will it actually show?
Who is the legal entity on the contract, and who is authorized to receive assets?
What happens if the listing date moves, a venue is delayed, or we add or drop a pair?

You are listening for concrete answers, not for confidence. A firm that can explain inventory and risk clearly is easier to work with than one that leans on volume screenshots.

Documents and terms to read carefully

Before any tokens or stablecoins move, you should have a written agreement and a clear picture of:

The legal name of the counterparty, and whether it matches the accounts that will hold inventory.
Loan size, duration, interest or fees if any, and the conditions for return or settlement.
Fee schedule and what it does and does not include (venues, pairs, overtime, additional listings).
Custody, account control, and any restrictions on transferring inventory onward.
Reporting, confidentiality, and permitted use of your name or token in the firm’s marketing.
Termination, notice periods, and what happens to open inventory and accrued fees.

Independent legal review is worth the delay. References from other projects can be useful, but they are not a substitute for the contract, and a happy reference does not tell you how a messy unwind would work.

Red flags

None of these is subtle, and any one of them is a reason to pause:

A guaranteed price, market cap, or return.
A promise to “support,” “defend,” or “pump” the token.
A volume commitment that is sold as a deliverable, especially if the firm will not explain how volume would be generated.
A request to send inventory to a personal wallet, an unnamed account, or an entity that is not on the contract.
Pressure to prepay a large amount, or to transfer assets, before you have a signed agreement.
A vague or shifting legal identity, or an unwillingness to put loan terms, fees, and reporting in writing.
A pitch that treats wash trading, wash-like volume, or coordinated self-trading as a normal tactic.

High advertised volume with no explanation is not evidence of skill. It is a question you should ask, and an unsatisfactory answer is information.

Comparing proposals

It is reasonable to talk to more than one firm. Compare them on venues, inventory terms, reporting, legal clarity, and operational fit — not only on a headline monthly fee. A cheaper retainer with poorly defined loan terms can be the more expensive arrangement once you include inventory risk and the cost of an ugly exit.

Costs in this market vary by exchange, scope, and inventory. There is no single benchmark that makes a proposal “the right price” on its own.