Liquidity Provider "Black Box" Revealed: Did VCs Pull an Exit Scam on Liquidity Provision, Turning Projects into "Rug Pull" Victims?

By: blockbeats|2025/03/17 09:15:03
Share
copy
Original Title: "Top 10 Questions and Answers to Clarify the Market Maker 'Black Box': Why Did VCs Get Involved in Market Making? Is it Really Easy for Projects to Get 'Backstabbed'?"
Original Author: flowie, Nianqing, ChainCatcher

Last week, Binance suddenly issued a strict order to seal off market makers, shifting the conflict from VCs and exchanges to market makers. However, for most people, market makers are like a black box, difficult to understand, and often misunderstood. This article sorts out some of the common questions and reference answers that everyone is concerned about regarding cryptocurrency market makers (mainly referring to market makers serving projects on CEX).

1. Which cryptocurrency market makers are there?

RootData currently lists around 60 cryptocurrency market makers. However, the actual market participants may be far more than this, as many market makers operate incognito behind the scenes.

Among the publicly disclosed 60 market makers, only a few are active in the public eye. For most ordinary users, which market makers participate in market making projects is also a black box.

It is difficult to clearly classify or rank market makers, but based on on-chain holdings, major market makers with large fund sizes include Jump Trading, Wintermute, QCP Capital, GSR Markets, B2C2 Group, Cumberland DRW, Amber Group, and Flow Traders, which are also well-known in the market.

2. Which type of market maker could be a market manipulation whale?

From an insider's perspective, market makers are usually divided into active market makers and passive market makers. Maxxx, Head of Ecosystem at @MetalphaPro Market Making, has detailed this in his tweet. Recommended reading: "Confessions of a Market Maker Frontline Practitioner: Dark Forest Survival Guide for Project Teams."

In short, active market makers are generally what people call "whales," colluding with project teams or backstabbing them to manipulate market prices and harvest retail investors. Many active market makers may only surface after being investigated and prosecuted by regulatory authorities.

Passive market makers, on the other hand, mainly place maker orders on the order book of centralized exchanges, providing market liquidity, remaining neutral, and not influencing coin prices. The strategies and technologies they provide are also more standardized.

Due to significant compliance risks, most active market makers prefer to remain anonymous.

Some active market makers may also operate under the guise of investment firms, incubators, and the like.

The market maker Web3port, which was recently exposed and banned by Binance, appeared as an incubator, participating in 26 investments over the past year, with at least 6 of them being for newly launched projects.

Liquidity Provider

To some extent, the profitability of a market maker can reveal whether they are active or passive. According to crypto influencer @octopusycc, market-making institutions that are "profitable" are likely engaged in market manipulation rather than true market-making activities.

An ideal market maker business should provide quotes to both buyers and sellers, maintaining market liquidity and relative price stability. In this model, the profit margin is not substantial, often requiring incentives from the trading platform.

3. Which crypto market makers have been sued or investigated by regulatory authorities?

Following the crypto market crash in 2022, crypto market makers became a key focus of regulatory scrutiny. However, under the regulatory environment after Trump took office, some lawsuits have gradually been withdrawn or settled.

The first market maker to come under intense regulatory scrutiny was Jump Crypto. In 2023, a collective lawsuit in the United States revealed that during the 2022 Terra UST stablecoin crash, Jump Crypto's subsidiary, Tai Mo Shan Limited, colluded with Terra to manipulate the UST coin price, resulting in a profit of nearly $1.3 billion. As a result, they were sued by the SEC for market manipulation and acting as an unregistered securities dealer. However, in December 2024, Tai Mo Shan agreed to pay a $123 million settlement to the SEC, and recently expanded its team to resume crypto operations.

In addition to the SEC's charges, on June 20, 2024, CFTC reportedly initiated an investigation into Jump Crypto, as reported by Fortune, but CFTC has not yet filed formal charges.

Recommended Reading: "Tainted History Haunts Jump as It Awkwardly Resumes Full Crypto Operations"

Another major market maker, Cumberland DRW, was also accused by the SEC of acting as an unregistered securities dealer, and Cumberland allegedly obtained millions of dollars in illegal gains through transactions with investors. However, these charges were recently dropped.

Compared to the two major market makers mentioned above, in October 2024, an investigation launched by the SEC in collaboration with the FBI and DOJ accused eighteen individuals and entities of large-scale fraud and manipulation in the crypto market. This investigation brought some market makers to light, including Gotbit Consulting, ZM Quant Investment, and CLS Global. These market makers were primarily labeled as meme market makers.

In addition to facing regulatory charges, DWF Labs, a highly active crypto market maker in the past two years, has been exposed multiple times for market manipulation details by CoinDesk, The Block, and other media outlets.

For example, The Block stated that one key reason DWF was able to collaborate with 35% of tokens in the top 1000 by market capitalization in its short 16-month history was that DWF Labs promised "pump" to clients during negotiations. For instance, shortly after its establishment in September 2022, DWF's promotional materials extensively mentioned price action. In a section titled "Price Management," DWF claimed it could synchronize with potential clients' marketing teams to help the token's price react to relevant events, commonly known as "coordinated pump on positive news."

Recommended reading: "The Block Uncovers DWF Labs: The Operational Secrets Behind Investing in 470 Projects"

4. What are some common manipulation behaviors of market makers?

Market makers' misconduct usually manifests as market manipulation and mistreatment of project teams. Some common manipulation behaviors include:

1. Wash Trading. Creating artificial trading activity by simultaneously buying and selling assets to increase trading volume and liquidity.

2. Spoofing. Placing large buy or sell orders but having no intention to execute them. The purpose is to deceive other traders and impact asset prices.

3. Pump and Dump. These schemes involve coordination with other market participants to artificially drive up the asset's price through active buying. Then, the market maker sells at a higher price, causing a price crash.

Examples of market manipulation are not uncommon. For instance, Jump Crypto, fined $123 million for colluding with Terra to manipulate UST's price, and Alameda Research, which caused the collapse of the previous bull market.

Let's look at another example of a project team being malicious:

In October 2024, crypto game developer Fracture Labs sued Jump Trading, accusing Jump of using its DIO game token to conduct a "pump and dump" scheme.

In the lawsuit, Fracture Labs stated that in 2021, they had entered into an agreement with Jump to assist in the initial issuance of the DIO token on the cryptocurrency exchange platform Huobi (now HTX).

Fracture Labs lent 10 million DIO tokens to Jump, valued at $500,000, and additionally sent 6 million tokens to HTX, valued at $300,000. The token price subsequently surged to a high of $0.98, with Jump's borrowed value reaching $9.8 million. Jump then sold all holdings at the peak.

A "massive liquidation" caused DIO to plummet to $0.005, following which Jump repurchased 10 million tokens at a lower price (around $53,000) and returned them to Fracture Labs, terminating the agreement thereafter.

In this event, the collaboration model between Fracture Labs and Jump was a common Token loan structure. Despite being prevalent, cases where project teams are "rekt" are not uncommon.

5. What are the collaboration models between Market Makers and project teams?

As mentioned earlier, Market Makers are divided into active and passive categories.

Active Market Makers often do not have standard practices. Maxxx mentioned in a tweet that the terms of collaboration vary widely, involving scenarios such as token borrowing, API integration, leveraging, revenue sharing, and other different models. There are even rogue whale incidents where no communication is made with the project team, and the whale uses their own funds to snatch chips, manipulate the market once enough chips are acquired.

So how do Market Makers operate? Canoe founder Guangwu once shared common ways institutional Market Makers manipulate tokens in his article.

One is strong manipulation to control the stock, meaning that under the premise of passing the project's fundamentals, they choose a target to start manipulating (the project team may or may not know, which is irrelevant)

· The first stage is fundraising: the typical scenario is a sustained low-price fundraising.

· The second stage is the consensus phase of the Market Maker institution. The main indicator at this stage is the trading volume, first pumping a wave, then trading with other Market Makers in the oscillation (recovering costs, increasing capital utilization, establishing a risk control model)

· Phase Three, the Rug Pull Phase. Continuing to drive up the price, institutions will both sell off their holdings to recoup funds and promote the project, with some institutions even voluntarily assisting the project team in fundamental development.

The second is to anchor the value of the asset, rapidly enhancing the project's fundamentals through means such as lending and derivatives to boost both funds and trading volume. Former FTX head of trade @octopuuus mentioned a lending model where FTT is used as collateral to borrow BTC/ETH. In this model, the value anchor for FTT becomes BTC and ETH, creating a cycle of lending and leverage, potentially even using the borrowed BTC/ETH to buy more FTT.

Recommended reading: "Market Maker Manipulation: The Love-Hate Relationship Between Market Makers, Project Teams, and Exchanges"

More benign passive market maker services are relatively more standard. In terms of service models, they are divided into Token Loan and Subscription Fee models. The Token Loan model is currently the most widely used and adopted cooperative model. Recommended reading: "Confessions of a Frontline Market Maker: A Dark Forest Survival Guide for Project Teams"

Source: Maxxx Tweet

In the Token Loan model, the project team needs to lend a certain percentage of tokens to market makers to provide liquidity.

At the end of the service period, the project team needs to repay the tokens but will be settled based on the pre-agreed option value. (The option value refers to the economic value that the option contract holds at a specific point in time.) For example, if 100kU of tokens are borrowed, and the option value accounts for 3% of the borrowed assets, the project team can earn 3kU in collaboration revenue upon repayment. This is also the main source of income for market makers.

The advantage for the project team in choosing the Token Loan model is to quickly establish liquidity through the professional capabilities of market makers and mitigate the risks of self-trading.

The Subscription Fee model, on the other hand, is relatively easier to understand. In this model, the project team does not lend coins to market makers; instead, market makers provide liquidity through API access. The project team does not worry about malicious behavior from market makers, but they are responsible for gains and losses during the order placement process. The project team also needs to pay a monthly service fee.

6. How Deeply Internalized Are Market Makers? Why Do VCs Want to Build Their Own Market Making Teams?

In his tweet, Maxxx mentioned that not only are market makers becoming more internalized, but many VCs and project teams are also setting up temporary teams to start market making. Some teams may not even have basic trading capabilities, but they first acquire the coins anyway, as they end up at zero anyway, so there is no risk of being unable to redeem.

And the reason is also very clear. In a situation where the token price has become the primary product of most projects, the liquidity unlocked at listing is the most valuable part.

For instance, in the past, although VCs received token allocations early, they still had to wait for the project team to list the token and follow the unlocking rules step by step. On the other hand, market makers can unlock liquidity at listing, providing them with significant operational flexibility.

7. Why Do Crypto Market Makers Also Invest?

According to a perspective provided by industry insiders, good project teams are usually surrounded by market makers. Through investment, market makers can interact with project teams in the early stages, transforming from passive liquidity providers to proactive parties. Post-investment, they can legitimately follow up on the project's progress, seize key projects and milestones, and gain an advantage in market making.

For project teams, besides receiving actual funds, they also, to some extent, gain a sense of security by becoming part of the market maker's vested interest community. During the listing phase, market makers can indeed be very helpful. Trading platforms often have certain market maker requirements for listed projects.

However, this is not entirely beneficial. The investment that project teams receive from market makers may come with undisclosed strings attached. Even if market makers invest in a project, they may choose to dump the price after unlocking liquidity at listing to make a profit.

Furthermore, market makers' investments may not always be genuine. As per The Block's report on DWF, many industry insiders believe that DWF's multimillion-dollar investment in crypto startups is more appropriately termed over-the-counter (OTC) trades. These OTC trades allow startups to convert their tokens into stablecoins instead of DWF injecting cash upfront and then transferring the tokens to the exchange.

At one point, some market makers' investment activities became a pump signal for ordinary investors.

In addition to investments, crypto market makers also provide other forms of support to cooperate with project teams.

For example, liquidity support. If it is a DeFi project, market makers can commit to providing liquidity support to the project team.

They also act as intermediaries for VC firms, trading platforms, and other resources. For example, they can introduce more VC investors, help project teams manage relationships with exchanges. Especially in the Korean market, where the buy-side is strong, having a market maker can provide what is known as comprehensive liquidity planning.

8. Why Do Most Project Teams Choose Multiple Market Makers?

Realizing that they shouldn't put all their eggs in one basket, project teams opt for three or four market makers to diversify the listing liquidity held by market makers and reduce the risk of malicious behavior.

However, the "three monks have no water to drink" approach may also have risks. According to industry insiders, for example, some market makers may shirk their responsibilities and not actively participate. It is difficult for the project team to detect the market maker's market-making behavior, making it challenging to supervise and hold them accountable.

9. Does the Market Maker Have Such a Strong Ability to Engage in Wrongdoing?

A study by Forbes in 2022 of 157 cryptocurrency exchanges found that more than half of all reported Bitcoin trading volume consisted of fake or non-economic wash trades.

As early as 2019, a whitepaper submitted to the U.S. SEC by Bitwise Asset Management pointed out that, among the 83 cryptocurrency exchanges analyzed at that time, 95% of the Bitcoin trading volume was fake or non-economic. This discovery sparked widespread industry attention to market maker behavior.

The market maker may not be the mastermind, but they are indeed the primary tool for carrying out operations.

As a service provider, the market maker is more often a tool rather than the driving force. The starting point is the demand of the trading platform and the project team.

During a bull market, the entire system collaborates to generate enormous profits, allowing all stakeholders to maintain a minimal level of harmony. However, in a bear market, this entire chain accelerates the onset of a liquidity crisis, leading to a reenactment of the drama of tearing off masks and mutual accusations.

Market makers are not entirely the "scapegoats" for liquidity depletion. The current dilemma in the crypto market is not solely caused by market makers, even though they are the direct creators of "pseudo-prosperity." The entire chain of interests also involves the project team, VCs, KOLs, and pump-and-dump schemes.

10. Why is it Difficult to Constrain Market Makers' Wrongdoing?

The lack of regulation is indeed a core reason for market makers' misconduct, but the inability of market makers' counterparts such as project teams and exchanges to impose effective constraints is also a significant factor.

Due to the covert nature of market makers' behavior, the industry has not yet established a clear, unified standard and norm for them. Project teams themselves find it challenging to supervise and constrain market makers' operations. Once misconduct occurs, project teams mostly rely on post-event accountability, which is often ineffective.

According to industry insiders, apart from on-chain market making, currently only centralized exchanges can monitor market makers' behavior. Although market makers usually agree on a monitoring method with the project team, once they transfer the tokens to a third party, they must heavily rely on their reputation and moral standards.

Of course, project teams can also choose the monthly fee model offered by market makers. The monthly fee model typically involves short-term contracts (settled monthly), allowing project teams to flexibly adjust their partners or strategies based on market performance to avoid long-term commitments to unreliable market makers. Project teams can also negotiate and include KPIs (such as daily minimum trading volume and maximum spread limits) in the monthly fee contract to ensure the quality of the market maker's service. However, the issue with this model is that project teams transfer the risk that was originally spread to market makers back to themselves, needing to bear losses on their own.

In addition, while the project team may be able to agree on details such as liability after a breach in the contract, determining when a liquidity provider has "breached" is also challenging. The project team needs to present sufficient evidence to prove the liquidity provider's breach, but even with trading records, demonstrating a "causal relationship" (i.e., the liquidity provider's actions directly causing a price collapse) requires extensive data analysis, which is costly and time-consuming in legal proceedings. Liquidity providers can still argue that market fluctuations were due to external factors (such as macroeconomic events or investor panic).

The entire process involves different counterparties such as the trading platform, project team, and liquidity provider, making it difficult for liquidity providers to be fully informed about the project and the market.

Furthermore, due to the symbiotic nature of centralized exchanges and liquidity providers, trading platforms find it challenging to take drastic actions against those who benefit the most. Therefore, in the GPS and SHELL events, Binance ultimately chose to freeze the account of the liquidity provider involved in the GPS event-related price crash and publicly disclose detailed evidence of their wrongdoing, which has significant implications. Proactively disclosing evidence and taking action is to some extent a positive response to regulatory pressure and a reflection of industry self-regulation. This may stimulate other trading platforms to follow suit, creating a new trend in the industry to protect users.

Original Article Link

You may also like

$COIN Joins S&P 500, but Coinbase Isn't Celebrating

On May 13, S&P Dow Jones Indices announced that Coinbase would officially replace Discover Financial Services in the S&P 500 on May 19. While other companies like Block and MicroStrategy, closely tied to Bitcoin, were already part of the S&P 500, Coinbase became the first cryptocurrency exchange whose primary business is in the index. This also signifies that cryptocurrency is gradually moving from the fringes to the mainstream in the U.S.



On the day of the announcement, Coinbase's stock price surged by 23%, surpassing the $250 mark. However, just 3 days later, Coinbase was hit by two consecutive events: a hack where employees were bribed to steal customer data and a demand for a $20 million ransom, and an investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) into the authenticity of its claim of having over 100 million "verified users" in its securities filings and marketing materials. These two events acted as mini-bombs, and at the time of writing, Coinbase's stock had already dropped by over 7.3%.


Coincidentally, Discover Financial Services, being replaced by Coinbase, can also be considered the "Coinbase" of the previous payment era. Discover is a U.S.-based digital banking and payment services company headquartered in Illinois, founded in 1960. Its payment network, Discover Network, is the fourth largest payment network apart from Visa, Mastercard, and American Express.


In April, after the approval of the acquisition of Discover by the sixth-largest U.S. bank, Capital One, this well-established digital banking company of over 60 years smoothly handed over its S&P 500 "seat" to this emerging cryptocurrency "bank." This unexpected coincidence also portrayed the handover between the new and old eras in Coinbase's entry into the S&P 500, resembling a relay race scene. However, this relay baton also brought Coinbase's accumulated "external troubles and internal strife" to a tipping point.


Side Effects of ETFs


Over the past decade, cryptocurrency exchanges have been the most stable "profit machines." They play a role in providing liquidity to the entire industry and rely on trading fees to sustain their operations. However, with the comprehensive rollout of ETF products in the U.S. market, this profit model is facing unprecedented challenges. As the leader in the "American stack," with over 80% of its business coming from the U.S., Coinbase is most affected by this.



Starting from the approval of Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs, traditional financial capital has significantly onboarded users and funds that originally belonged to exchanges in a more cost-effective, compliant, and transparent manner. The transaction fee revenue of cryptocurrency exchanges has started to decline, and this trend may further intensify in the coming months.


According to Coinbase's 2024 Q4 financial report, the platform's total trading revenue was $417 million, a 45% year-on-year decrease. The contribution of BTC and ETH's trading revenue dropped from 65% in the same period last year to less than 50%.


This decline is not a result of a decrease in market enthusiasm. In fact, since the approval of the Bitcoin ETF in January 2024, the inflow of BTC into the U.S. market has continued to reach new highs, with asset management giants like BlackRock and Fidelity rapidly expanding their management scale. Data shows that BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin ETF (IBIT) alone has surpassed $17 billion in assets under management. As of mid-May 2025, the cumulative net inflow of 11 major institutional Bitcoin spot ETFs on the market has exceeded $41.5 billion, with a total net asset value of $1214.69 billion, accounting for approximately 5.91% of the total Bitcoin market capitalization.


Chart showing the trend of net outflows for Grayscale among the 11 institutions


Institutional investors and some retail investors are shifting towards ETF products, partly due to compliance and tax considerations. On one hand, ETFs have much lower trading costs compared to cryptocurrency exchanges. While Coinbase's spot trading fee rate varies annually in a tiered manner but averages around 1.49%, for example, the management fee for IBIT ETF is only 0.25%, and the majority of ETF institution fees fluctuate around 0.15% to 0.25%.



In other words, the more rational users are, the more likely they are to move from exchanges to ETF products, especially for investors aiming for long-term holdings.


According to multiple sources, several institutions, including VanEck and Grayscale, have submitted applications to the SEC for a Solana (SOL) ETF, with some institutions also planning to submit an XRP ETF proposal. Once approved, this may trigger a new round of fund migration. According to a report submitted by Coinbase to the SEC, as of April, the platform's trading revenue from XRP and Solana accounted for 18% and 10%, nearly one-third of the platform's fee revenue.



However, the Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs passed in 2024 also reduced the fees for these two tokens on Coinbase from 30% and 15% to 26% and 10%, respectively. If the SOL and XRP ETFs are approved, it will further undermine the core fee revenue of exchanges like Coinbase.


The expansion of ETF products is gradually weakening the financial intermediary status of cryptocurrency exchanges. From their original roles as matchmakers and clearers to now gradually becoming mere "on-ramps and off-ramps" for funds, exchanges are seeing their marginal value squeezed by ETFs.


Robinhood Takes a Stand, Traditional Brokerages Join the Fray


On May 12, 2025, SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins gave a keynote speech at the Tokenization and Cryptocurrency Working Group roundtable. The theme of his speech revolved around "It is a new day at the SEC," where he indicated that the SEC would not approach enforcement and regulation the same way as before but would instead pave the way for cryptocurrency assets in the U.S. market.



With signs of cryptocurrency compliance such as the SEC's "NEW DAY" declaration, an increasing number of traditional brokerages are attempting to enter the cryptocurrency industry. One of the most representative cases is the well-known U.S. brokerage Robinhood, which began expanding its crypto business in 2018. By the time of its IPO in 2021, Robinhood's crypto business revenue accounted for over 50% of the company, with a significant boost from the Dogecoin "moonshot" promoted by Musk.


In Q1 2025 earnings report, Robinhood showcased strong growth, especially in revenue from cryptocurrency and options trading. Fueled by Trump's Memecoin, cryptocurrency-related revenue reached $250 million, nearly doubling year-over-year. Consequently, Robinhood Gold subscription users reached 3.5 million, a 90% increase from the previous year, with the rapid growth of Robinhood Gold providing the company with a stable source of income.



Meanwhile, RobinHood is actively pursuing acquisitions in the cryptocurrency space. In 2024, it announced a $2 billion acquisition of the long-standing European cryptocurrency exchange Bitstamp. Additionally, Canada's largest cryptocurrency CEX, WonderFi, which recently went public on the Toronto Stock Exchange, also announced its integration with RobinHood Crypto. After obtaining virtual asset licenses in the UK, Canada, Singapore, and other markets, RobinHood has taken a proactive approach in the compliant cryptocurrency trading market.



Furthermore, an increasing number of brokerage firms are exploring the same path. Futu Securities, Tiger Brokers, and others are also dipping their toes into cryptocurrency trading, with some having applied for or obtained the VA license from the Hong Kong SFC. Although their user bases are currently small, traditional brokerages have a natural advantage in user trust, regulatory licenses, and low fee structures. This could pose a threat to native cryptocurrency platforms in the future.



User Data Breach: Is Coinbase Still Secure?


In April 2025, security researchers discovered that some Coinbase user data was leaked on the dark web. While the platform initially responded by attributing it to a "technical misinformation," it still raised concerns among users regarding its security and privacy protection. Just two days before Dow Jones Indexes announced Coinbase's addition to the S&P 500 Index, on May 11, 2025, Coinbase received an email from an unknown threat actor claiming to have obtained customer account information and internal documents, demanding a $20 million ransom to keep the data private. Subsequent investigations confirmed the data breach.


Cybercriminals obtained the data by bribing overseas customer service agents and support staff, mainly in "non-U.S. regions such as India." These agents abused their access to Coinbase's internal customer support system and stole customer data. As early as February this year, blockchain detective ZachXBT revealed on X platform that between December 2024 and January 2025, Coinbase users lost over $65 million to social engineering scams, with the actual amount potentially higher.


Among the victims was a well-known figure, 67-year-old Ed Suman, an established artist in the art world for nearly two decades, having been involved in the creation of artworks such as Jeff Koons' "Balloon Dog" sculpture. Earlier this year, he fell victim to an impersonation scam involving fake Coinbase customer support, resulting in a loss of over $2 million in cryptocurrency. ZachXBT critiqued Coinbase for its inadequate handling of such scams, noting that other major exchanges have not faced similar issues and recommending Coinbase to enhance its security measures.


Amidst a series of ongoing social engineering incidents, although there has not been any impact on user assets at the technical level so far, it has raised concerns among many retail and institutional investors. Especially institutions holding massive assets on Coinbase. Just considering the U.S. BTC ETF institutions, as of mid-May 2025, they collectively hold nearly 840,000 BTC, and 75% of these are custodied by Coinbase. If we price BTC at $100,000, this amount reaches a staggering $63 billion, which is equivalent to the nominal GDP of two Iceland in the year 2024.


Visualization: ChatGPT, Source: Farside


In addition, Coinbase Custody also serves over 300 institutional clients, including hedge funds, family offices, pension funds, and endowments. As of the Q1 2025 financial report, Coinbase's total assets under management (including institutional and retail clients) reached $404 billion. The specific amount of institutional custodied assets was not explicitly disclosed in the latest report, but it should still be over 50% based on the Q4 2024 report.


Visualization: ChatGPT


Once this security barrier is breached, not only could the rate of user attrition far exceed expectations, but more importantly, institutional trust in it would undermine the foundation of its business. Therefore, after a hacking event, Coinbase's stock price plummeted significantly.


CEXs are All in Self-Rescue Mode


Facing a decline in spot trading fee revenue, Coinbase is also accelerating its transformation, attempting to find growth opportunities in derivatives and emerging assets. Coinbase acquired a stake in the options platform Deribit at the end of 2024 and announced the official launch of perpetual contract products in 2025. This acquisition fills in Coinbase's gap in options trading and its relatively small global market share.



Deribit has a strong presence in non-U.S. markets, especially in Asia and Europe. The acquisition has enabled Coinbase to gain a dominant position in bitcoin and ethereum options trading on Deribit, accounting for approximately 80% of the global options trading volume, with daily trading volume remaining above $2 billion.


Meanwhile, 80-90% of Deribit's customer base consists of institutional investors, with their professionalism and liquidity in the Bitcoin and Ethereum options market highly favored by institutions. Coinbase's compliance advantage, coupled with its already robust institutional ecosystem, makes it even more suitable. By using institutions as an entry point, it can face the squeeze from giants like Binance and OKX in the derivatives market.



Facing a similar dilemma is Kraken, which is attempting to replicate Binance Futures' model in non-U.S. markets. Since the derivatives market relies more on professional users, fee rates are relatively higher and stickiness is stronger, making it a significant source of revenue for exchanges. In the first half of 2025, Kraken completed the acquisition of TradeStation Crypto and a futures exchange, aiming to build a complete derivatives trading ecosystem to hedge the risk of declining spot transaction fee income.


With the surge of Memecoin in 2024, Binance, OKX, and various CEX platforms began massively listing small-market-cap, highly volatile tokens to activate active trading users. Due to the wealth effect and trading activity of Memecoins, Coinbase was also forced to join the battle, successively listing popular tokens from the Solana ecosystem such as BOOK OF MEME and Dogwifhat. Although these coins are controversial, they are frequently traded, with fee rates several times higher than mainstream coins, serving as a "blood-boosting" method for spot trading.


However, due to its status as a publicly traded company, this practice is a riskier endeavor for Coinbase. Even in the current crypto-friendly environment, the SEC is still investigating whether tokens like SOL, ADA, and SAND constitute securities.


In addition to the forced transformation strategies carried out by the aforementioned CEXs, they are also starting to lay out RWAs and the most talked-about stablecoin payment fields, such as the PYUSD launched through a collaboration between Coinbase and Paypal, Coinbase's support for the Euro stablecoin EURC by Circle that complies with EU MiCA regulatory requirements, or the USD1 launched through a collaboration between Binance and WIFL. In the increasingly crowded trading field, many CEXs have shifted their focus from just the trading market to the application field.


The golden age of transaction fees has quietly ended, and the second half of the crypto exchange platform game has silently begun.


Arthur Hayes: Why I'm Betting on ETH While the Market Is Obsessed with SOL

"I personally have also allocated 20% to gold, expecting the price of gold to potentially rise to $10,000-20,000 by the end of this market cycle."

Key Market Insights for May 16th, how much did you miss out on?

1. On-chain Flows: $111.3M inflow to Ethereum this week; $237.6M outflow from Berachain 2. Largest Price Swings: $ETHFI, $NEIRO 3. Top News: Data: Solana Network's revenue reached $7.9M on the 13th, surpassing the sum of all other L1 and L2 chains

CryptoPunks Changes Hands Twice, Did the Originator of NFTs Finally Find Its "Forever Home" This Time?

The original NFT pioneer CryptoPunks has once again officially changed ownership after being sold to the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) developer Yuga Labs.

May 16 Key Market Information Gap, A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

1. Top News: Coinbase Faces Double Blow with 'SEC Investigation' and 'User Data Breach,' Stock Price Drops by 7.2% 2. Token Unlocking: $ARB, $AVAX, $PRIME, $ASTR, $1INCH

Key Market Intelligence on May 14th, how much did you miss out on?

Featured News


1.Binance Alpha Launches HIPPO, BLUE, and Other Tokens

2.Believe Ecosystem Tokens See General Rise, LAUNCHCOIN Surges Over 250% in 24 Hours

3.Tiger Securities Introduces Cryptocurrency Deposit and Withdrawal Service, Supports Mainstream Cryptocurrencies such as BTC and ETH

4.Current Bitcoin Rally Possibly Driven by Institutions, Retail Traders Yet to Join

5.Binance Wallet's New TGE Privasea AI Participation Requires a 198 Point Threshold, with a Point Consumption of 15


Trending Topics


Source: Overheard on CT (tg: @overheardonct), Kaito


PUMP: Today's discussions about PUMP focus on its new creator revenue-sharing model: the platform will allocate 50% of PumpSwap revenue to token creators, sparking varied reactions from users. Some criticize the move as insufficient or even misleading, while others view it as a positive step the platform is taking to reward creators. Meanwhile, PUMP faces market pressure from emerging competitors like LetsBONKfun and Raydium, which are rapidly gaining market share. Users also express concerns about PUMP's sustainability and potential regulatory risks in the U.S., with discussions extending to the platform's impact on the entire memecoin ecosystem.


COINBASE: Today, Coinbase became the first crypto company to join the S&P 500 Index, replacing Discover Financial Services, sparking widespread industry attention. The entire crypto community views this milestone as a significant development, signaling that crypto assets are further integrating into the mainstream financial system. The news has sparked lively discussions on Twitter, with many users pointing out that this may attract more institutional investors to enter the Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency markets.


XRP: XRP became the focal point of today's crypto discussion, with its significant market movements and strategic advances drawing attention. XRP has surpassed USDT to become the third-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, sparking market excitement and discussions about its future potential. The surge in market capitalization and price is believed to be related to increasing institutional interest, deepening strategic partnerships, and its role in the crypto ecosystem. Additionally, XRP's integration into multiple financial systems and its potential as a macro asset class are also seen as key factors driving the current market sentiment.


DYDX: Today's discussions about DYDX mainly focused on the dYdX Yapper Leaderboard launched by KaitoAI. The leaderboard aims to identify the most active community participants, with a total of $150,000 in rewards to be distributed over the first three seasons. This initiative has sparked broad community participation, with many users discussing the potential rewards and the incentive effect on the DYDX ecosystem. Meanwhile, progress on the ethDYDX to dYdX native chain migration and historical airdrop events have also been topics of discussion.


Featured Articles


1. "What Is 'ICM'? Holding Up the $4 Billion Market Cap Solana's New Narrative"

Overnight, the hottest narrative in the crypto space has become "Internet Capital Markets," with a host of crypto projects and founders, led by the Solana ecosystem's new Launchpad platform Believe, releasing this phrase. Together with "Believe in something," it has become the new slogan heralding the onset of a bull market. What exactly is the so-called "Internet Capital Market," will it become a short-lived hype phrase like the Base ecosystem's previous Content Coin, and what related targets are available for selection?


2.《LaunchCoin Surges 20x in One Day, How Did Believe Create a $200M Market Cap Shiba Inu After Going to Zero?|100x Retrospective》

LAUNCHCOIN broke through a $200 million market cap today, with the long-lost liquidity and such a high market cap "Memecoin" almost bringing half of the on-chain crypto community CT into the fray. The community is crazily discussing this token, with half of it being FOMO and the other half being FUD. This token, originally issued by Believe founder Ben Pasternak under his personal identity, transformed into a new platform token after a renaming. From once going to zero to a $200 million market cap, what happened in between?


On-chain Data


May 14 On-chain Fund Flow


Popular coins

Latest Crypto News

Read more