Expose Market Makers Method: Why Most Tokens Trend To Zero?

Table of Contents

The cryptocurrency market is known for its wild fluctuations, where digital assets can skyrocket to astonishing heights and then plummet to near-worthlessness. While Bitcoin and a handful of other cryptocurrencies have managed to maintain their value and relevance, the fate of most altcoins often seems to be a slow descent towards zero. In this article, we delve into the factors that contribute to the decline of many altcoins and shed light on the dynamics that often go unnoticed.

I: The Token Loan Model and Conflict of Interest

Token Loan Model and Market Makers

In the token loan model, cryptocurrency projects collaborate with market makers to bolster liquidity in the market. These projects lend substantial quantities of their native tokens to market makers, who, in turn, pledge to maintain orderly markets, ensuring there are buyers and sellers for the token when needed. The market maker's role seems straightforward at first glance: they help bridge the gap between token supply and demand, fostering a smoother trading experience for investors.

However, beneath this seemingly benign arrangement lurks a fundamental conflict of interest that can have profound consequences for tokenholders and the value of the token itself.

Conflict of Interest: Market Makers vs. Tokenholders

The inherent conflict of interest arises from the economic incentives misalignment between market makers and tokenholders. To understand this conflict, it's crucial to grasp the diverging positions of these two parties:

1. Tokenholders - Net Long: Tokenholders, including retail investors and enthusiasts, typically hold their tokens with the expectation that their value will appreciate over time. They are, in essence, "net long" on the token, meaning they benefit from price increases. This group seeks the growth and success of the project behind the token, aligning their interests with the project's overall success.

2. Market Makers - Net Short: On the other hand, market makers, having borrowed a substantial volume of tokens from the project, find themselves "net short" on the token. This means they stand to profit when the token's price experiences a decline. In essence, they have a vested interest in price depreciation, which directly contradicts the goals and aspirations of tokenholders.

This misalignment of interests introduces a precarious dynamic. Market makers, driven by profit motives, may be incentivized to take actions that drive down the token's value, ultimately harming the broader investor community.

The conflict of interest embedded in the token loan model is a crucial factor contributing to the downward pressure on altcoins. As market makers seek to maximize their profits, they may engage in strategies that, intentionally or unintentionally, erode the value of the tokens they are entrusted with. This misalignment of incentives, often hidden behind the scenes, underscores the challenges that many altcoins face as they strive to maintain and increase their market value.

In the following sections, we will delve deeper into the various phases and tactics employed by market makers, such as the distribution phase and short squeezes, shedding light on how these dynamics further exacerbate the decline of altcoins.

II: The Distribution Phase and Short Squeezes

Understanding the Distribution Phase

One critical phase in this ecosystem is known as the "distribution phase." During this phase, market makers acquire tokens and distribute them to exchanges, primarily to create hype and attract retail investors. The collaboration between exchanges, projects, and market makers in this phase is designed to generate Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) among potential buyers.

Short Squeezes and Their Impact

As retail investors flock to buy the token, market makers, like the infamous Wintermute, who possess a significant portion of the tokens, must eventually sell to convert their holdings into more stable assets such as USDT. Meanwhile, retail investors may start shorting the token on high leverage, expecting a drop in its value. Herein lies an opportunity for market makers to engineer short squeezes.

A short squeeze involves market makers strategically removing sell orders, buying up both spot and perpetual contracts with their newly acquired USDT, and causing rapid price spikes in a short period. Late short positions get liquidated, providing market makers with a windfall.

III: Collusion and Proprietary Trading

Collusion Between Exchanges, Projects, and Market Makers

The collusion between exchanges, cryptocurrency projects, and market makers is a concerning aspect of this ecosystem. In some cases, the left arm of a market maker company manipulates order books while the right arm engages in leveraged short squeezing, creating an uneven playing field for retail investors.

The Issue of Proprietary Trading

Furthermore, the existence of proprietary trading within the same companies that function as market makers introduces significant conflicts of interest. The CEO of Wintermute, for instance, has not denied these conflicts, raising questions about the fairness and transparency of their operations.

IV: Examining Wintermute's Actions

Recent Examples of Wintermute's Activities

Wintermute, a prominent market maker in the cryptocurrency space, has come under scrutiny due to its actions that raise questions about market fairness and integrity. Several recent examples highlight the concerns surrounding its operations:

1. Token Movement to Centralized Exchanges: On September 16, 2023, Wintermute was found transferring significant amounts of popular DeFi tokens, including LINK, COMP, and AAVE, to centralized exchanges, notably Coinbase. This movement of tokens, presumably for selling, was executed in a way that raised eyebrows. Instead of sending tokens directly from the main Wintermute address, they used proxy addresses, which adds an element of opacity to their actions.

2. Suspicious Inflows of ETH: What makes these transactions even more questionable is the timing. Shortly after these transfers, Wintermute coincidentally received a substantial influx of Ethereum (ETH) from Coinbase. The value of this ETH was remarkably close to the total value of COMP tokens they had sent out an hour earlier. This peculiar coincidence raises concerns about the motives behind these transactions and whether they were conducted with market manipulation in mind.

3. Impact on Token Prices: The consequences of Wintermute's actions became evident in the price movements of the tokens involved. Notably, the price of COMP began to experience a sharp and unnatural decline following Wintermute's activities. Similar patterns were observed with other tokens on an ETH basis. These price fluctuations are a cause for concern, as they suggest that market makers like Wintermute may exert undue influence on token prices.

4. Additional Tokens Sent to Centralized Exchanges: It's not just limited to LINK, COMP, and AAVE. Further investigation revealed that Wintermute had also sent Maker (MKR) and Chiliz (CHZ) tokens to centralized exchanges. This broad scope of activities raises questions about the extent of Wintermute's influence over various tokens in the market.

Unanswered Questions and Concerns

While these actions may raise suspicion, a series of crucial questions and concerns remain unresolved:

1. Market Neutrality: Are Wintermute's actions truly market-neutral, as market makers are supposed to be? The coincidental timing of token transfers, inflows of ETH, and subsequent price drops suggest otherwise.

2. Transparency: The opacity surrounding these transactions and the lack of clear explanations from Wintermute contribute to the growing concerns within the crypto community. Transparency is essential for maintaining trust in the ecosystem.

3. Market Manipulation: The evidence of price manipulation following Wintermute's activities indicates potential market manipulation. This raises ethical and legal questions about their actions.

4. Impact on DeFi: As DeFi projects rely on decentralized and trustless principles, the involvement of market makers like Wintermute in centralized exchanges and questionable trading practices may undermine the very essence of DeFi.

5. Accountability: The crypto community and regulatory bodies must hold market makers accountable for their actions to ensure fair and transparent markets. Investors need to know that the market operates on a level playing field.

V: Solutions

How to Evaluate Market Makers

Navigating the complex cryptocurrency market, with its myriad of altcoins and market makers, requires a keen understanding of the participants involved. To protect their investments and promote a healthier market environment, investors and cryptocurrency enthusiasts must adopt strategies to evaluate market makers effectively.

1. Due Diligence: Thoroughly research the market maker associated with a particular project. Investigate their track record, transparency, and past activities. Look for reviews, feedback from other traders, and any history of unethical behavior or market manipulation.

2. Proprietary Trading Arm: Pay close attention to whether the market maker has a "prop trading arm." The existence of such a division within the same company can introduce conflicts of interest. Companies engaging in proprietary trading may prioritize their own profits over the interests of tokenholders and traders.

3. Transparency and Disclosure: Transparent market makers are more likely to prioritize market integrity. Look for market makers that openly share information about their operations, trading strategies, and token holdings. Those willing to provide insights into their activities are more likely to operate ethically.

4. Community Feedback: Engage with the cryptocurrency community to gather insights and opinions about specific market makers. Platforms such as forums, social media, and crypto-related news outlets can provide valuable information and experiences shared by other traders.

5. Regulatory Compliance: Assess whether the market maker complies with relevant regulations. While cryptocurrency markets often operate in a decentralized and lightly regulated environment, market makers that adhere to legal standards and guidelines are more likely to uphold ethical practices.

Calls for Accountability and Transparency

The cryptocurrency community has witnessed the consequences of market manipulation and conflicts of interest. To address these issues and foster a fairer market ecosystem, several calls to action have emerged:

1. Regulatory Oversight: Some proponents argue that increased regulatory oversight is necessary to ensure market fairness and protect investors. Regulatory bodies could set standards for market maker behavior and require greater transparency.

2. Self-Regulation: Within the cryptocurrency industry, there are efforts to establish self-regulatory organizations (SROs) that can establish industry best practices and enforce ethical conduct among market participants.

3. Transparency Initiatives: Initiatives aimed at improving transparency in the cryptocurrency market are gaining traction. These initiatives encourage market makers to disclose their trading activities, token holdings, and strategies to the public, promoting trust and accountability.

Conclusion

The cryptocurrency market is rife with complexities and hidden agendas that can impact the fate of altcoins. Understanding the token loan model, conflicts of interest, distribution phases, and market manipulation is crucial for investors seeking to navigate this volatile terrain. As the crypto industry continues to evolve, transparency, accountability, and vigilant evaluation of market participants will be key to ensuring a fair and thriving ecosystem for all participants.

About Orochi Network

Orochi Network is a cutting-edge zkOS (An operating system based on zero-knowledge proof) designed to tackle the challenges of computation limitation, data correctness, and data availability in the Web3 industry. With the well-rounded solutions for Web3 Applications, Orochi Network omits the current performance-related barriers and makes ways for more comprehensive dApps hence, becoming the backbone of Web3's infrastructure landscape.