Two of the most chaotic tokens of the year – the Movement Labs movement scandal and the collapse of Mantra OM – send shock waves via crypto market companies.
In both cases, rapid price accidents have revealed hidden players, unlocking questionable tokens and alleged secondary agreements that blind the market players, OM falling by more than 90% at the end of April in any apparent catalyst.
Unlike traditional finances, where market manufacturers provide bid-astute differences on regulated places, crypto market manufacturers often operate more like high challenges negotiation offices.
They not only cite prices; They negotiate token allowances before launch, the acceptance of lockups, the liquidity structuring for centralized exchanges and sometimes take challenges or consultative issues.
The result is a troubled space where the supply of liquidity is tangled with private offers, tokenomics and often the policy of initiates.
A presentation of Coindesk at the end of April showed how some leaders of certain movement laboratories collapsed with their own market market to pour $ 38 million in free market.
Now, some companies are wondering if they have been too relaxed in the confidence of counterparts. How to cover a position when the tokel unlocking hours are opaque? What happens when the handshake quietly treats the DAO proposals?
“Our approach now includes preliminary discussions and more in -depth educational sessions with project teams to ensure that they completely understand market mechanics,” an interview told Coindesk.
“Our transaction structures have evolved to underline the long-term strategic alignment compared to short-term performance measures, incorporating specific guarantees against behavior contrary to ethics such as excessive spill of tokens and the volume of artificial negotiation,” he said.
Behind the scenes, conversations are intensifying. The terms of the agreement are examined more carefully. Certain liquidity offices re -evaluate the way they subscribe to the risk of token.
Others require stricter transparency – or completely move away from troubled projects.
“The projects no longer accept a prestigious reputation at their nominal value, after having seen how even established players can exploit the shadow allowances or engage in practices for the sale of prejudicial tokens,” noted the chief of the web 3 Metalpha ecosystem. “The era of alleged confidence has ended,” he said.
Under the polished surface of the launching announcements of tokens and marketing agreements is another layer of cryptographic financing – the OTC secondary market, where locked tokens are quietly changing their hands before winning cliffs.
These transactions under the table, often concluded between the first donors, the funds and the unions, now distorts the dynamics of the offer and the biases of the discovery of prices, according to certain traders. And for market manufacturers responsible for providing ordered liquidity, they become an increasingly opaque and dangerous variable.
“The OTC secondary market has changed industry dynamics,” said Min Jung, analyst at Presto Research, who manages a market unit. “If you look at tokens with a suspicious price action – like $ layer, $ OM, $ MOVE and others – they are often the most actively negotiated on the secondary free sale market.”
“The entire supply and acquisition calendar has been distorted due to these off -market offers, and for liquid funds, the real challenge is to determine when the unlocking offer,” added Jung.
In a market where the price is fiction and offer is negotiated in the back rooms, the real risk is not volatility for traders – he thinks that the float is what the white paper and the founders say that it is.
Read more: Movement Labs secretly promised that
