TL;DR
- A Novora review of more than 150 crypto protocols found fewer than 1% publicly disclose market-maker terms, with Meteora the only identified exception.
- The study covered sectors from DEXs to L1s and found valuations ranging from about $40 million to $45 billion across the analyzed dataset for investors.
- Novora also said 91% generated trackable revenue, but only 18% published quarterly updates and 8% issued token holder reports.
A new review of more than 150 crypto protocols suggests a critical trading relationship is still largely hidden from public view. The striking conclusion is that market-making arrangements remain almost entirely undisclosed even though they sit at the center of token liquidity and price formation. The research, conducted by crypto advisory firm Novora, found that fewer than 1% of protocols publicly disclose any terms related to market makers. Across the entire dataset, only Meteora was identified as having published details of such arrangements through its 2025 Annual Token Holder Report.
The finding lands awkwardly because market makers are not peripheral actors in crypto trading. They help shape liquidity conditions, trading activity and price behavior, yet investors are often left without visibility into the agreements behind those functions. Novora examined protocols across decentralized exchanges, lending, perpetual futures, layer-1 and layer-2 networks, bridges and centralized exchange tokens, covering projects with fully diluted valuations ranging from roughly $40 million to $45 billion. The firm said it used a binary transparency framework and checked public sources such as Artemis, Token Terminal, Dune, DefiLlama and Blockworks Research.
A Wider Investor Reporting Gap Is Coming Into Focus
The report argues that opacity around market makers is part of a broader investor relations problem across crypto. What stands out is not a lack of data, but a failure to turn available information into structured communication for tokenholders. Novora said 91% of the protocols it reviewed generated trackable revenue, yet only 18% published quarterly updates and just 8% issued token holder reports. At the same time, third-party analytics exceeded 85% across major platforms, suggesting core business and usage data is widely accessible even when projects do little to package it clearly.
The debate carries weight because opaque market-maker structures have long drawn criticism, especially when token loans are involved. The concern is that poorly designed arrangements can create incentives to sell borrowed tokens into the market, damaging both liquidity quality and price performance. One highlight is the loan option model, where projects lend tokens to market makers for liquidity provision and trading activity, often linked to listing agreements. Critics argue that model can encourage behavior that benefits the market maker while leaving early-stage projects exposed to weaker trading conditions and shaken confidence.
