Asset manager Bitwise has listed four Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH) exchange-traded products on the London Stock Exchange, expanding its presence in the European region.

The listings include the Bitwise Core Bitcoin ETP, the Bitwise Physical Bitcoin ETP, Bitwise’s Physical Ethereum ETP, and the Bitwise Ethereum Staking ETP, according to the April 16 announcement.

The products are available to institutional or otherwise-qualified investors with an accreditation, and not open to retail investors.

Bitwise is applying to launch crypto investment vehicles as digital assets gain a greater foothold in global financial markets, attracting more institutional interest in crypto and increasing the legitimacy of the nascent asset class.

Related: Bitwise doubles down on $200K Bitcoin price prediction amid trade tension

Bitwise expands ETF offerings following a regulatory shift in the US

The resignation of former Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Gary Gensler triggered a wave of crypto ETF applications in the United States.

Asset managers and crypto firms rushed to submit filings in anticipation of a relaxed regulatory regime once Gensler left the agency in January.

Bitwise’s BTC and ETH ETF, which gives investors exposure to both digital assets in a single investment vehicle, was granted preliminary approval by the SEC in January but still requires final approval before listing.

In March 2025, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) submitted an application for a rule change to list the Bitwise Dogecoin ETF on the US-based exchange.

If approved, Dogecoin (DOGE) would be the first memecoin with a US-listed investment vehicle and could attract more institutional inflows into the dog-themed social token.

Bitwise also filed for an Aptos ETF in March. The proposed Bitwise Aptos ETF will hold the native cryptocurrency of the high-throughput layer-1 blockchain, APT (APT), and will not feature staking rewards.

Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan predicted Bitcoin ETFs would attract $50 billion in inflows during 2025.

Institutional inflows into crypto ETFs act as a price stabilizer for digital assets with investment vehicles, lowering volatility through a pipeline siphoning capital from traditional investors in the stock market to cryptocurrencies.

Magazine: Bitcoin ETFs make Coinbase a ‘honeypot’ for hackers and governments: Trezor CEO

Asset manager Bitwise has listed four Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH) exchange-traded products on the London Stock Exchange, expanding its presence in the European region.

The listings include the Bitwise Core Bitcoin ETP, the Bitwise Physical Bitcoin ETP, Bitwise’s Physical Ethereum ETP, and the Bitwise Ethereum Staking ETP, according to the April 16 announcement.

The products are available to institutional or otherwise-qualified investors with an accreditation, and not open to retail investors.

Bitwise is applying to launch crypto investment vehicles as digital assets gain a greater foothold in global financial markets, attracting more institutional interest in crypto and increasing the legitimacy of the nascent asset class.

Related: Bitwise doubles down on $200K Bitcoin price prediction amid trade tension

Bitwise expands ETF offerings following a regulatory shift in the US

The resignation of former Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Gary Gensler triggered a wave of crypto ETF applications in the United States.

Asset managers and crypto firms rushed to submit filings in anticipation of a relaxed regulatory regime once Gensler left the agency in January.

Bitwise’s BTC and ETH ETF, which gives investors exposure to both digital assets in a single investment vehicle, was granted preliminary approval by the SEC in January but still requires final approval before listing.

In March 2025, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) submitted an application for a rule change to list the Bitwise Dogecoin ETF on the US-based exchange.

If approved, Dogecoin (DOGE) would be the first memecoin with a US-listed investment vehicle and could attract more institutional inflows into the dog-themed social token.

Bitwise also filed for an Aptos ETF in March. The proposed Bitwise Aptos ETF will hold the native cryptocurrency of the high-throughput layer-1 blockchain, APT (APT), and will not feature staking rewards.

Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan predicted Bitcoin ETFs would attract $50 billion in inflows during 2025.

Institutional inflows into crypto ETFs act as a price stabilizer for digital assets with investment vehicles, lowering volatility through a pipeline siphoning capital from traditional investors in the stock market to cryptocurrencies.

Magazine: Bitcoin ETFs make Coinbase a ‘honeypot’ for hackers and governments: Trezor CEO

The right market maker can be a launchpad for a cryptocurrency project, opening the door to major exchanges and providing valuable liquidity to ensure a token is tradeable — but when the wrong incentives are baked into the deal, that market maker can become a wrecking ball.

One of the most popular and misunderstood offerings in the market-making world is the “loan option model.” This is when a project lends tokens to a market maker, who then uses them to create liquidity, improve price stability, and help secure listings at a cryptocurrency exchange. In reality, it has been a death sentence for many young projects.

But behind the scenes, a number of market makers is using the controversial token loan structure to enrich themselves at the expense of the very projects they’re meant to support. These deals, often framed as low-risk and high-reward, can crater token prices and leave fledgling crypto teams scrambling to recover.

“How it works is that market makers essentially loan tokens from a project at a certain price. In exchange for those tokens, they essentially promise to get them on big exchanges,” Ariel Givner, founder of Givner Law, told Cointelegraph. “If they don’t, then within a year, they repay them back at a higher price.”

What often happens is that market makers dump the loaned tokens. The initial sell-off tanks the price. Once the price has cratered, they buy the tokens back at a discount while keeping the profit.

Source: Ariel Givner

“I haven’t seen any token really benefit from these market makers,” Givner said. “I’m sure there are ethical ones, but the bigger ones I’ve seen just destroy charts.”

The market maker playbook

Firms like DWF Labs and Wintermute are some of the best-known market makers in the industry. Past governance proposals and contracts reviewed by Cointelegraph suggest that both firms proposed loan option models as part of their services — though Wintermute’s proposals call them “liquidity provision” services.

DWF Labs told Cointelegraph that it doesn’t rely on selling loaned assets to fund positions, as its balance sheet sufficiently supports its operations across exchanges without relying on liquidation risk. 

“Selling loaned tokens upfront can damage a project’s liquidity — especially for small- to mid-cap tokens — and we’re not in the business of weakening ecosystems we invest in,” Andrei Grachev, managing partner of DWF Labs, said in a written response to Cointelegraph’s inquiry.

Related: Who’s really getting rich from the crypto bull run?

While DWF Labs emphasizes its commitment to ecosystem growth, some onchain analysts and industry observers have raised concerns about its trading practices.

Wintermute did not respond to Cointelegraph’s request for comment. But in a February X post, Wintermute CEO Evgeny Gaevoy published a series of posts to share some of the company’s operations with the community. He bluntly stated that Wintermute is not a charity but in the “business of making money by trading.” 

Source: Evgeny Gaevoy

What happens after the market maker gets the tokens?

Jelle Buth, co-founder of market maker Enflux, told Cointelegraph that the loan option model is not unique to the well-known market makers like DWF and Wintermute and that there are other parties offering such “predatory deals.”

“I call it information arbitrage, where the market maker very clearly understands the pros and cons of the deals but is able to put it such that it’s a benefit. What they say is, ‘It’s a free market maker; you don’t have to put up the capital as a project; we provide the capital; we provide the market-making services,’” Buth said.

On the other end, many projects don’t fully understand the downsides of loan option deals and often learn the hard way that they weren’t built in their favor. Buth advises projects to measure whether loaning out their tokens would result in quality liquidity, which is measured by orders on the book and clearly outlined in the key performance indicators (KPIs) before committing to such deals. In many loan option deals, KPIs are often missing or vague when mentioned.

Cointelegraph reviewed the token performance of several projects that signed loan option deals with market makers, including some that worked with multiple firms at once. The outcome was the same in those examples: The projects were left worse off than when they started.

Six projects that worked with market makers under the loan option agreement tanked in price. Source: CoinGecko

“We’ve worked with projects that were screwed over after the loan model,” Kristiyan Slavev, co-founder of Web3 accelerator Delta3, told Cointelegraph.

“It’s exactly the same pattern. They give tokens, then they’re dumped. That’s pretty much what happens,” he said.

Not all market-maker deals end in disaster

The loan option model isn’t inherently harmful and can even benefit larger projects, but poor structuring can quickly turn it predatory, according to Buth.

A listings adviser who spoke to Cointelegraph on the condition of anonymity echoed the point, emphasizing that outcomes depend on how well a project manages its liquidity relationships. “I’ve seen a project with up to 11 market makers — about half using the loan model and the rest smaller firms,” they said. “The token didn’t dump because the team knew how to manage price and balance the risk across multiple partners.”

The adviser compared the model to borrowing from a bank: “Different banks offer different rates. No one runs a money-losing business unless they expect a return,” they said, adding that in crypto, the balance of power often favors those with more information. “It’s survival of the fittest.”

But some say the problem runs deeper. In a recent X post, Arthur Cheong, founder of DeFiance Capital, accused centralized exchanges of feigning ignorance of artificial pricing fueled by token projects and market makers working in lockstep. “Confidence in the altcoin market is eroding,” he wrote. “Absolutely bizarre that CEXs are turning an absolute blind eye to this.”

Still, the listings adviser maintained that not all exchanges are complicit: “The different tier exchanges are also taking really extreme actions against any predatory market makers, as well as projects that might look like they rugged. What exchanges do is they actually immediately lock up that account while they do their own investigation.”

“While there is a close working relationship, there is no influence between the market maker and the exchange of what gets listed. Every exchange would have their own due diligence processes. And to be frank, depending on the tier of the exchange, there is no way that there would be such an arrangement.”

Related: Crypto’s debanking problem persists despite new regulations

Rethinking market maker incentives

Some argue for a shift toward the “retainer model,” where a project pays a flat monthly fee to a market maker in exchange for clearly defined services rather than giving away tokens upfront. It’s less risky, though more expensive in the short term.

“The retainer model is much better because that way, market makers have incentives to work with the projects long term. In a loan model, you get, like, a one-year contract; they give you the tokens, you dump the tokens, and then one year after that, you return the tokens. Completely worthless,” Slavev said.

While the loan option model appears “predatory,” as Buth put it, Givner pointed out that in all these agreements, both parties involved agree to a secure contract.

“I don’t see a way that, at this current time, this is illegal,” Givner said. “If somebody wanted to look at manipulation, that’s one thing, but we’re not dealing with securities. So, that gray area is still there in crypto — [to] some extent the Wild West.”

The industry is becoming more aware of the risks tied to loan option models, especially as sudden token crashes increasingly raise red flags. In a now-deleted X post, onchain account Onchain Bureau claimed that a recent 90% drop in Mantra’s OM token was due to an expiring loan option deal with FalconX. Mantra denied the claim, clarifying that FalconX is a trading partner, not its market maker.

Edited LinkedIn copy of Onchain Bureau’s LinkedIn post. Source: Nahuel Angelone

But the episode highlights a growing trend: The loan option model has become a convenient scapegoat for token collapses — often with good reason. In a space where deal terms are hidden behind NDAs and roles like “market maker” or “trading partner” are fluid at best, it’s no surprise the public assumes the worst.

“We’re speaking up because we make money off the retainer model, but also, this [loan option model] is just killing projects too much,” Buth said.

Until transparency and accountability improve, the loan option model will remain one of crypto’s most misunderstood and abused deals.

Magazine: What do crypto market makers actually do? Liquidity or manipulation

The right market maker can be a launchpad for a cryptocurrency project, opening the door to major exchanges and providing valuable liquidity to ensure a token is tradeable — but when the wrong incentives are baked into the deal, that market maker can become a wrecking ball.

One of the most popular and misunderstood offerings in the market-making world is the “loan option model.” This is when a project lends tokens to a market maker, who then uses them to create liquidity, improve price stability, and help secure listings at a cryptocurrency exchange. In reality, it has been a death sentence for many young projects.

But behind the scenes, a number of market makers is using the controversial token loan structure to enrich themselves at the expense of the very projects they’re meant to support. These deals, often framed as low-risk and high-reward, can crater token prices and leave fledgling crypto teams scrambling to recover.

“How it works is that market makers essentially loan tokens from a project at a certain price. In exchange for those tokens, they essentially promise to get them on big exchanges,” Ariel Givner, founder of Givner Law, told Cointelegraph. “If they don’t, then within a year, they repay them back at a higher price.”

What often happens is that market makers dump the loaned tokens. The initial sell-off tanks the price. Once the price has cratered, they buy the tokens back at a discount while keeping the profit.

Source: Ariel Givner

“I haven’t seen any token really benefit from these market makers,” Givner said. “I’m sure there are ethical ones, but the bigger ones I’ve seen just destroy charts.”

The market maker playbook

Firms like DWF Labs and Wintermute are some of the best-known market makers in the industry. Past governance proposals and contracts reviewed by Cointelegraph suggest that both firms proposed loan option models as part of their services — though Wintermute’s proposals call them “liquidity provision” services.

DWF Labs told Cointelegraph that it doesn’t rely on selling loaned assets to fund positions, as its balance sheet sufficiently supports its operations across exchanges without relying on liquidation risk. 

“Selling loaned tokens upfront can damage a project’s liquidity — especially for small- to mid-cap tokens — and we’re not in the business of weakening ecosystems we invest in,” Andrei Grachev, managing partner of DWF Labs, said in a written response to Cointelegraph’s inquiry.

Related: Who’s really getting rich from the crypto bull run?

While DWF Labs emphasizes its commitment to ecosystem growth, some onchain analysts and industry observers have raised concerns about its trading practices.

Wintermute did not respond to Cointelegraph’s request for comment. But in a February X post, Wintermute CEO Evgeny Gaevoy published a series of posts to share some of the company’s operations with the community. He bluntly stated that Wintermute is not a charity but in the “business of making money by trading.” 

Source: Evgeny Gaevoy

What happens after the market maker gets the tokens?

Jelle Buth, co-founder of market maker Enflux, told Cointelegraph that the loan option model is not unique to the well-known market makers like DWF and Wintermute and that there are other parties offering such “predatory deals.”

“I call it information arbitrage, where the market maker very clearly understands the pros and cons of the deals but is able to put it such that it’s a benefit. What they say is, ‘It’s a free market maker; you don’t have to put up the capital as a project; we provide the capital; we provide the market-making services,’” Buth said.

On the other end, many projects don’t fully understand the downsides of loan option deals and often learn the hard way that they weren’t built in their favor. Buth advises projects to measure whether loaning out their tokens would result in quality liquidity, which is measured by orders on the book and clearly outlined in the key performance indicators (KPIs) before committing to such deals. In many loan option deals, KPIs are often missing or vague when mentioned.

Cointelegraph reviewed the token performance of several projects that signed loan option deals with market makers, including some that worked with multiple firms at once. The outcome was the same in those examples: The projects were left worse off than when they started.

Six projects that worked with market makers under the loan option agreement tanked in price. Source: CoinGecko

“We’ve worked with projects that were screwed over after the loan model,” Kristiyan Slavev, co-founder of Web3 accelerator Delta3, told Cointelegraph.

“It’s exactly the same pattern. They give tokens, then they’re dumped. That’s pretty much what happens,” he said.

Not all market-maker deals end in disaster

The loan option model isn’t inherently harmful and can even benefit larger projects, but poor structuring can quickly turn it predatory, according to Buth.

A listings adviser who spoke to Cointelegraph on the condition of anonymity echoed the point, emphasizing that outcomes depend on how well a project manages its liquidity relationships. “I’ve seen a project with up to 11 market makers — about half using the loan model and the rest smaller firms,” they said. “The token didn’t dump because the team knew how to manage price and balance the risk across multiple partners.”

The adviser compared the model to borrowing from a bank: “Different banks offer different rates. No one runs a money-losing business unless they expect a return,” they said, adding that in crypto, the balance of power often favors those with more information. “It’s survival of the fittest.”

But some say the problem runs deeper. In a recent X post, Arthur Cheong, founder of DeFiance Capital, accused centralized exchanges of feigning ignorance of artificial pricing fueled by token projects and market makers working in lockstep. “Confidence in the altcoin market is eroding,” he wrote. “Absolutely bizarre that CEXs are turning an absolute blind eye to this.”

Still, the listings adviser maintained that not all exchanges are complicit: “The different tier exchanges are also taking really extreme actions against any predatory market makers, as well as projects that might look like they rugged. What exchanges do is they actually immediately lock up that account while they do their own investigation.”

“While there is a close working relationship, there is no influence between the market maker and the exchange of what gets listed. Every exchange would have their own due diligence processes. And to be frank, depending on the tier of the exchange, there is no way that there would be such an arrangement.”

Related: Crypto’s debanking problem persists despite new regulations

Rethinking market maker incentives

Some argue for a shift toward the “retainer model,” where a project pays a flat monthly fee to a market maker in exchange for clearly defined services rather than giving away tokens upfront. It’s less risky, though more expensive in the short term.

“The retainer model is much better because that way, market makers have incentives to work with the projects long term. In a loan model, you get, like, a one-year contract; they give you the tokens, you dump the tokens, and then one year after that, you return the tokens. Completely worthless,” Slavev said.

While the loan option model appears “predatory,” as Buth put it, Givner pointed out that in all these agreements, both parties involved agree to a secure contract.

“I don’t see a way that, at this current time, this is illegal,” Givner said. “If somebody wanted to look at manipulation, that’s one thing, but we’re not dealing with securities. So, that gray area is still there in crypto — [to] some extent the Wild West.”

The industry is becoming more aware of the risks tied to loan option models, especially as sudden token crashes increasingly raise red flags. In a now-deleted X post, onchain account Onchain Bureau claimed that a recent 90% drop in Mantra’s OM token was due to an expiring loan option deal with FalconX. Mantra denied the claim, clarifying that FalconX is a trading partner, not its market maker.

Edited LinkedIn copy of Onchain Bureau’s LinkedIn post. Source: Nahuel Angelone

But the episode highlights a growing trend: The loan option model has become a convenient scapegoat for token collapses — often with good reason. In a space where deal terms are hidden behind NDAs and roles like “market maker” or “trading partner” are fluid at best, it’s no surprise the public assumes the worst.

“We’re speaking up because we make money off the retainer model, but also, this [loan option model] is just killing projects too much,” Buth said.

Until transparency and accountability improve, the loan option model will remain one of crypto’s most misunderstood and abused deals.

Magazine: What do crypto market makers actually do? Liquidity or manipulation

Opinion by: Mārtiņš Beņķītis, co-founder and CEO of Gravity Team

As crypto adoption plateaus in some developed nations, emerging markets have led the charge for adoption. Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America have become rapid growth centers, with new activity driven by limited banking options, local currency instability and growing smartphone use. The need for alternative finance in these regions is acute. While blockchain technology can deliver it, it certainly won’t be easy.

A significant hurdle in emerging crypto markets is market-making, where traditional approaches have struggled as a result of specific challenges, including limited infrastructure and economic instability. Standard market-making strategies often fail or are simply unable to account for these complexities. A new approach known as “boutique market-making” can unlock growth, providing tailored liquidity solutions that consider local factors like regional regulations, cultural nuance and specific pain points for each market. 

This “boutique” approach will bring enormous benefits to the average person in emerging markets and, for the first time, create access to financial services and give them control over their economic outlook.

Providing liquidity in emerging markets is challenging

While the potential for growth in emerging crypto markets is clear to see, tapping into it is not. The path is fraught with challenges that require a specialized and nuanced approach. Here, standard market-making strategies are largely ineffective. 

Consider trying to navigate the regulatory maze of a country where the rules keep changing and the economy is delicate and volatile. That’s the reality in Argentina. Stringent capital controls create a technical minefield for crypto transactions, requiring 24/7 monitoring and hyper-reactive strategies to ensure compliance. Why would any liquidity provider want to work with such uncertainty?

Then there’s the technological issue. Many local exchanges are built on outdated infrastructure with high latency and slippage. It’s far from the seamless APIs and lightning-fast execution of the world’s top platforms. It leads to traders and liquidity providers being discouraged from participating, resulting in thin order books, a persistent drought, and a vicious cycle of low liquidity and limited opportunity. 

FX volatility further compounds the issue. Some fiat currencies experience wild fluctuations that deliver immediate conversion risks. Many local banking systems, aiming to protect their clients from this volatility, have implemented blanket bans on crypto-related transactions, causing settlement friction. 

This cocktail of issues has pushed people away from centralized banking and right into the waiting arms of peer-to-peer trading, where direct transactions further fragment liquidity and make it hard for localized cryptocurrency exchanges to gain traction. These technical hurdles, however, can be overcome. They just require a contextually rich approach to market making, one that is acutely aware of every risk, issue, human need and cultural factor.

Why standardized solutions fail in emerging markets

Traditional market-making firms are used to standardized protocols, which makes it hard for them to adapt, leading to inadequate liquidity failures. This is particularly evident in regions like Argentina and Turkey, where local conditions demand bespoke solutions, despite Turkey having the highest crypto adoption rate in the world at 27.1%, followed by Argentina at 23.5%. These are well above the global crypto ownership rate estimated at 11.9%.

In Argentina, boutique firms can facilitate US dollar stablecoin flows to provide a crucial lifeline for those needing a stable alternative to the volatile peso and capital controls. Even considering this kind of service requires a deep understanding of local regulations and a proactive compliance approach.

In Turkey, price discrepancies between global and local platforms create considerable inefficiencies. Boutique market-makers stepped in to act as bridges, smoothing out inefficiencies and ensuring fairer prices for local traders.

Recent: Cryptocurrency investment should favor emerging markets

Take a look at Bolivia. Cryptocurrency was legalized in June 2024, with local crypto exchanges launching soon after but being starved of liquidity. Large firms didn’t want to touch them. Suddenly, when boutique market-makers stepped in, slippage was reduced, and prices stabilized, making trading more viable for investors of all sizes. The people won. The ability to build trust and forge lasting relationships with local communities and regulators is crucial. Hands must be shaken, and words must be kept.

Stable liquidity fuels opportunities

Boutique market makers work hard to deliver stable liquidity, in turn unlocking countless opportunities for people within emerging crypto markets. By providing consistent buy and sell orders, they reduce slippage and price volatility, creating a reliable environment for developers to build tools, platforms and decentralized applications tailored to local needs. 

The stability provided by boutique market makers stems from their tailored strategies, using local knowledge, navigating regulatory mazes and bridging fragmented markets. This is unlike standardized approaches, which often falter on outdated tech or compliance hurdles. For users, this means accessible, liquid markets that support practical crypto use, from remittances to daily transactions, driving real-world adoption.

A boutique market making future

Emerging crypto markets stand at a tipping point. With their agility and local insight, boutique market-makers are the key to turning potential into action and opportunity. It’s time for stakeholders, exchanges, regulators and communities to properly rally behind these specialized players, nurturing ecosystems where innovation thrives and everyday users gain real access. The path ahead is about building a foundation for a decentralized economy that works for all. To get there, liquidity is essential. 

Opinion by: Mārtiņš Beņķītis, co-founder and CEO of Gravity Team.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Opinion by: Mārtiņš Beņķītis, co-founder and CEO of Gravity Team

As crypto adoption plateaus in some developed nations, emerging markets have led the charge for adoption. Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America have become rapid growth centers, with new activity driven by limited banking options, local currency instability and growing smartphone use. The need for alternative finance in these regions is acute. While blockchain technology can deliver it, it certainly won’t be easy.

A significant hurdle in emerging crypto markets is market-making, where traditional approaches have struggled as a result of specific challenges, including limited infrastructure and economic instability. Standard market-making strategies often fail or are simply unable to account for these complexities. A new approach known as “boutique market-making” can unlock growth, providing tailored liquidity solutions that consider local factors like regional regulations, cultural nuance and specific pain points for each market. 

This “boutique” approach will bring enormous benefits to the average person in emerging markets and, for the first time, create access to financial services and give them control over their economic outlook.

Providing liquidity in emerging markets is challenging

While the potential for growth in emerging crypto markets is clear to see, tapping into it is not. The path is fraught with challenges that require a specialized and nuanced approach. Here, standard market-making strategies are largely ineffective. 

Consider trying to navigate the regulatory maze of a country where the rules keep changing and the economy is delicate and volatile. That’s the reality in Argentina. Stringent capital controls create a technical minefield for crypto transactions, requiring 24/7 monitoring and hyper-reactive strategies to ensure compliance. Why would any liquidity provider want to work with such uncertainty?

Then there’s the technological issue. Many local exchanges are built on outdated infrastructure with high latency and slippage. It’s far from the seamless APIs and lightning-fast execution of the world’s top platforms. It leads to traders and liquidity providers being discouraged from participating, resulting in thin order books, a persistent drought, and a vicious cycle of low liquidity and limited opportunity. 

FX volatility further compounds the issue. Some fiat currencies experience wild fluctuations that deliver immediate conversion risks. Many local banking systems, aiming to protect their clients from this volatility, have implemented blanket bans on crypto-related transactions, causing settlement friction. 

This cocktail of issues has pushed people away from centralized banking and right into the waiting arms of peer-to-peer trading, where direct transactions further fragment liquidity and make it hard for localized cryptocurrency exchanges to gain traction. These technical hurdles, however, can be overcome. They just require a contextually rich approach to market making, one that is acutely aware of every risk, issue, human need and cultural factor.

Why standardized solutions fail in emerging markets

Traditional market-making firms are used to standardized protocols, which makes it hard for them to adapt, leading to inadequate liquidity failures. This is particularly evident in regions like Argentina and Turkey, where local conditions demand bespoke solutions, despite Turkey having the highest crypto adoption rate in the world at 27.1%, followed by Argentina at 23.5%. These are well above the global crypto ownership rate estimated at 11.9%.

In Argentina, boutique firms can facilitate US dollar stablecoin flows to provide a crucial lifeline for those needing a stable alternative to the volatile peso and capital controls. Even considering this kind of service requires a deep understanding of local regulations and a proactive compliance approach.

In Turkey, price discrepancies between global and local platforms create considerable inefficiencies. Boutique market-makers stepped in to act as bridges, smoothing out inefficiencies and ensuring fairer prices for local traders.

Recent: Cryptocurrency investment should favor emerging markets

Take a look at Bolivia. Cryptocurrency was legalized in June 2024, with local crypto exchanges launching soon after but being starved of liquidity. Large firms didn’t want to touch them. Suddenly, when boutique market-makers stepped in, slippage was reduced, and prices stabilized, making trading more viable for investors of all sizes. The people won. The ability to build trust and forge lasting relationships with local communities and regulators is crucial. Hands must be shaken, and words must be kept.

Stable liquidity fuels opportunities

Boutique market makers work hard to deliver stable liquidity, in turn unlocking countless opportunities for people within emerging crypto markets. By providing consistent buy and sell orders, they reduce slippage and price volatility, creating a reliable environment for developers to build tools, platforms and decentralized applications tailored to local needs. 

The stability provided by boutique market makers stems from their tailored strategies, using local knowledge, navigating regulatory mazes and bridging fragmented markets. This is unlike standardized approaches, which often falter on outdated tech or compliance hurdles. For users, this means accessible, liquid markets that support practical crypto use, from remittances to daily transactions, driving real-world adoption.

A boutique market making future

Emerging crypto markets stand at a tipping point. With their agility and local insight, boutique market-makers are the key to turning potential into action and opportunity. It’s time for stakeholders, exchanges, regulators and communities to properly rally behind these specialized players, nurturing ecosystems where innovation thrives and everyday users gain real access. The path ahead is about building a foundation for a decentralized economy that works for all. To get there, liquidity is essential. 

Opinion by: Mārtiņš Beņķītis, co-founder and CEO of Gravity Team.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Troubled decentralized finance (DeFi) platform Mantra released an official statement addressing the reasons for a 92% flash crash of its OM token on April 13.

An April 16 announcement titled “Statement of Events: 13 April 2025” reiterates that the crash did not involve any token sales by the project itself, and the Mantra team remains fully functional and continues investigating the incident.

Although Mantra CEO John Mullin previously said that the team was preparing a post-mortem, the new statement offered few new details about the reasons behind the rapid movement of OM tokens to exchanges and the subsequent liquidation cascade.

Limited circulation of mainnet OM tokens

The post also reiterated that there are two types of OM tokens, with one being Ethereum-based (ERC-20) and the other running on Mantra’s mainnet.

“The incident almost exclusively involved ERC-20 OM, as ERC-20 OM represents virtually the entire liquid market,” Mantra said in the statement.

Launched in August 2020, the original ERC-20 OM token has a fixed supply of 888.8 million OM, with 99.9% of these tokens being in public circulation as of April 15.

However, Mantra mainnet OM tokens had only 77.5 million in circulation after the Mantra Chain minted an equivalent amount of OM in October 2024.

Mantra’s conclusions

Additionally, the post mentions a divergence in OM spot prices on OKX and Binance. The discrepancy began around 6:00 pm UTC, around an hour before the OM token’s crash, according to CoinGecko.

Among its conclusions, Mantra stated that further information from its exchange partners will “provide more clarity on these events, adding:

“We invite our centralized exchanges partners to collaborate on providing more clarity on trading activities during this time.”

The Mantra team confirmed that it is preparing a support plan for OM that includes both a token buyback and a supply burn. No timeline for the rollout of this plan was provided.

Related: Mantra CEO plans to burn team’s tokens in bid to win community trust

As previously reported by Cointelegraph, OKX CEO Star Xu called Mantra a “big scandal” in a post published hours following the crash. Mantra CEO Mullin also said Binance is the biggest holder of the OM token, citing Etherscan records.

Cointelegraph contacted the Mantra team for further comment on the April 16 statement but did not receive a response by publication time.

Magazine: Memecoins are ded — But Solana ‘100x better’ despite revenue plunge

Troubled decentralized finance (DeFi) platform Mantra released an official statement addressing the reasons for a 92% flash crash of its OM token on April 13.

An April 16 announcement titled “Statement of Events: 13 April 2025” reiterates that the crash did not involve any token sales by the project itself, and the Mantra team remains fully functional and continues investigating the incident.

Although Mantra CEO John Mullin previously said that the team was preparing a post-mortem, the new statement offered few new details about the reasons behind the rapid movement of OM tokens to exchanges and the subsequent liquidation cascade.

Limited circulation of mainnet OM tokens

The post also reiterated that there are two types of OM tokens, with one being Ethereum-based (ERC-20) and the other running on Mantra’s mainnet.

“The incident almost exclusively involved ERC-20 OM, as ERC-20 OM represents virtually the entire liquid market,” Mantra said in the statement.

Launched in August 2020, the original ERC-20 OM token has a fixed supply of 888.8 million OM, with 99.9% of these tokens being in public circulation as of April 15.

However, Mantra mainnet OM tokens had only 77.5 million in circulation after the Mantra Chain minted an equivalent amount of OM in October 2024.

Mantra’s conclusions

Additionally, the post mentions a divergence in OM spot prices on OKX and Binance. The discrepancy began around 6:00 pm UTC, around an hour before the OM token’s crash, according to CoinGecko.

Among its conclusions, Mantra stated that further information from its exchange partners will “provide more clarity on these events, adding:

“We invite our centralized exchanges partners to collaborate on providing more clarity on trading activities during this time.”

The Mantra team confirmed that it is preparing a support plan for OM that includes both a token buyback and a supply burn. No timeline for the rollout of this plan was provided.

Related: Mantra CEO plans to burn team’s tokens in bid to win community trust

As previously reported by Cointelegraph, OKX CEO Star Xu called Mantra a “big scandal” in a post published hours following the crash. Mantra CEO Mullin also said Binance is the biggest holder of the OM token, citing Etherscan records.

Cointelegraph contacted the Mantra team for further comment on the April 16 statement but did not receive a response by publication time.

Magazine: Memecoins are ded — But Solana ‘100x better’ despite revenue plunge

Real estate-focused financial technology firm Janover has acquired 80,567 Solana tokens for roughly $10.5 million.

According to an April 15 announcement, with its latest purchase, Janover’s Solana (SOL) holdings reached 163,651.7 — worth about $21.2 million, including staking rewards. With this investment, the amount of Solana per each of the 1.5 million shares reached 0.11 SOL, valued at $14.47 — an increase of 120%.

Janover stock price chart. Source: Google Finance

Janover plans to start staking the newly acquired SOL immediately to generate additional revenue. The announcement follows the company raising about $42 million with the expressed intent to enhance its digital asset treasury strategy.

The new capital was raised in a convertible note and warrants sale from Pantera Capital, Kraken, Arrington Capital, Protagonist, The Norstar Group, Third Party Ventures, Trammell Venture Partners and 11 angel investors. At the same time, a team of former Kraken executives has taken control of the company.

Joseph Onorati, former chief strategy officer at Kraken, stepped in as chairman and CEO at Janover following the group’s purchase of over 700,000 common shares and all Series A preferred stock.

Related: Real estate firm Fathom can now add Bitcoin to its balance sheet

Altcoins on the balance sheet?

Janover is one of the latest companies to decide to add digital assets to their corporate treasury. What makes it an outlier is the decision to accumulate an asset that is not Bitcoin (BTC).

The most notable example of a Bitcoin-accumulating firm is Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy). Strategy is a publicly traded business intelligence company founded as MicroStrategy in 1989.

In 2020, the firm pivoted to acquiring as much Bitcoin as possible. Strategy now holds well over 2.5% of all Bitcoin that will ever be produced.

Related: Bitcoin on corporate balance sheets: What’s the risk and reward?

Bitcoin dominates balance sheets

BitcoinTreasuries.NET data shows that Strategy holds 528,185 BTC worth nearly $44.2 billion at the time of writing. The company has leveraged debt to accumulate its Bitcoin.

Another example of a company that is now focused on accumulating Bitcoin is Metaplanet, often referred to as “Japan’s MicroStrategy.” Both companies hold Bitcoin as a hedge against inflation and as part of a broader strategy to diversify and modernize their treasuries.

According to some analysts, this strategy may soon pay off. Bitcoin is showing growing resilience to macroeconomic headwinds compared with traditional financial markets, according to a recent Wintermute report. Still, not everyone is convinced that the trend will hold, with the founder of Obchakevich Research, Alex Obchakevich, saying:

“As the trade war intensifies, Bitcoin may return to the list of risky assets. Because investors will most likely look for salvation in gold.“

Magazine: Bitcoin eyes $100K by June, Shaq to settle NFT lawsuit, and more: Hodler’s Digest, April 6 – 12

Ethereum’s push toward layer-2 (L2) blockchain scalability may be a double-edged sword for Ether, potentially weakening the value accrual of the world’s second-largest cryptocurrency, according to a new report from Binance Research.

The report suggests that Ethereum’s L2 blockchain networks — built to improve mainnet scalability and lower transaction costs — may be cannibalistic of the Ethereum base layer, negatively impacting the price of Ether (ETH).

Ethereum’s dominance in terms of decentralized exchange (DEX) volume and fees generated is “under threat” by Solana and BNB Smart Chain, Binance Research wrote.

Ethereum, Solana, BNB, DEX volume. Source: Binance Research

The main factors include slow and expensive transactions, fragmented “developer mindshare and liquidity, and reduced value accrual to the L1 due to the rise of L2s,” the report said.

Ethereum’s roadmap already includes future upgrades aimed at creating cheaper transactions, additional security, and more future-proof incentives for the mainnet.

Still, Ether’s value accrual may continue to suffer in the near term since the next two major upgrades don’t immediately address these issues, but are aimed at creating more scalability around data availability and incorporating more L2 networks. 

Related: Google to enforce MiCA rules for crypto ads in Europe starting April 23

Concerns have been reignited around the Ethereum mainnet’s economic incentives since Ether’s price fell to $1,410 on April 7, marking its lowest level since March 2023.

ETH/USD, 1-year chart. Source: Cointelegraph

Ether’s price fell over 61% during a four-month downtrend, which started on Dec. 16, 2024, when ETH briefly peaked above $4,100, Cointelegraph Markets Pro data shows.

Ethereum’s Pectra, Fusaka upgrade won’t address Ether’s value accrual

After initial delays, Ethereum’s highly anticipated Pectra upgrade is set to go live on the mainnet on May 7.

The Pectra upgrade aims to improve Ether staking and L2 network scalability, increase blob capacity to enable more data handling on the mainnet and improve overall network capacity.

The Fusaka upgrade, expected in late 2025, will focus on scaling the Ethereum mainnet as a data availability layer by introducing EIP-7594. Fusaka may also bring an update to the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), resulting in a “more structured approach” to smart-contract creation, reducing runtime overhead and improving developer experience.

Ethereum data capacity upgrades. Source: Binance Research

Ethereum’s commitment to L2 scaling may be a “double-edged sword” due to concerns around the mainnet’s “competitiveness as a data availability layer” and “the sustainability of value accrual to Ethereum the asset,” the report said.

Related: Ethereum shorter gains $1.1M on 50X leverage in 2 days

“One promising path for stronger ETH value accrual is the development of based rollups,” which “contribute significantly more in fees” to Ethereum compared with L2s like Base, Arbitrum and Optimism, according to a Binance Research spokesperson.

L2s, rollups by costs paid to Ethereum mainnet. Source: Binance Research

“Another avenue is Ethereum’s evolving role as a data availability layer,” the spokesperson told Cointelegraph, adding:

“Value accrual through this model depends on external factors: L2s must continue to choose Ethereum for data availability, and blockspace demand must grow in a competitive landscape where alternatives like Solana and BNB Smart Chain are gaining traction.”

“Aligning incentive structures between Ethereum and L2s, whether through fee sharing, MEV capture, or protocol-level integrations, will be essential to ensure sustainable value flow back to ETH as an asset should Ethereum continue to commit to scaling with L2s,” he added.

Magazine: 3 reasons Ethereum could turn a corner: Kain Warwick, X Hall of Flame