Crypto Exchange Dilemma: Internal Market Makers or Transparency?

In the world of crypto exchanges, the use of internal market-making teams has become a contentious issue in recent years. Internal market makers are teams of traders that work for an exchange to make a profit on the trading activity that takes place on the exchange. Some insiders argue that these teams can help contribute to the liquidity and stability of an exchange’s markets, while others believe they can create a conflict of interest that could harm investors. In this article, we’ll take a closer look at the debate over internal market makers by examining the views of two prominent figures in the crypto exchange industry – BitMEX CEO, Stephan Lutz, and Crypto.com’s internal trading teams.

BitMEX CEO’s statement on internal market makers

Stephan Lutz, CEO of BitMEX, has been a vocal opponent of the use of internal market-making teams on crypto exchanges. In an interview with The Block, Lutz argued that exchanges that make money from proprietary trading should let go of their internal market-making teams. He went on to state that there are enough high-frequency trading firms and proprietary trading shops in the market that can perform the function of proprietary trading and market-making teams, making internal teams unnecessary. Lutz’s argument is based on the idea that internal market makers can create a conflict of interest that harms investors. When an exchange’s internal market maker has access to all of the exchange’s trading information, it can use that information to its advantage, potentially at the expense of the exchange’s users. This can create a situation where the internal market maker prioritizes its profits over the interests of the exchange’s users.

Concerns have arisen over Crypto.com’s internal trading teams

Crypto.com, a popular crypto exchange, has been the subject of criticism due to its use of internal trading teams. The exchange has a team of traders who work to facilitate tight spreads and efficient markets on its platform. While the team has publicly stated that it treats its actions the same way as any other third party, many critics believe that the team’s actions could create a conflict of interest. In response to these concerns, a spokesperson from Crypto.com stated that the trading team ensures that the exchange remains risk-neutral by hedging these positions on several venues. This means that if the internal team takes a position on a particular asset, it also takes offsetting positions on other exchanges to ensure that the exchange remains risk-neutral.

Comparison with BitMEX’s past allegations of running an internal trading team

BitMEX itself faced allegations of running an internal trading team to make profits several years ago. At the time, the derivatives exchange was accused of using Arrakis Capital, an internal market maker, to trade against its own users. While BitMEX denied the allegations, it separated Arrakis Capital from the exchange to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

The use of internal market makers by crypto exchanges has become a controversial issue. While some believe that internal teams can contribute to the liquidity and stability of an exchange’s markets, others argue that they can create a conflict of interest that could harm investors. BitMEX CEO Stephan Lutz has been a vocal opponent of the use of internal teams, arguing that exchanges that make money from proprietary trading should let go of their internal market-making teams. Crypto.com has defended its use of internal trading teams, stating that its team exists to facilitate tight spreads and efficient markets on its platform. Ultimately, the decision of whether to use internal market makers or third-party firms will depend on a variety of factors, including an exchange’s priorities, its risk tolerance, and its commitment to transparency and fairness.

Explore more

Why Should Leaders Invest in Employee Career Growth?

In today’s fast-paced business landscape, a staggering statistic reveals the stakes of neglecting employee development: turnover costs the median S&P 500 company $480 million annually due to talent loss, underscoring a critical challenge for leaders. This immense financial burden highlights the urgent need to retain skilled individuals and maintain a competitive edge through strategic initiatives. Employee career growth, often overlooked

Making Time for Questions to Boost Workplace Curiosity

Introduction to Fostering Inquiry at Work Imagine a bustling office where deadlines loom large, meetings are packed with agendas, and every minute counts—yet no one dares to ask a clarifying question for fear of derailing the schedule. This scenario is all too common in modern workplaces, where the pressure to perform often overshadows the need for curiosity. Fostering an environment

Embedded Finance: From SaaS Promise to SME Practice

Imagine a small business owner managing daily operations through a single software platform, seamlessly handling not just inventory or customer relations but also payments, loans, and business accounts without ever stepping into a bank. This is the transformative vision of embedded finance, a trend that integrates financial services directly into vertical Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platforms, turning them into indispensable tools for

DevOps Tools: Gateways to Major Cyberattacks Exposed

In the rapidly evolving digital ecosystem, DevOps tools have emerged as indispensable assets for organizations aiming to streamline software development and IT operations with unmatched efficiency, making them critical to modern business success. Platforms like GitHub, Jira, and Confluence enable seamless collaboration, allowing teams to manage code, track projects, and document workflows at an accelerated pace. However, this very integration

Trend Analysis: Agentic DevOps in Digital Transformation

In an era where digital transformation remains a critical yet elusive goal for countless enterprises, the frustration of stalled progress is palpable— over 70% of initiatives fail to meet expectations, costing billions annually in wasted resources and missed opportunities. This staggering reality underscores a persistent struggle to modernize IT infrastructure amid soaring costs and sluggish timelines. As companies grapple with