A new study from advisory firm Novora is putting a spotlight on one of crypto’s least examined structural weaknesses: the near-total absence of public disclosure around market-making arrangements. The research reviewed more than 150 major protocols and found that fewer than 1% publicly explain the terms governing the firms and incentives that help sustain token liquidity.
That finding lands with more weight because the same protocols are not operating in the dark economically. Novora found that 91% of the sample generates traceable on-chain revenue, yet most still provide little formal visibility into the agreements, counterparties and incentives shaping their trading environment. In effect, revenue is visible, but the machinery supporting market depth remains largely opaque.
The Missing Disclosure That Institutions Notice First
Novora identified only one clear exception in its sample: Meteora, which publicly disclosed its market-making terms. That made the broader pattern harder to dismiss as a matter of oversight or uneven documentation. Instead, it pointed to a market-wide reluctance to disclose the contractual foundations of liquidity itself.
Connor King, Novora’s founder, described the gap as “the single most consequential transparency gap in the industry,” and the phrase captures the core issue well. For allocators trying to assess token markets seriously, market-making terms are not peripheral details. They shape how liquidity appears, how resilient it is under stress and how quickly it can disappear when incentives change. Without that information, liquidity becomes something investors can observe but cannot fully evaluate.
The contrast with traditional finance is sharp. In regulated equity markets, market-making arrangements are generally accompanied by more standardized disclosure covering the identity of the market makers, the terms of their obligations and compensation structures, and any conflicts that may exist between proprietary trading and client-facing activity. Those disclosures do not remove risk, but they give participants a framework for understanding who supports liquidity and under what conditions.
Why the Gap Matters More as Capital Gets Smarter
In crypto, the absence of equivalent disclosure creates what Novora effectively frames as a liquidity blind spot. If investors cannot see who is making markets, how those firms are being paid or when support can be withdrawn, then due diligence becomes materially harder. That uncertainty affects trading-cost analysis, volatility modeling and scenario planning around stress events. For institutional investors especially, opaque liquidity is not just inconvenient, but difficult to price into a risk model.
There are early signs that parts of the market are beginning to respond. Binance updated its listing rules effective March 25, 2026 to require token issuers to disclose market-maker identities, legal entities and contract terms, while also prohibiting profit-sharing and guaranteed-return structures that could create manipulative incentives. At the regulatory level, scrutiny around disclosure quality and market abuse is also increasing, which suggests the industry is starting to feel pressure from both exchanges and supervisors at the same time.
That pressure could become decisive. If exchanges continue to enforce stronger reporting standards and token issuers begin publishing structured disclosures around market-making, crypto markets may become easier for sophisticated capital to underwrite. If not, the protocols that preserve opacity will likely remain at a disadvantage with long-term investors who need more than visible volume and surface-level liquidity. In that sense, market-maker disclosure is quickly becoming a real governance test, not a cosmetic investor-relations upgrade.