Movement Lab and Mantra Scandals are shaking crypto market production

Two of the most chaotic token explosions of the year – Movement Lab’s Movement Scandal and the collapse of the Mantra’s OM – are sending shockwaves through the crypto market production business.

In both cases, a rapid price crash unlocked the hidden actor, suspicious tokens, revealing a secondary contract that claimed blind market participants to blind.

Unlike traditional finance, where market manufacturers offer orderly bidding spreads in regulated venues, crypto market manufacturers often operate like high stakes trading desks.

They’re not just quoting prices. They negotiate pre-launch token allocations, accept lockups, structuring the liquidity of central exchanges, and sometimes fair or advised interests.

As a result, there is a dark space where liquidity regulations are caught up in private trade, toconemics and, in many cases, insider politics.

In late April, Coindesk Exposé showed that some Movement Lab executives had conspired with their own market makers to abandon the $38 million move in open markets.

Now, some companies are questioning whether they are too casual to trust counterparties. How do you hedge positions if the token unlock schedule is opaque? What happens when a handshake quietly overrides DAO’s suggestion?

“Our approach currently includes a broader preliminary discussion and educational sessions with the project team, ensuring a thorough understanding of the mechanisms of market production,” Hong Kong-based Metalpha’s Metalpha Making Division told Coindesk in an interview.

“Our trading structure has evolved to emphasize long-term strategic alignment against short-term performance metrics, which incorporates certain safeguards against unethical behaviors such as excessive token damping and artificial trading volumes.”

Behind the scenes, the conversation is intensifying. The terms of the transaction are being examined more carefully. Some liquidity desks are reassessing how they take on token risks.

Others are demanding more severe transparency – or walking completely away from dark projects.

“The project no longer accepts an honorable reputation at face value. We have witnessed whether even established players can exploit shadow allocations or engage in harmful token sales practices.” “The era of presumed trust concludes,” he argued.

Beneath the refined surface of the token is the announcement of the announcement and the sorting of market production agreements. There is another layer of cryptocurrency. In the secondary OTC market, locked tokens quietly exchange hands before they hit the public eye before they win the cliff.

Trading beneath these tables, often struck between early supporters, funds and syndicates, is currently distorting supply dynamics and findings of distorted prices, some traders say. And for market makers tasked with providing orderly fluidity, they are becoming increasingly opaque and dangerous variables.

“The secondary OTC market has changed the dynamics of the industry,” said Min Jung, an analyst at Presto Research, which runs the market production division. “When you look at tokens with questionable price actions like $layer, $om, $mov, etc., they are often the most aggressively traded in the secondary OTC market.”

“The entire supply and vesting schedule is skewed due to these out-of-market transactions, and because of liquid funds, the real challenge is to get a sense of when the supply is actually unlocked,” Jung added.

In a market where prices are fiction and supplies are negotiated in the back room, actual risk is not volatility for traders. I believe float is what the white paper and founders say.

Read more: Movement Lab secretly promises millions of people with tokens that promise to be advisors, leaked documentary show