Dragonfly partners, Wintermute CEO, and others discussed the Movement incident in detail, with a detailed discussion on the disclosure system for market makers. We recommend everyone to pay attention. In short, the current information gap between exchanges, project parties, and ordinary investors is extremely abnormal. The former can easily profit from market manipulation while the latter can. If this situation does not change, the industry cannot develop normally and healthily. Haseeb： In traditional markets, you need to disclose who your market maker is, while in cryptocurrency, exchanges know who your market maker is. Both Binance and Coinbase are aware of it. Before you apply for listing, you must provide this information. But ordinary investors and the public do not know. In my opinion, the ideal disclosure system is one where the information gap between the exchange and ordinary investors is essentially zero. That is to say, when you apply for listing on an exchange, the information known to the public should be consistent with the information known to the exchange. I think we should develop in this direction in the future, but currently we are still far from this goal. I even believe that the terms of market making agreements should be disclosed. This is also mentioned by Hester Pierce in her speech, where she detailed the disclosure system for cryptocurrencies and suggested that the terms of market making agreements should be disclosed to the public. Evgeny： I strongly support this idea because I believe we must acknowledge that although we pretend tokens are not stocks, their behavior is very similar to stocks. Stocks need to disclose a large amount of information about market makers, investors, and various risks. Hester's speech is precisely about this topic. But what we must discuss is not only the issue of information equivalence between exchanges and retail investors, but also the platform investors should have as much information as possible in order to make purchasing decisions. In fact, we have not achieved this. I think the basic content of market making agreements, such as loan size and exercise price, are crucial. As an ordinary investor, you need to know the motives of market makers, such as their incentive to sell above a certain price. Once the price exceeds this level, there may be more selling pressure, or they may continue to hold, but at least you are fully informed. In fact, we once had a project disclosed in an agreement, which was World Coin six months ago last year. I remember that World Coin did disclose loan, market maker, and exercise prices, but they received a lot of criticism. People are beginning to question why such a structure should be created, as if there is no similar situation for every token. They have received a lot of criticism because of this, and I don't think they enjoy this experience. More importantly, all founders have become more cautious since then. Haseeb： As an industry, we have a responsibility to address this issue, not only for the regulatory system that may be introduced in the future, but also for our own interests. We need to reduce market volatility and boost consumer confidence in token listings. People need to know whether the listed tokens are trustworthy and will not be sold by some unreliable market makers. https://www. (techflowpost.com)/article/detail_25620.html