Even the founder himself couldn't figure it out MM What are you doing? 🔥 Crypto The most opaque and overlooked aspect of the market that often leads to catastrophic consequences is the relationship between market makers and project parties. Every once in a while, a story of 'we were taken care of by market makers' would emerge: the coin price plummeted by 90%, the founder pushed away and cursed, the community stirred up... and then there was no more. There is no follow-up investigation, no transparent explanation, and no standard process. Even basic information symmetry does not exist. In the past year, many projects have fallen into this situation. Some founders accuse large market makers of being the culprits behind the collapse of cryptocurrency prices, but outsiders have no way of knowing the truth. This type of operation not only harms investors, but also causes injustice to teams that truly want to do long-term projects. Is this serious? 😱 Because market maker agreements often involve: • Provision of liquidity for coins Whether there is a commitment to not sell the agreement (or vice versa: sell the service) • Whether to hold team assets on behalf of others • Conditions for capital leverage and position manipulation But today when you buy a token, in most cases, you don't even know what these basic protocols look like. It's like buying stocks of a company without knowing its issuance, without financial reports, and without even knowing who the directors and supervisors are. This is not a technical issue, but a systemic problem. 😭 The current structure allows for: 1. The project party and MM Signing agreements that are unequal, non-standard, or even contain hidden pressure conditions between parties 2. Market makers have a high degree of operational freedom, and can even operate in CEX Engage in 'bilateral transactions' (fighting with both hands, price control) Once it collapses, the founder can throw the blame MM；MM Then say, 'We were just following instructions' - both sides kicked each other's balls The ultimate victims will always be retail investors without information and channels. What changes do we need? In the future, this information should be regarded as a basic disclosure obligation, just like the "total amount of tokens" and "founder unlock schedule": The project party should publicly disclose the key terms of the market making agreement (such as selling pressure restrictions MM Whether to hold coins, whether to sell, etc •CEX Establish coin listing standards and reject undisclosed ones MM Projects with detailed cooperation If the project party accuses MM， Specific evidence should be attached instead of emotional statements, otherwise it constitutes misleading the community Even for 'high-quality market makers', establishing transparent disclosure standards is beneficial: letting the market know who are legitimate liquidity providers and who are secretly operating dump Currency's exit agent。 Conclusion: Why would you buy a project that is not even transparent about market maker terms if you didn't buy a token without an unlock schedule today? If even the founder himself cannot figure it out MM What we are doing, we can only rely on speculation to criticize - as external participants, we cannot even judge the basic risks. This industry requires not only technological innovation, but also the upgrading of institutional design and transparent governance.