A new study from Novora Research suggests one of crypto’s most important market structures remains largely invisible to the public. After reviewing more than 150 prominent protocols, the firm found that fewer than 1% publicly disclose the terms of their market-maker agreements, leaving investors with little formal insight into how token liquidity is actually being supported.
That gap matters because liquidity is one of the first signals traders, funds and institutional allocators rely on when assessing a token’s tradability and risk. Yet while on-chain data can reveal volumes, transfers and treasury activity, it often says far less about the contractual arrangements shaping order-book depth and market support. In that sense, crypto still offers abundant transaction data but limited disclosure about the incentives behind the market itself.
Revenue Is Visible, Reporting Is Not
Novora’s findings show a sharp disconnect between economic activity and investor communication. According to the study, 91% of the protocols reviewed generate traceable revenue, but only 18% publish quarterly updates and just 8% issue token-holder reports. The implication is clear: many projects are producing measurable business activity without building the reporting habits that serious investors usually expect.
The market-maker issue sits at the center of that shortfall. Connor King, Novora’s founder, described the lack of disclosure as “the single most consequential transparency gap in the industry,” arguing that crypto continues to omit information that would normally be considered material in traditional finance. That criticism lands because market-making agreements can directly influence liquidity quality, volatility and investor confidence, especially when terms around support, incentives or withdrawal conditions remain undisclosed.
Meteora stood out as the only protocol identified in the study as having published detailed market-maker terms, doing so in its 2025 annual token-holder report. The fact that one project emerged as the lone exception only reinforces the broader conclusion: formal disclosure around liquidity arrangements remains almost entirely absent across the sector.
Institutional Capital Will Demand More Than On-Chain Visibility
The missing information creates an immediate operational blind spot. Without clear disclosure, it becomes harder to judge whether quoted liquidity is durable, whether counterparties have embedded conflicts, or under what circumstances market makers may reduce support. Those uncertainties matter because execution quality depends not only on visible liquidity, but on the reliability of the parties standing behind it.
The study also points to a wider governance issue. Protocols that return measurable economic value to holders through buybacks, fee sharing or similar accrual mechanisms tend to outperform governance-only models. But that advantage is weakened when projects fail to pair revenue generation with structured communication. In practical terms, a protocol can be economically productive and still remain institutionally underdeveloped in how it reports itself.
That is where the implications become larger than investor relations. Asset managers, custodians and compliance teams evaluating token exposure will face higher diligence costs and more legal uncertainty if market-maker arrangements remain opaque. As institutional participation grows, the protocols that publish routine token-holder reports and standardized liquidity disclosures are likely to face less friction in onboarding conversations. Over time, transparency around market-making may become a competitive advantage rather than a voluntary courtesy.
