What does crypto market making cost?

Start with four separate budget lines

A market-making fee alone does not describe the resources needed to support a token market. Build your budget around the following categories before asking providers to quote.

Inventory is capital at risk, not simply another service fee. Its value can change, and access can be constrained by custody arrangements or venue conditions. Separate a cash budget from a loss budget.

Why there is no single useful price

Pairs, venues, quoting hours, target depth, spread requirements, inventory limits and reporting all change the work. A narrow single-market engagement and a multi-venue launch with continuous support are different mandates. A pool setup with scheduled reviews also carries different obligations from ongoing two-sided quoting.

Astrum quotes after reviewing that scope. We do not publish a universal market-wide price range or imply that an indicative fee guarantees a particular liquidity outcome. Ask any provider for a written breakdown and the assumptions behind it.

When comparing proposals, use the same pairs, measurement windows and incident responsibilities. The lowest headline fee can leave integration, monitoring or rebalancing outside the agreement.

A worked example: assessment, pilot and launch oversight

The following example shows how service fees for a narrowly scoped, single-pool liquidity pilot using existing venue tools could be budgeted. The figures are examples for planning, not a price list, an industry price range, a completed-client case study or a standing offer for any token. Feasibility, availability and a written scope must be confirmed before commissioning.

In this example, assessment plus a suitable pilot comes to £2,500 in service fees, or £3,500 with optional launch oversight. Actual fees are agreed in writing for each scope, and each stage is commissioned separately. Applicable taxes, pre-agreed external costs, token inventory, quote-asset liquidity and network fees are additional.

The limited pilot and oversight do not include continuous market making, automated rebalancing, continuous monitoring, out-of-hours response or spread, depth and uptime commitments. If existing venue tools cannot support the proposed pilot safely, development and testing require a separate scope and price.

A full managed-liquidity mandate can be assessed directly; purchasing a limited pilot first is not required. Astrum’s current production execution is on Jupiter RFQ on Solana and on 1inch Fusion as an approved resolver on Solana, Ethereum and Base. Work on another chain or venue requires its own feasibility and integration assessment.

What should a paid assessment deliver?

An assessment should leave you with a decision you can use. In the example above, the written work covers:

• Evidence and compatibility checks, distinguishing verified facts, project statements and unresolved dependencies.
• Venue options, reusable capabilities, integration gaps and required testing.
• Two illustrative order-size and capital scenarios, including pricing assumptions, fees, price impact and selling pressure.
• Proposed custody, signing, trading and withdrawal controls, with ownership and responsibility questions identified.
• A verification and reporting specification, including transaction evidence, reconciled inventory and measurement limits.
• A reasoned go, conditional-go or no-go recommendation, next-stage scope and proposed acceptance criteria.

Agree completion and clarification terms before starting. A reasoned no-go can be a valid completed assessment. A positive recommendation does not itself authorise implementation or the transfer of trading assets.

What should be clear before you pay?

Current capabilities, broad delivery options, indicative fees, exclusions, methodology and required inputs should be understandable before commissioning. Specific venue recommendations, modelled capital requirements and an applied feasibility conclusion can then form the paid work. Ask whether any assessment fee is credited against later work; do not assume it is.

A capital scenario is not a universal minimum funding requirement. The amount needed depends on the venue, intended trade sizes, depth, pricing basis and risk limits. State which project details are confirmed and which remain provisional.

Compare the economics of each structure

Retainer

A recurring service fee can make the operating budget easier to understand. Check deliverables, termination rights, inventory responsibilities and how missed service targets are handled. A retainer does not remove trading losses.

Token loan or option arrangements

Read the repayment asset, repayment quantity, maturity, collateral, sale permissions and any embedded options together. Cash-free does not mean economically free. Different structures create different incentives; have the actual agreement reviewed rather than judging it by its name.

Performance-linked terms

Define the calculation, costs, inventory valuation and who verifies the result. A share of execution revenue is different from a share of full portfolio profit. Ambiguous definitions make comparisons unreliable.

What changes for a low-volume token?

Low turnover does not automatically mean a cheap mandate. Thin reference markets, concentrated ownership and limited inventory can make quoting harder, and market making cannot create organic demand or promise a price floor.

Our guide to market making for a low-volume token covers the budget lines, pricing inputs, when a token does not need a market maker yet, and how to start with a narrow scope.

What to send for a useful quote

Send the token and chain, current or planned venues, launch status, timeline, intended inventory arrangement and the execution problem you want to solve. Existing order-book or trade data helps a provider assess the scope.

Request a proposal that states targets, measurement method, exclusions, fee breakdown, asset responsibilities, reporting and exit terms. Our market-maker proposal checklist turns these into a comparison checklist.