How to compare market-making proposals
Send the same brief to each provider, then compare its written answers against these twelve points. Record each answer as documented, needs clarification or not offered, alongside the evidence and follow-up owner. An unanswered question is not a confirmed capability.
Download the comparison template (.txt)
No signup. Copy the template once per provider and use it in your procurement notes.
01 / Mandate and venue scope
Name the token, pair, venue and service: RFQ, order-book quoting, pool setup or ongoing pool management. Which integrations are live, and which require development?
Request: Written scope; evidence of the proposed integration; named dependencies.
02 / Setup, retainer and extras
Separate assessment, implementation, recurring operation, taxes and third-party costs. What triggers extra work, and who must approve it?
Request: Fee schedule, deliverables, payment milestones and written change-control terms.
03 / Inventory and funding
Who supplies each asset, who owns it, and how can it be returned? Is a capital figure a scenario, a minimum or a firm requirement?
Request: Asset schedule, ownership and return terms, and the assumptions behind capital needs.
04 / Executable size and pricing
At which trade sizes and reference prices will quality be assessed? For a pool, what price impact is expected?
Request: Example quotes or scenario outputs, reference methodology and size-specific targets.
05 / Availability and exceptions
What hours are covered? What counts as a valid quote? How are inventory pauses, venue failures and stale prices treated?
Request: Measurement windows, sampling rules, exclusions and incident responsibilities.
06 / Risk limits and stopping
Which inventory and loss limits apply? Who can pause trading or change limits, and how are breaches handled?
Request: Documented limits, escalation contacts and a stop/restart procedure.
07 / Custody and permissions
Who can sign, trade or withdraw? How are access changes, revocation and the segregation of project assets handled?
Request: Permission map, custody arrangement and procedures; never send seed phrases during diligence.
08 / Reporting and reconciliation
Can quotes, fills, fees and inventory movements be reconciled? What is measured, and what remains outside the report?
Request: Sample report, data sources, reconciliation process and access rights.
09 / Economics and conflicts
Are there token loans, options, profit shares or other rights? How does the provider manage conflicts with its own trading?
Request: Complete economic terms and conflict disclosures, including side agreements.
10 / Evidence and attribution
Does the evidence concern own-capital trading or client service? What dates, assets, fees and capital definitions does it cover?
Request: Dated records and clear attribution; do not treat a wallet as a complete audit.
11 / Acceptance and remedies
What must work before launch? Who approves acceptance, and what happens if a service target is missed?
Request: Test and acceptance criteria, exception handling and agreed remedies.
12 / Exit and handover
What notice is needed, what costs remain, and how are assets, permissions, data and open positions handled?
Request: Termination terms, asset-return process and a documented handover.
Make the decision in two passes
First resolve any blocking issues around identity, access, asset control, feasibility and the project’s requirements. Then compare the acceptable proposals on cost, measurable service and evidence. Do not let a low fee compensate for an unresolved asset-control question.
This is an issuer diligence framework, not a ranking of providers. Astrum should be assessed against the same questions. Use the worked budget example to distinguish a limited pilot from ongoing market making.
Confirm the actual venue and token scope
Ask which integrations are live today, which require development and which depend on a third party. Separate the firm’s own trading activity from completed issuer engagements. A logo on a slide does not establish operational connectivity or a client relationship.
For a Solana project, distinguish order-book quoting, AMM liquidity and RFQ execution. Jupiter’s RFQ integration documentation, for example, describes a quote-and-swap webhook model. The integration requirements differ from posting orders to a centralised exchange.
Astrum’s current live execution is on Jupiter RFQ on Solana and on 1inch Fusion as an approved resolver on Solana, Ethereum and Base. Any additional venue or token support is assessed before a commitment is made. See our Solana token liquidity scope for the distinction between current operation and a prospective mandate.
Ask for measurable execution targets
| Measure | Questions to ask |
|---|---|
| Spread | Relative to which reference price, over which hours, and at what executable size? |
| Depth | How much on each side, within which price band? Is displayed depth actually available? |
| Availability | What counts as a valid quote? How are outages, stale quotes and inventory pauses treated? |
| Execution quality | What happens after a fill? Are fees, failed transactions and adverse price movement included? |
A quoted spread without size can conceal poor execution for larger orders. A daily average can conceal long interruptions. Agree the data source and sampling method before trading starts.
Read the track record in context
Ask for the measurement period, traded assets, capital definition, fee coverage and treatment of open inventory. Real settlements establish activity; they do not alone establish complete profitability.
Compare results only when the definitions match. Trading P&L, inventory mark-to-market, gross spread capture and issuer service revenue are different quantities. An independent audit is also different from a public wallet or a provider-produced report.
Our monthly execution record illustrates the distinction, including coverage gaps and the limits of a short initial measurement period.
Check who controls assets and decisions
- Who owns the inventory and holds account or wallet access?
- Can trading permissions be separated from withdrawal permissions?
- Who can stop quoting, and what happens during a venue outage?
- What exposure limits, reference-price checks and self-trade controls apply?
- How are balances and fills reconciled, and who investigates discrepancies?
Controls must suit the venue. Coinbase Exchange, for example, documents its own self-trade prevention and matching rules. A provider must understand the rules of the specific market it proposes to serve.
Review the agreement and the exit
Match the contract to the proposal: exact scope, fees, reporting, permissions, asset-return terms, notice periods and incident escalation. Identify any loans, options or other economic rights separately. Ask how conflicts are managed if the desk trades for itself as well as providing a service.
Treat promises of guaranteed token prices or manufactured activity as reasons to stop and investigate. Genuine liquidity provision does not guarantee demand, exchange admission or investment returns.
Use the budget guide to compare economics and the TGE checklist to prepare the operational handover.
Discuss your liquidity requirements.
Send your token, venues and timeline. We’ll assess the scope and explain whether Astrum can help.
Discuss token liquiditySources and scope
This guide presents Astrum’s suggested questions and operating considerations. Venue mechanics are described in the official Jupiter RFQ documentation and Coinbase Exchange matching-engine documentation. These examples do not imply an affiliation or live connectivity to every venue mentioned. For Astrum’s own measured activity, see our monthly record.
Published 16 July 2026. Substantially revised 29 September 2026. Prepared by Astrum Liquidity; meet the founder. This guide is general information, not investment or legal advice.