Helen is Marketing Team Lead at Motion Trade with 4+ years in Web3 and crypto marketing. Before joining Motion Trade, she built and led the marketing function at CLS Global and managed social media campaigns for a portfolio of crypto clients at Ninja Promo. She specializes in turning complex trading products into clear stories.
A small-cap token on a low budget should buy less scope, not lower quality. The safest way to save money on market making is to quote fewer venues and fewer pairs, while keeping continuous coverage, written spread and depth targets, verifiable reporting and clear exit terms on the venues you do keep. One exchange quoted properly is worth more than three quoted badly, because exchanges average spread, depth and price consistency over consecutive days and remove tokens that fall short. The 2026 market makes this discipline more important: IOSG's analysis of Binance found that 49 percent of spot tokens with a fully diluted valuation below 10 million dollars were delisted in 2026, while CryptoRank recorded spot volume at a two-year low of 3.0 trillion dollars in the second quarter. Small tokens have less natural flow and less tolerance from venues, so every dollar of liquidity has to be placed where it protects the listing.
Most market making advice is written for projects that can afford several venues, a derivatives pair and a desk with an institutional balance sheet. Most projects cannot. A token with a market capitalisation in the low millions and a treasury measured in months of runway has to decide what liquidity it can sustain, and the decision is usually made badly: the team signs the cheapest quote available, lists on as many exchanges as it can, and discovers three months later that none of the books is deep enough to keep it listed. This article sets out how to make the same budget go further.
Why small tokens are under more pressure in 2026
The environment for small tokens is the toughest it has been for several years. CryptoRank's second-quarter 2026 exchange recap put centralised spot volume at 3.0 trillion dollars, down 18.9 percent on the previous quarter and half the late-2024 peak, with new listings across major exchanges at 351, the lowest quarterly total in two years. MEXC alone accounted for 41 percent of those listings, which is why it is so often the first venue for a small token.
Exchanges are also removing small tokens faster. IOSG Ventures' study of Binance delistings, published in September 2026, found that nearly half of spot tokens below 10 million dollars of fully diluted valuation were removed in 2026, while none above 100 million were. The detail is in exchange volume requirements to stay listed. The lesson for a small project is not that listing is pointless but that a listing has to be maintained, and maintenance is where the budget goes.
Where a small budget actually goes
A liquidity programme has four lines, and quotes that look cheap usually hide one of them. The first is the market maker's fee, whether a retainer, a profit share or options under a loan. The second is the inventory that sits on the book in both the token and the quote currency, which somebody has to fund and which is committed for as long as the book is quoted. The third is the exchange side, including any listing fees, deposits and marketing commitments, covered in what it costs to list a token in 2026. The fourth is everything around it: audit, legal work, treasury execution and the internal time of whoever reads the reports.
For most small projects, inventory is the largest of these and the one most often forgotten. Every additional venue needs its own inventory on both sides, so adding exchanges multiplies the capital required even if the market maker's fee barely changes. That is the single strongest argument for keeping the venue list short.
Where it is safe to save
- Number of venues. Start with one exchange whose post-listing rules you can meet every day, and add the next only when the first is healthy and funded. The trade-offs between venue tiers are in tier 1 vs tier 2 exchange listings.
- Number of pairs. One USDT pair on each venue is usually enough. Additional quote currencies, a BTC pair or a perpetual contract each need separate inventory and attention.
- Depth bands. Commit to depth that you can actually fund at the bands exchanges and aggregators measure, rather than to a large headline figure placed far from the mid price. How depth is measured is explained in order book depth explained.
- Extras. Strategic consulting, bundled marketing, listing introductions to venues you are not ready for and dashboards with features you will not read can all wait.
Where it is never safe to save
- Continuous coverage. Exchanges measure spread and depth daily and average them over consecutive days. A desk that quotes only during some hours, or pauses on weekends, builds the record that leads to a warning tag. MEXC's published thresholds, including a spread above two percent for fifteen consecutive days, are in the MEXC listing guide.
- Written KPIs. A spread ceiling, depth at defined bands and an uptime percentage, in the contract. A cheap engagement without numbers is not cheaper; it is unmeasurable.
- Reporting you can check. Without data you cannot tell whether the service is being delivered.
- Exit terms. What happens to inventory and loaned tokens when the engagement ends, and how quickly, as described in what happens when a market making contract ends.
- Honesty about volume. Packages that promise volume rather than depth are the most expensive option of all, because manufactured activity is a reason exchanges remove tokens.
| Element of the programme | Safe to reduce? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Number of venues | Yes | Each venue multiplies inventory; one healthy venue protects the listing better than several thin ones |
| Number of pairs | Yes | Extra pairs and perpetuals need separate inventory and monitoring |
| Bundled extras | Yes | Consulting, marketing and early introductions can follow later |
| Hours of coverage | No | Exchanges average metrics over consecutive days, including weekends |
| Written spread, depth and uptime targets | No | Without numbers there is nothing to enforce |
| Reporting | No | You cannot verify a service you cannot see |
| Exit and inventory terms | No | The end of an engagement is when cheap contracts become expensive |
Which pricing model fits a small budget
Each of the three common structures can work for a small token, and each has a trap. A retainer with the project's own inventory is the most transparent and keeps tokens in accounts the project controls, but it requires cash and inventory up front. A loan-and-option structure needs little cash, which is why small teams find it attractive, but it hands supply to the desk and its real cost depends on how the options are written; small loans with realistic strikes and a firm return schedule are far safer than large ones. Profit sharing can align interests when the measure of profit is something the project can audit. The trade-offs are worked through in retainer vs profit-sharing vs loan model, and Motion Trade's version of the last option is described on our profit sharing page.
A minimum viable liquidity programme
For a small token, a defensible starting point looks like this. One centralised venue chosen because its post-listing rules can be met every day. One USDT pair. A contracted desk with a written spread ceiling well inside the venue's threshold, depth at the bands the venue and aggregators measure, and an uptime target that covers every day of the week. Inventory funded for at least ninety days and through the first material unlock. Real-time or daily reporting the team actually reads. If the token also trades in a pool, one party responsible for keeping the pool and the book aligned. And a plan for the second venue that starts only when the first has been healthy for a full review cycle.
That programme will not make a chart look exciting. It will keep the token listed, tradable and credible while the project builds the demand that no market maker can create. A comparison of the desks that serve this segment is in best market makers for small-cap and mid-cap tokens.
FAQ
Can a small-cap token afford a market maker?
Usually yes, if the scope is matched to the budget. The most effective way to make market making affordable is to quote fewer venues and pairs while keeping continuous coverage, written targets and reporting on the venues that remain.
What is the cheapest way to get market making for a small token?
The cheapest sustainable option is a narrow engagement on one venue and one pair, under either a retainer with the project's own inventory or a small loan-and-option structure with tight terms. Quotes that are cheaper because they drop KPIs, reporting or weekend coverage tend to cost more later.
How many exchanges should a small-cap token list on?
Start with one venue whose post-listing requirements you can meet every day, and add another only when the first is healthy and the inventory for the second is funded. Each extra venue multiplies the capital needed on the book.
Is a loan-and-option model good for a low budget?
It can be, because it needs little cash. The risk lies in the size of the loan, the strike prices and the return terms. A small loan with realistic strikes, restrictions on how the tokens may be used and a firm return schedule is far safer than a large loan granted to save cash.
What should a small token never cut from its market making budget?
Continuous coverage every day of the week, written spread, depth and uptime targets, reporting the team can verify, and clear terms for returning inventory and loaned tokens at the end of the engagement.
Why are small tokens delisted more often?
Small tokens have thinner books and less natural trading, so spread, depth and price consistency fall below exchange thresholds more easily. IOSG found that 49 percent of Binance spot tokens with a fully diluted valuation below 10 million dollars were delisted in 2026, compared with none above 100 million.
