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.
Crypto market makers charge through three main models. A retainer is a fixed monthly fee — predictable, but paid regardless of results. Profit-sharing replaces the fee with a split of realized trading P&L — no upfront cost, and the desk earns only when the strategy does. The loan model costs no cash at all: the project lends tokens to the desk, which compensates itself through call options on those tokens — often the most expensive model in the end, just not in ways an invoice shows. This guide explains how each model actually works, what it really costs, and which project profile each one fits.
The commercial model matters as much as the desk you choose, because it defines the desk's incentives. A market maker paid a flat fee, a market maker paid from P&L, and a market maker holding a call option on your token are three different counterparties — even if the trading algorithms are identical.
Disclosure: Motion Trade is our own desk. We work on both retainer and profit-sharing terms, and we'll be explicit below about where each model — including ours — has weaknesses.
The retainer model
How it works. The project pays a fixed monthly fee; the desk commits to defined KPIs — spread targets, order book depth, uptime, exchange coverage. The project typically provides the trading inventory (tokens and stablecoins on exchange accounts), and any trading P&L belongs to the project.
What it costs. Retainers scale with scope: the number of exchanges and pairs, depth requirements, and whether coverage is algorithmic-only or includes a dedicated trading team. At desks serving small-cap projects, entry-level engagements start in the low thousands of dollars per month; tier-1 desks quoting multi-exchange coverage for larger tokens charge multiples of that. The fee is the whole cost — which is exactly its appeal.
Strengths. Fully predictable budgeting, no claim on your token supply, clean SLA-based accountability: if depth and spread targets aren't met, the contract tells you.
Weaknesses. The desk is paid whether your market improves or not — alignment comes from SLAs, not shared outcomes. And a retainer sized for a top-100 token can drain a small project's runway in months, which is how many small-caps end up with no market maker at all.
Fits: projects with stable treasuries that value predictability and want to keep 100% of trading upside.
The profit-sharing model
How it works. No fixed fee. The desk audits the project's liquidity and KPI baselines, agrees on trading pairs, targets, and transparent profit-split rules, then earns a pre-agreed share of realized P&L. Motion Trade's profit-sharing model carries no setup or entry fees, with split logic fixed in advance and audit-ready reporting against it.
What it costs. A share of profits that would not exist without the engagement — payouts come from realized P&L, not from the project's cash. In documented profit-sharing engagements, Motion Trade clients have seen 5x capital growth ($20K to $106K) through phased recovery trading, and 3x capital growth ($200K to $721K) with 360%+ realized PnL on a DePIN project — with the desk's compensation coming out of those results.
Strengths. The strongest incentive alignment of the three models: the desk earns nothing unless the strategy produces results, which removes the "paid to exist" problem of retainers and the conflict of interest built into loans. For small treasuries, removing the fixed monthly cost is often what makes professional market making affordable at all.
Weaknesses. You give up part of the upside — in a strongly performing market, a project can end up paying more in profit share than a retainer would have cost. The model also demands more trust in reporting: insist on pre-agreed split logic and real-time visibility into P&L, and walk away from any desk that can't show both.
Fits: small- and mid-cap projects that can't justify a fixed fee, and any team that prefers a partner paid on performance over a vendor paid on schedule.
The loan model
How it works. The project lends the desk a quantity of tokens (sometimes with a stablecoin component). At the end of the term, the desk either returns the loan or exercises call options embedded in the agreement — buying the tokens at a pre-agreed strike price. The desk's compensation is the option value; the project pays no cash.
What it costs. Nothing on an invoice — and potentially more than any other model in reality. If the token appreciates well above the strike, the desk exercises the options and captures that upside; the project has effectively sold a call option on its own token and priced it, usually, without an options desk of its own on the other side of the table. If the token declines, the desk may return the tokens and walk away, having had limited incentive to defend the price it could otherwise buy cheaply.
Strengths. Zero cash outlay, which matters for projects that are token-rich and cash-poor. It's also historically the standard structure that tier-1 desks offer at launch, so it can come bundled with strong exchange relationships.
Weaknesses. A structural conflict of interest: the desk can profit from the financing itself even when the token's market performs badly — a desk holding cheap strikes benefits from a price that stays low until exercise. Terms are complex, true costs are opaque, and a mispriced strike on a token that runs can cost a project more than years of retainers. If you take a loan deal, model the option payoff across price scenarios before signing — not after.
Fits: well-advised larger projects that can price the options properly and want tier-1 desk relationships without cash costs.
How the three models compare
Cash cost: retainer — fixed monthly fee; profit-sharing — zero upfront, share of realized P&L; loan — zero upfront, option value paid in token upside.
Incentive alignment: profit-sharing ties compensation directly to achieved results; a retainer aligns through SLAs but not P&L; a loan can reward the desk even when the project's market underperforms.
Risk to token supply: retainer and profit-sharing leave supply intact; the loan model puts a call option on part of it.
Transparency: retainers offer standard contract reporting; profit-sharing requires (and, done properly, delivers) pre-agreed split logic with audit-ready reporting; loan structures are the hardest to audit and the easiest to misprice.
Budget predictability: retainer wins; profit-sharing costs scale with success; loan costs are unknowable until expiry.
How to choose
Start from your treasury, not from the desk's pitch. If your runway is measured in years and you want full upside, pay the retainer. If a fixed fee would strain your runway — the situation of most small- and mid-cap projects — profit-sharing gets you professional liquidity without the fixed cost, at the price of sharing results. If you're token-rich, cash-poor, and negotiating with tier-1 desks, the loan model is on the table — but treat the option terms as the entire negotiation, because they are.
Whichever model you choose, two requirements are non-negotiable: real-time reporting you can verify independently, and KPIs written into the agreement. A desk confident in its execution will accept both without hesitation — under any pricing model.
FAQ
How much does crypto market making cost?
It depends on the model. Retainers range from low thousands of dollars per month at desks serving small-cap tokens to substantially more for multi-exchange tier-1 coverage. Profit-sharing engagements have no upfront fee — the desk takes a pre-agreed share of realized trading P&L. Loan-model deals cost no cash but grant the desk call options on the project's token, whose real cost depends on where the price goes.
Which pricing model is best for a small-cap project?
Usually profit-sharing or a modest retainer. Small treasuries rarely survive retainers sized for large tokens, and small teams rarely have the expertise to price the options embedded in loan deals. A performance-based model with no upfront fees keeps runway intact and pays the desk from results.
What is the loan model in crypto market making?
The project lends tokens to the market maker, and at the end of the term the desk either returns them or exercises call options at a pre-agreed strike price. The project pays no cash; the desk's compensation is the option value. The risk is that a mispriced strike on an appreciating token can cost far more than any retainer would have.
Is profit-sharing market making risky?
The main trade-off is giving up part of the upside: in a strong market, the profit share can exceed what a retainer would have cost. The model works when split rules are fixed in advance and reporting is transparent and real-time — those two conditions are what to verify before signing.
