營銷的黑暗面：如何使用貸款期權模型地剝奪加密貨幣項目

這是一個項目向做市商提供代幣的貸款，後者然後使用它們來創造流動性，提高價格穩定性並幫助在加密貨幣交易所確保列表。

A common offering from market makers is the "loan option model," where a project lends tokens to the market maker, who then uses them to create liquidity, improve price stability and help secure listings at a cryptocurrency exchange. In exchange, the market maker promises to return the tokens at a higher price within a year if they aren't able to get them listed on the agreed-upon exchange.

做市商的一個普遍產品是“貸​​款期權模型”，一個項目向做市商提供代幣，後者隨後使用它們來創造流動性，提高價格穩定性並幫助在加密貨幣交易所獲得列表。作為交換，做市商承諾，如果他們無法將其列入商定的交易所，則將在一年內以更高的價格返回代幣。

While this model is often framed as a win-win scenario — with the market maker providing liquidity and trading activity to support the token price and the project offering a lower-cost capital solution — in reality, it has been a death sentence for many young projects.

儘管該模型通常被構成雙贏情景 - 市政機構提供流動性和交易活動來支持代幣價格，而該項目提供了低成本的資本解決方案，但實際上，這是許多年輕項目的死刑。

"How it works is that market makers essentially loan tokens from a project at a certain price. In exchange for those tokens, they essentially promise to get them on big exchanges. If they don't, then within a year, they repay them back at a higher price," said Ariel Givner, founder of Givner Law.

“營銷商的工作原理基本上是以一定的價格向項目貸款。作為換取這些代幣，他們本質上承諾將在大型交易所進行。如果他們不這樣做，那麼一年之內，他們以較高的價格償還了它們，”吉夫納·勞（Givner Law）的創始人阿里爾·吉夫納（Ariel Givner）說。

"If they do get the tokens listed, then they're able to keep the tokens and sell them back to the project at a higher price than what they paid for them."

“如果他們確實列出了代幣，那麼他們就可以保留令牌並以比他們支付的價格更高的價格將其出售給項目。”

But behind the scenes, a number of market makers are using the controversial token loan structure to enrich themselves at the expense of the very projects they're meant to support. These deals, often framed as low-risk and high-reward, can crater token prices and leave fledgling crypto teams scrambling to recover.

但是在幕後，許多做市商正在利用有爭議的令牌貸款結構來豐富自己，而犧牲了他們要支持的項目。這些交易通常以低風險和高級獎勵而定，可以遍布代幣的價格，並使剛起步的加密團隊爭先恐後地恢復。

"I haven't seen any token really benefit from these market makers. I'm sure there are ethical ones, but the bigger ones I've seen just destroy charts," Givner said.

吉夫納說：“我還沒有看到這些做市商真正受益。我敢肯定有道德的，但我所看到的較大的做市商只是摧毀了圖表。”

The market maker playbook

做市商劇本

Firms like DWF Labs and Wintermute are some of the best-known market makers in the industry. Past governance proposals and contracts viewed by Cointelegraph suggest that both firms proposed the loan option model as part of their offerings — though Wintermute's proposals call them "liquidity provision" services.

DWF Labs和Wintermute等公司是業內最著名的做市商。 Cointelegraph觀看的過去的治理建議和合同表明，兩家公司都提出了貸款期權模型作為其產品的一部分 - 儘管Wintermute的建議稱其為“流動性提供”服務。

DWF Labs said that it doesn't rely on selling loaned assets to fund positions, as its balance sheet sufficiently supports its operations and liquidity needs across exchanges without relying on liquidation risk.

DWF實驗室表示，它不依賴出售借貸資產來資助職位，因為其資產負債表足夠支持其在交易所的運營和流動性需求而不依賴清算風險。

"Selling loaned tokens upfront can damage a project's liquidity — especially for small- to mid-cap tokens — and we're not in the business of weakening ecosystems we invest in," said Andrei Grachev, managing partner of DWF Labs, in a written response to Cointelegraph's inquiry.

DWF Labs的執行合夥人安德烈·格拉切夫（Andrei Grachev）表示：“出售租借的代幣可能會損害項目的流動性，尤其是對於中小型股份代幣的流動性，而且我們並不是在削弱我們投資的生態系統的業務。”

While DWF Labs emphasizes its commitment to ecosystem growth, some onchain analysts and industry observers have raised concerns about the firm's trading practices.

儘管DWF實驗室強調了其對生態系統增長的承諾，但一些Onchain分析師和行業觀察家對公司的交易實踐提出了擔憂。

Wintermute did not respond to Cointelegraph's request for comment. But in a February X post, Wintermute CEO Evgeny Gaevoy shared some of the company's operations with the community. He bluntly stated that Wintermute is not a charity but in the "business of making money by trading."

Wintermute沒有回應Cointelegraph的置評請求。但是在2月X個帖子中，溫特穆特首席執行官Evgeny Gaevoy與社區分享了該公司的一些業務。他直言不諱地說，溫特穆特不是一個慈善機構，而是“通過交易賺錢的業務”。

What happens after the market maker gets the tokens?

做市商獲得令牌後會發生什麼？

Jelle Buth, co-founder of market maker Enflux, said that the loan option model isn't unique to the well-known market makers like DWF and Wintermute, and there are other parties offering such "predatory deals."

做市商ENFLUX的聯合創始人Jelle Buth表示，貸款期權模式並不是DWF和Wintermute等知名做市商所獨有的，還有其他政黨提供此類“掠奪性交易”。

"I call it information arbitrage, where the market maker very clearly understands the pros and cons of the deals but is able to put it such that it's a benefit. What they say is, 'It's a free market maker; you don't have to put up the capital as a project; we provide the capital; we provide the market-making services,'" Buth said.

“我稱其為信息套利，做市商非常清楚地了解交易的優缺點，但能夠說這是一個好處。他們說的是，'這是一個自由做市商；您不必將資本作為一個項目；我們提供資金；我們提供市場製定服務；我們提供市場製定服務，” Buth說。

On the other end, many projects don't fully understand the downsides of the loan option deals and often learn the latter part of the agreement, he added. Buth advises projects to measure whether loaning out their tokens would result in quality liquidity, which is measured by orders on the book and clearly outlined in the key performance indicators (KPIs) before committing to such deals. In many loan option deals, KPIs are often missing or vague when mentioned.

他補充說，另一方面，許多項目並不完全了解貸款期權交易的弊端，並且經常學習協議的後半部分。 Buth建議項目衡量借出代幣是否會導致質量流動性，這是通過書籍上的訂單來衡量的，並在致力於此類交易之前在關鍵績效指標（KPI）中清楚概述。在許多貸款期權交易中，提到KPI通常會缺少或模糊。

Cointelegraph reviewed the token performance of several projects that signed loan option deals with market makers, including some that worked with multiple firms at once. The outcome was the same in those examples: The projects were left worse off than when they started.

Cointelegraph審查了幾個項目的代幣績效，這些項目與做市商簽署了貸款期權，其中包括與多家公司合作的一些項目。這些示例中的結果是相同的：這些項目比開始時要差。

"We've worked with projects that were screwed over after the loan model," said Kristiyan Slavev, co-founder of Web3 accelerator Delta3.

Web3 Accelerator Delta3的聯合創始人Kristiyan Slavev說：“我們已經與貸款模式後的項目合作。”

"It's exactly the same pattern. They give tokens, then they're dumped. That's pretty much what happens."

“這是完全相同的模式。他們給予令牌，然後被拋棄。這幾乎是發生的事情。”

Not all market-maker deals end in disaster

並非所有市場營銷交易都以災難結束

The loan option model isn't inherently harmful and can even benefit larger projects, but poor structuring can quickly turn it predatory, according to Buth.

根據Buth的說法，貸款期權模型並不是固有的有害，甚至可以使大型項目受益，但是較差的結構可以迅速將其掠奪。

A listings adviser who spoke to Cointelegraph on the condition of anonymity underscored that the outcomes depend on how well a project manages its liquidity

與Cointelegraph有關匿名狀況的列表顧問強調了結果取決於項目的流動性如何