Encrypted market-making trading volume shrinks, but institutionalization accelerates; after GSR received investment from Standard Chartered, it rapidly expanded and is becoming a crypto capital markets platform. (Background recap: the market-making giant GSR launched its first actively managed multi-coin crypto ETF, “BESO”: tracking BTC, ETH, SOL and including staking rewards) (Additional context: Can SOL still surge another ninefold? GSR: after Solana’s spot ETF launch, performance is expected to outperform Bitcoin) Research scope: the market structure of the crypto market-making industry and major participants | Data as of 2026-09-13, from publicly available reporting | BigTime, focusing on market-making, liquidity, and real trading/technical practice. There is no public revenue statistics for the market-making industry; note that the article’s figures may differ in definitions and timeliness. Key takeaways: Trading volume has continued to decline from the September 2025 peak; institutional trading’s share hit a new high at 72%, and the market-makers’ customer base and revenue structure have shifted in tandem toward institutionalization. Three industry main lines: (1) the cycle clears out participants and increases concentration; (2) traditional financial institutions exchange equity for crypto capability (represented by Standard Chartered investing in GSR); (3) top companies jointly expand into a “crypto capital markets platform.” FalconX has filed for an IPO. Compared with the polarized post-listing performance of Circle, Bullish, and Gemini, for valuation of companies like these, the range is more meaningful than a single point value. Before researching a market maker, put it back into the industry. Crypto market-making is an industry with non-public revenue and fast-changing dynamics. Public information can only outline the picture. But once major players are placed on the same map, several things become clear: after trading volume cools, who is still expanding; where institutional capital is coming from; and what form these companies are turning into. I. Industry snapshot: five sets of data to gauge the environment Five sets of public data outline the current business environment for market makers: Frozen trading: 72% institutional share reshapes the customer structure Table 1｜Crypto market environment: five sets of data Source: see the “Source” column inside the table; all are publicly reported. Read the five numbers together. Trading value has continued to fall from the September 2025 peak, and the market’s contraction is real. But the structure is moving in two directions: first, derivatives—derivatives’ trading ratio at 9.6x shows that the trading focus (and therefore market makers’ inventory and primary hedging battleground) is on the derivatives side; second, institutional capital—ETF assets are approaching $100 billion, stablecoin supply is at a new high, and institutional trading accounts for 72%. The participation structure in this market is no longer dominated by retail traders. Five data sets: derivatives surge and ETF scale in the hundreds of billions; volume is shrinking while the customer base is institutionalizing. The market maker’s customer composition, service methods, and revenue sources are all changing with this backdrop. II. Major players side-by-side Table 2｜Positioning and recent status of major market makers Source: compiled from public reporting; as of 2026-09-13. A shuffle in the landscape: 30% exit and banks buy in to gain capability. Different firms disclose different metrics; valuation figures are often media-transmitted private placement or rumor-based measures, and cannot be directly compared. III. How to read the landscape: four lines of insight The cycle eliminates participants. The market’s sharp drop in October 2025 led to roughly $19 billion in end-of-day liquidations (Decrypt, 2025-10-17), followed by the claim that “30% of market makers exited” (Galaxy CEO, 2025-11, via media). No matter the exact proportion, the direction is clear: in a phase where bearish volume and volatility contract, quoting obligations and inventory risk are eroding smaller participants, and industry concentration is rising. Traditional financial institutions are using equity investment to buy capability. Standard Chartered’s SC Ventures invested in GSR—this is GSR’s first external strategic shareholder. The same banking group has also collaborated with B2C2 and FalconX. Japan’s SBI holds B2C2. Banks don’t do crypto market making themselves; instead, they buy shares and form alliances. This is the clearest industry main line in 2026. IPO window: polarized listing performance and platform-based expansion. The listing window is open, but the outcomes are polarized. FalconX has filed its IPO application (2026-05). Looking at peers that listed in 2025: Circle was up 168% on day one; Bullish was up 90% on day one; but Gemini was down about 89% versus its day-one level by July 2026. CoinShares fell 21.7% on the first day of its April 2026 listing. A market maker or brokerage listing doesn’t automatically mean guaranteed profits after listing—this topic deserves separate discussion. We believe the expansion directions are converging. Wintermute has obtained a U.S. broker license; GSR acquired a FINRA broker and launched an ETF, and firms are entering tokenized assets in sequence. How big is this market? Several figures can be referenced: tokenized RWA market value is about $51 billion, up 40% year over year (Bernstein definition, The Block 2026-06-22); another estimate puts it around $60 billion, with about half lacking substantive on-chain activity (Forbes 2026-07-02); tokenized U.S. Treasuries exceed $10 billion (Yellow, 2026-09-13). Market makers are already getting into these assets: Wintermute launched tokenized gold OTC and expects the market to reach $15 billion in 2026 (The Block 2026-02-16); GSR’s market manager Spencer Hallarn mentioned in a podcast that RWA perpetual contracts accounted for 63% of Hyperliquid’s trading volume (The Desk podcast, 2026-09). Moving from single-market-making expansion to a “crypto capital markets platform” is a common move among leading companies. To judge the quality of this kind of expansion, you have to return to customer adoption and operating results—not the count of announcements. IV. When researching a market-making company, what to look for When researching this type of company, it’s worth consistently checking four things: Quoting and risk-control capability: when volatility amplifies, can the firm maintain quoting; how are inventory and hedging costs managed. This is the hardest to observe externally and can only be inferred from long-term behavior. The legal entity and businesses covered by the licenses: licenses belong to specific legal entities and map to specific business scopes. You can’t infer the whole company’s coverage from the license name alone. Capital relationships: who invests and who controls determines the company’s resource allocation and interest structure. GSR and Standard Chartered’s capital relationship is one example. Customer structure and service depth: is it mainly one-off trading customers, or are there continuous needs spanning issuance, trading, and treasury? GSR’s position on this map: a long-established market maker that has filled cross-jurisdiction license coverage, brought in a bank-affiliated shareholder base, and pushed its business toward ETF and advisory services. It is one of the samples for observing how this industry is shifting from market making toward institutional capital markets services. For a full dissection of the company itself, see (GSR deep research: a market maker—why it started building a crypto capital markets platform?). Risk notice: Industry data comes from third-party statistics and media reports, so definitions and statistical timing differ; indicators such as trading volume and institutional share change quickly with market conditions, and some event information may be revised later; the current status of individual companies is based on media reports and has not been confirmed by audits. Sources: All data and event origins in the article are from publicly available reporting; retrieval as of 2026-09-13: Trading value and derivatives: CoinDesk Data / CCData Exchange Reviews（202…