BitMEX CEO Calls for an End to Internal Market Makers
In a recent interview, Stephan Lutz, the acting CEO and group CFO of 100x Group, the parent company of Seychelles-headquartered global crypto exchange BitMEX, expressed his belief that crypto exchanges should phase out their internal market-making teams.
Prop trading desks unnecessary
Speaking with The Block, Lutz argued that with the growth of institutional liquidity providers and high-frequency traders (HFTs) in the market, proprietary trading desks are becoming unnecessary.
Lutz stated: “You have enough HFTs out there and prop shops that can perform that function.” He was referring to the role of liquidity providers in filling gaps in the market. He made these comments in response to the emergence of information earlier this week that raised questions about internal trading practices at Crypto.com, a Singapore-based exchange.
BitMEX, once the world’s largest crypto derivatives exchange, also used to employ internal traders who acted as market makers. However, Lutz explained that BitMEX’s internal trading team, named Arrakis Capital, now functions primarily as a “treasury desk.” He sees this transition as a natural evolution for crypto exchanges in a market that has matured and attracted more institutional liquidity providers.
Arrakis Capital currently performs limited functions, including converting commission fees earned in Bitcoin into fiat currency for operational purposes, hedging BitMEX’s exposure to tokens held as inventory, and making markets for BitMEX’s token $BMEX. Lutz clarified that Arrakis’s market-making activities are limited because external market makers find the token’s liquidity insufficient.
Regarding profitability, Lutz stated that Arrakis earns “very minor returns” of up to $100,000 per month from holding T-Bills, but it incurred losses last year. He noted that Arrakis used to play a more significant market-making role when BitMEX dominated the crypto futures market. However, he assured that the trading desk was always segregated, despite accusations in the past.
Fee structures
Lutz acknowledged that exchanges with internal trading teams have faced increased scrutiny since the controversies surrounding Alameda Research and FTX. To differentiate between benign internal trading teams and hedge fund-like operations, Lutz highlighted several factors, including the separation of client funds and house funds, access to sensitive data, and the ability to move markets on their own exchange. Fee structures also play a role, with low or no transaction fees potentially signaling a market-making motive rather than serving as a counterparty.
Lutz’s perspective suggests that crypto exchanges should rely on external liquidity providers and HFTs rather than maintaining internal market-making teams. He argues that the market has evolved. At this point he feels that these teams are no longer necessary, due to the presence of established players within the digital assets space.
As regulatory scrutiny grows, ensuring transparency and avoiding conflicts of interest become crucial for maintaining trust within the crypto exchange ecosystem. The digital assets industry is far from arriving at a mature stage in its development. While many in the industry have found the stance taken by regulators to be unhelpful, the industry itself must also demonstrate its ability to iteratively move towards best practice, without that being a knee-jerk response to regulatory enforcement.
