GSR's recent actions appear to be a major strategic shift, but an extreme scenario like a passive market maker liquidation is actually difficult to occur.
Upon closer inspection, the real reason behind the market makers' strategy adjustments still points back to the projects themselves. Many crypto projects have long lost their backers, and the project teams no longer want to spend money on liquidity. Many of these are well-known projects.
Faced with such industry upheaval, market maker institutions like GSR naturally need to make corresponding strategic adjustments. Rather than passively taking hits, it's better to proactively optimize strategies and resource allocation.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
9 Likes
Reward
9
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
Web3Educator
· 11h ago
ngl, this whole "gsr pivoting" thing feels like everyone's missing the real plot—projects are just broke and tired of bleeding capital into liquidity pools that don't move the needle anymore lmao
Reply0
PseudoIntellectual
· 11h ago
Basically, the project ran out of money, and market makers also have to eat.
---
GSR's recent moves were actually forced; there's no strategic plan involved.
---
The real issue is that those projects simply can't attract funding anymore; they should have realized this long ago.
---
So, the market makers are also victims; no one can be blamed.
---
It sounds like a chain reaction—when a project fails, market makers have to adjust accordingly.
---
That's the truth. It's not that GSR is awesome; there's no other choice.
---
Are even well-known projects no longer being picked up? That cycle must be very difficult.
---
It's better to adjust proactively than to get liquidated—it's a smart way to live.
---
The problem lies with the projects themselves; market makers are just clearing the battlefield.
View OriginalReply0
ser_ngmi
· 11h ago
Basically, it's just that the project team ran out of money
It's all because the coin price dropped so much, who would still be willing to inject liquidity
GSR and these guys are also forced into it, there's no other way
It should have been adjusted earlier, dragging on for so long
The taker side has all fled, how to make a market
View OriginalReply0
SchrodingerProfit
· 12h ago
Basically, it's just that the project team ran out of money.
Market makers also need to eat; without liquidity, who would foolishly keep working?
This wave of GSR adjustments is actually just about staying alive, not some strategic genius move.
GSR's recent actions appear to be a major strategic shift, but an extreme scenario like a passive market maker liquidation is actually difficult to occur.
Upon closer inspection, the real reason behind the market makers' strategy adjustments still points back to the projects themselves. Many crypto projects have long lost their backers, and the project teams no longer want to spend money on liquidity. Many of these are well-known projects.
Faced with such industry upheaval, market maker institutions like GSR naturally need to make corresponding strategic adjustments. Rather than passively taking hits, it's better to proactively optimize strategies and resource allocation.