In the deposit address model most ramps run, each new address takes two on-chain transactions before it returns anything. Here is what a ramp transaction costs end to end, and which part an operator can still change.
Crypto On Ramp Fees: Why More Volume Does Not Fix Your Margins
TL;DR
In the deposit address model most ramps run, each new address takes two on-chain transactions before it returns anything. Here is what a ramp transaction costs end to end, and which part an operator can still change.
Add a thousand customers and you add a thousand deposit addresses. In the standard model, each one takes two transactions before a cent of it reaches your hot wallet.
An engineer at a crypto exchange added his up. The answer came to roughly 270 million gas a month, at 50 deposits a day.
50 deposits/day times 2 transactions/deposit = 100 transactions/day
100 transactions/day times 30 days/month = 3,000 transactions/month
3,000 transactions/month times ~90,000 gas/transaction ~270M gas/month
Why Deposit Wallets Cost Two Transactions Each
A fresh deposit address arrives empty. It holds the customer’s USDT but none of the native token needed to move it, so the platform funds the address first and sweeps it second. Both transactions are paid by the platform, on every deposit.
This is why volume does not rescue the number. Every extra customer brings an extra funding transaction with them, so the cost climbs at the same rate as the customer count while revenue per customer stays flat. That is one line on a longer bill.
Why Banking Costs Cannot Be Negotiated
Frax CEO Sam Kazemian quoted his JPMorgan banker word for word in 2024: “we have to close anyone’s account that we know their primary source of income/wealth is crypto. This is directly from the top from Jamie.”
Licensing has not changed the pattern. 338 firms now hold full MiCA authorisation across 30 EEA markets, up from around 60 at the start of the year, and banks still decline them.
MiCA carries no provision requiring a bank to serve a licensed CASP, while the European Banking Authority continues to treat the sector as enhanced due diligence whatever an individual firm has cleared. Around 86 percent of European crypto companies report repeated account closures.
An operator carrying a 10 percent reserve has no lever to pull on any of this, which sends them back to the last row of the table.
Justin Sun’s Proposal #104 post confirms the energy unit price was halved in August 2025, the largest cut in TRON’s history. The same post commits super representatives to quarterly fee reviews, so an operator’s per transaction cost gets decided at a governance vote they do not attend.
TL;DR
In the deposit address model most ramps run, each new address takes two on-chain transactions before it returns anything. Here is what a ramp transaction costs end to end, and which part an operator can still change.
Add a thousand customers and you add a thousand deposit addresses. In the standard model, each one takes two transactions before a cent of it reaches your hot wallet.
An engineer at a crypto exchange added his up. The answer came to roughly 270 million gas a month, at 50 deposits a day.
50 deposits/day times 2 transactions/deposit = 100 transactions/day
100 transactions/day times 30 days/month = 3,000 transactions/month
3,000 transactions/month times ~90,000 gas/transaction ~270M gas/month
Why Deposit Wallets Cost Two Transactions Each
A fresh deposit address arrives empty. It holds the customer’s USDT but none of the native token needed to move it, so the platform funds the address first and sweeps it second. Both transactions are paid by the platform, on every deposit.
This is why volume does not rescue the number. Every extra customer brings an extra funding transaction with them, so the cost climbs at the same rate as the customer count while revenue per customer stays flat. That is one line on a longer bill.
Why Banking Costs Cannot Be Negotiated
Frax CEO Sam Kazemian quoted his JPMorgan banker word for word in 2024: “we have to close anyone’s account that we know their primary source of income/wealth is crypto. This is directly from the top from Jamie.”
Licensing has not changed the pattern. 338 firms now hold full MiCA authorisation across 30 EEA markets, up from around 60 at the start of the year, and banks still decline them.
MiCA carries no provision requiring a bank to serve a licensed CASP, while the European Banking Authority continues to treat the sector as enhanced due diligence whatever an individual firm has cleared. Around 86 percent of European crypto companies report repeated account closures.
An operator carrying a 10 percent reserve has no lever to pull on any of this, which sends them back to the last row of the table.
Justin Sun’s Proposal #104 post confirms the energy unit price was halved in August 2025, the largest cut in TRON’s history. The same post commits super representatives to quarterly fee reviews, so an operator’s per transaction cost gets decided at a governance vote they do not attend.
Three Ways Ramps Reduce Sweeping Costs
Deterministic addresses with proxy contracts
The engineer from the opening rebuilt his sweeping on CREATE2 with ERC-1167 minimal proxies and, in that one implementation, cut gas consumption by 84 percent
Threshold sweeping
Small balances stay put until the amount clears the cost of moving it.
Fystack runs this as sweep tasks set on a USD value, with one task attached across many deposit wallets so a threshold change lands everywhere at once, and a gas tank keeping those wallets funded for the transfer.
Staking TRX or renting from an energy pool both avoid the burn. Guarda published a comparison of 11 USDT transfers costing $76.79 burned against $17.96 rented.
Rental turns the per transfer cost into a working capital decision:
A TRON withdrawal in Fystack with energy renting active: 2.97 TRX rented against 24.03 TRX burned, roughly $6.96 saved on one transfer.
Where to Start Cutting Sweeping Costs
Sweeping is the one cost line still open to a decision, and the spread between a naive build and a considered one runs wide enough to matter at ramp margins.
If deposit wallets are multiplying faster than revenue and nobody owns the sweeping bill, that number is worth pulling before the next volume step.
Crypto card monthly volume grew 106% annually from early 2023, driven almost entirely by programs that run on Visa. Mastercard is running two separate strategies at once: consumer card agents and a B2B settlement infrastructure acquisition. The card works as a bridge for existing merchants. For new ones with no entity and no processing history, protocols like x402 are the only option that works today
TL;DR
Crypto card monthly volume grew 106% annually from early 2023, driven almost entirely by programs that run on Visa. Mastercard is running two separate strategies at once: consumer card agents and a B2B settlement infrastructure acquisition. The card works as a bridge for existing merchants. For new ones with no entity and no processing history, protocols like x402 are the only option that works today
Artemis Research reported in January 2026 that total crypto card monthly volume grew from $100 million in early 2023 to over $1.5 billion by late 2025, a 106% compound annual growth rate. Annualized, the market reached $18 billion — close to the $19 billion in peer-to-peer stablecoin transfers over the same period.
By July 2026, Paymentscan tracked $691.7 million in a single month from on-chain settled card programs alone, with $8.094 billion in cumulative volume across 128.7 million transactions and 467,000 wallet addresses.
How Much People Are Spending on Crypto Cards
The biggest program by monthly volume is RedotPay at roughly $380 million per month. KAST ranks third. Both run on Visa. Paymentscan’s July 2026 data shows Visa at 98.5% of on-chain crypto card volume. Mastercard at 1.5%.
Visa built its position by partnering early with infrastructure providers like Rain and Reap, which issue cards for many downstream programs at once. One Visa infrastructure deal covers many products. Mastercard built its crypto card presence through direct partnerships with centralized exchanges — Bybit, Revolut, Gemini — which ties its volume more closely to exchange trading cycles.
How Visa and Mastercard Compete on Crypto
Both networks are extending card infrastructure to AI agents. Noah Levine at a16z noted in March 2026 that Mastercard Agent Pay is live for US cardholders and Visa’s Intelligent Commerce framework is in pilot. The Agentic Commerce Protocol, built by Stripe and OpenAI, has Etsy live with over one million Shopify merchants set to follow.
At the consumer layer, both networks are converging on the same approach. At the settlement layer, they are not. Mastercard announced in March 2026 that it would acquire BVNK for up to $1.8 billion, including $300 million in contingent payments. BVNK processes $30 billion annually for clients including Worldpay, Deel, and Rapyd. The stated goal: 24/7 stablecoin settlement for processors and acquirers, and stablecoin checkout within Mastercard’s payment gateway.
How Crypto Cards Work as a Bridge
A crypto card does one job: it converts a wallet balance into what a merchant already accepts. The cardholder pays from USDC. The merchant receives a standard card transaction. Artemis confirmed that the vast majority of crypto card transactions today settle in fiat at transaction time, so the merchant sees only local currency regardless of which stablecoin the user holds.
That job has real reach. RedotPay users in Southeast Asia, LATAM, and Africa can pay at any Visa-accepting terminal without the merchant needing to know anything about crypto.
But the card cannot serve every merchant. Levine at a16z put it directly:
“Cards serve every merchant a processor can underwrite. Stablecoins serve every merchant a processor cannot.”
A developer who builds an API tool in a weekend has no legal entity, no website, and no chargeback history — a profile that is very difficult to underwrite. Levine’s conclusion: “These merchants will not be choosing stablecoins over cards. They will be choosing stablecoins over nothing.”
What AI Agents Need That Cards Cannot Provide
In March 2026, a marketplace at mpp.dev opened with over 60 services built for AI agents: SEC filing search charges per query, image generation at fractions of a cent, physical letters printed and mailed from a document and address. The protocol powering it is MPP (Machine Payments Protocol), built by Stripe and Tempo, which lets agents pay using cards, stablecoins, or Lightning in a single HTTP request.
In its first week, 894 agents made 31,000 transactions at prices from $0.003 to $35 per request, according to a16z. No checkout page. Pricing embedded in the HTTP response. The agent reads the schema, pays, receives output.
Two protocols now make this model possible at the infrastructure level. x402 embeds stablecoin payments directly in HTTP requests with no merchant account or processor onboarding. MPP supports cards, stablecoins, and Lightning in the same request, with the mpp.dev marketplace as its live implementation. As a16z noted, “x402 and MPP each take a different approach, but both embed payments directly into HTTP requests.”
MoonPay’s PayBox handles the full stack for agents — MPC key sharding in a trusted execution environment, policy limits before any transaction, virtual cards scoped per merchant for fiat rails when needed.
Conclusion
The card worked because neither side had to change anything. As Levine, a16z, wrote: “The next generation of merchants won’t have storefronts. They’ll have endpoints.” The card serves that well for the merchants that already exist. The infrastructure being built now is for the ones that do not.
About Fystack
Fystack is an enterprise-grade, self-hosted MPC custody platform for fintech teams and crypto businesses. The core signing infrastructure, mpcium, is open-source. Fystack supports multi-chain wallet operations across TRON, ETH, BNB, Solana, Polygon, and more, with a policy engine that enforces spend rules before any signing happens.
If you are building payment infrastructure that involves automated signing, wallet custody, or agent payment flows, Fystack has the full product overview. The policy engine source is on GitHub.
Europe’s payment future will not be built on one rail. Stablecoins, tokenised central bank money and the digital euro will have to work together.
Europe’s new money stack is taking shape. EURR, tokenised finance, and the digital euro are not competing stories; they are emerging layers of the payment and settlement infrastructure founders need to design for now.
Europe is no longer building one digital-money system.
It is building several systems at once.
MiCA-native euro stablecoins are moving into mainstream fintech applications. The European Central Bank is preparing the infrastructure for tokenised transactions to settle in central bank money. And the digital euro is being designed as a public payment rail with pan-European reach.
These developments are often discussed separately. That is a mistake.
The strategic question for founders is not whether stablecoins, tokenised finance or the digital euro will “win.” It is how these systems will work together and which companies will own the interoperability layer between them.
Revolut’s rollout of EURR provides the clearest live example.
A regulated issuer, a major fintech distribution platform, and public blockchain infrastructure are being combined to create a euro-denominated on-chain asset for customers who may never consider themselves crypto users.
That is the important shift.
Stablecoins are no longer asking for permission to sit beside payments. They are being designed into the payment experience itself.
The next competitive advantage in European payments will not be choosing one rail. It will be making several rails work as one experience.
EURR makes the programmable euro concrete
On 7 August 2026, Revolut announced EURR, its first euro-denominated stablecoin, issued by Bridge and initially launched on Ethereum as part of a phased rollout. Revolut said testing would begin with eligible customers in Denmark, Poland and Portugal.
The rollout is deliberately limited. Bridge’s reserve dashboard showed EURR circulation of approximately €369 on 27 August, with reserves denominated in euros and held in the European Union. That figure should not be mistaken for a measure of Revolut’s broader customer reach. It is better understood as evidence of a controlled early-stage launch rather than a mass-market liquidity event.
The architecture is more important than the initial supply.
EURR is issued by Bridge Building S.A., which manages the issuance, reserves, and redemption process. Revolut provides the customer experience and distribution. Ethereum and Polygon provide public blockchain rails through which the token can move.
Revolut describes EURR as a way for eligible customers to move between euros, crypto, external wallets, and supported blockchain networks without first converting into a US-dollar stablecoin. Each EURR is designed to maintain a value of €1.00, and holders have the right to redeem against the issuer at par value, subject to applicable terms.
This is a meaningful product decision.
A euro user should not have to accept dollar exposure simply because the most liquid stablecoins happen to be dollar-denominated. A European fintech should not have to choose between the familiarity of bank money and the programmability of blockchain money.
EURR attempts to place those two experiences in the same product.
That does not make the product risk-free. It creates a new set of questions around reserve transparency, redemption capacity, chain liquidity, wallet controls and the responsibilities of the issuer, distributor and platform. But these are precisely the questions that arise when crypto becomes financial infrastructure rather than a speculative side product.
Stablecoins need distribution
The stablecoin market is already large enough for the debate to move beyond whether the technology works. Circle reported USDC circulation of around $73.6 billion on 24 August 2026. Circle has also described stablecoin payments as a growing area of digital commerce, with stablecoin-enabled payment volume exceeding $390 billion during 2025.
These figures matter, but they do not tell the whole story.
A stablecoin can have deep liquidity and still fail to become a payment product. Payment adoption requires distribution, compliant onboarding, reliable redemption, merchant acceptance, treasury tools, FX conversion, and a clear answer when something goes wrong.
That is why the Revolut model is strategically important. It places the stablecoin inside an established customer relationship instead of asking users to discover a new wallet, acquire a new asset, and understand a new blockchain before they can make a payment.
The blockchain becomes part of the infrastructure.
The user experience remains recognisably fintech.
For founders, this is the distinction between technology adoption and product adoption. Customers do not necessarily want blockchain. They want faster settlement, lower friction, easier cross-border movement and better control over their money.
Stablecoins can provide those benefits, but only when the infrastructure disappears into a trusted experience.
The Bank for International Settlements has offered an important counterweight to the enthusiasm. Its 2026 Annual Economic Report argues that stablecoins show tokenisation’s potential to support faster and programmable payments, but that current designs fall short of important monetary properties, including singleness, redeemability and interoperability across ledgers.
That criticism should not be dismissed as opposition to innovation.
It identifies the commercial work still to be done.
A stablecoin payment system cannot be judged only by transaction speed. It must also be judged by the quality of its money, the reliability of redemption, the strength of its compliance model, and its ability to interoperate with other forms of money.
The institutional layer is arriving
While EURR brings programmable euro liquidity closer to retail payments, the ECB is building the institutional layer underneath tokenised finance. In his speech “From vision to delivery: building Europe’s tokenised financial market,” ECB Executive Board member Piero Cipollone described two complementary initiatives: Pontes and Appia.
His description of Pontes is direct:
“Pontes will turn our commitment to provide central bank money for settling tokenised transactions into an operational service.”
Pontes is designed to connect market-operated DLT platforms with the Eurosystem’s TARGET Services. The cash leg of tokenised transactions would settle in central-bank money, while synchronisation would support delivery-versus-payment and other transactions requiring all-or-nothing settlement.
That is an important distinction.
Many discussions about tokenisation focus on the asset being tokenised: a bond, fund, deposit or other financial instrument. The harder institutional question is what money settles the transaction and how participants can trust that settlement.
The ECB is attempting to answer that question by placing central-bank money at the centre of the system.
The ECB has stated that Pontes is scheduled to become an operational service in the third quarter of 2026. The planned roadmap includes an expansion of operating hours to 22.5 hours per business day and, by mid-2028, a 24/7 service with greater programmability, resilience and multi-currency capability.
Appia addresses the wider ecosystem.
It is intended to develop the architecture, standards and governance for an integrated European tokenised financial market. Its work covers asset interoperability, collateral management, cross-border connectivity, tokenised central-bank money and the legal and regulatory foundations of the ecosystem.
Cipollone summarised the relationship between the two initiatives in practical terms:
“Pontes builds bridges by offering digital finance a safe settlement asset and by making private settlement assets mutually convertible.”
That sentence deserves attention.
It means the ECB does not necessarily view stablecoins, tokenised deposits and other private settlement assets as irrelevant. Instead, the objective is to create a common anchor into which those assets can be converted and against which they can settle.
This is not a battle between public and private money in the simplistic sense.
It is a question of how private innovation can operate within a system that preserves settlement confidence, monetary sovereignty and market integration.
Tokenisation is a market-structure decision
Tokenisation is often presented as a technology upgrade. In reality, it is a market-structure decision.
The benefits become meaningful only when tokenisation changes how assets are issued, transferred, financed, collateralised or settled. A tokenised bond that still relies on fragmented processes, manual reconciliation and limited operating hours may be digitally represented without being operationally transformed.
The ECB’s Pontes and Appia programmes are significant because they focus on the full chain rather than the token alone.
The question is not simply whether a security can exist on a DLT platform. It is whether the platform can connect to money, collateral, custody, legal ownership, liquidity and cross-border settlement.
That is where interoperability becomes decisive.
A closed tokenised market may create efficiency for one institution while increasing fragmentation across the wider system. An interoperable market can allow tokenised assets and settlement assets to move between platforms without forcing participants into one private ecosystem.
Europe has a particular reason to care about this. Its capital markets are already divided across jurisdictions, infrastructures and national systems. If tokenisation produces another generation of incompatible silos, it will reproduce the problem in digital form.
If it creates common standards and trusted settlement connections, it could help reduce that fragmentation.
For fintech and crypto infrastructure founders, this changes the strategic question. It is no longer enough to ask:
“Can we issue or transfer this asset on-chain?”
The better question is:
“What does this asset need to connect to to become commercially useful at scale?”
That may include a stablecoin, tokenised deposit, central-bank money, a securities settlement system, a collateral platform, an institutional custodian or a regulated payment provider.
The winning infrastructure will not be the one with the most impressive isolated technology. It will be the one that can connect the greatest number of trusted financial functions without creating additional operational risk.
The digital euro solves a different problem
The digital euro is often placed in direct competition with stablecoins.
That framing is too narrow.
The digital euro is being designed to solve a different problem: how to provide a sovereign, pan-European digital payment instrument that is widely accessible, interoperable and resilient.
The ECB’s digital-euro FAQs describe a system intended for physical shops, online commerce and person-to-person payments. The design includes both online and offline functionality. The ECB says merchants would be able to receive payments instantly without additional costs, including when there is no internet connection.
Basic use would be free for consumers, while the Eurosystem would not charge or benefit from digital-euro transaction fees. The proposed design also includes holding limits, intended to reduce the risk of excessive deposit outflows from banks during periods of stress.
These are not minor design details.
They reveal the policy priorities behind the project: • Ubiquity rather than speculation. • Resilience rather than maximum balance-sheet flexibility. • Public access rather than dependence on one private issuer. • Integration with existing payment providers rather than a separate consumer silo.
The digital euro is not yet a live retail payment product. The ECB states that if EU lawmakers adopt the necessary legislation during 2026, a first issuance could potentially take place in 2029. The ECB’s final decision on whether to issue it, and when, will come after the legislative process is completed.
That timeline does not make it irrelevant today.
Large payment products are designed years before they become widely available. Product architecture, merchant acceptance, compliance processes and customer journeys all require preparation.
The digital euro will also shape competitive expectations before it reaches full scale. If customers and merchants are promised instant, low-cost and widely accepted euro payments through a public rail, private providers will be judged against that baseline.
The digital euro is therefore more about sovereignty and ubiquity than programmability alone.
Stablecoins may be better suited to certain on-chain, cross-border and platform-native use cases. The digital euro may be better suited to public reach, monetary confidence and everyday euro payments. Treating them as identical would obscure their respective strengths.
Interoperability is the real strategy
The three developments now fit together.
EURR represents the retail and crypto-native layer: a regulated euro token that can move on public chains and connect to a mainstream fintech interface.
Pontes represents the institutional settlement layer: tokenised transactions connecting to central-bank money and the Eurosystem’s existing infrastructure.
Appia represents the broader architecture: standards, governance, collateral, cross-border connectivity and a blueprint for an integrated tokenised financial ecosystem.
The digital euro represents the public payment layer: a potential pan-European instrument designed around access, acceptance, resilience and low-cost use.
These systems will compete in some areas.
They will also depend on one another.
A stablecoin may need bank rails for entry and exit. A tokenised security may need central-bank money for settlement. A digital-euro wallet may need private providers for distribution and user experience. An institutional platform may need multiple settlement assets to serve different markets and transaction types.
The architecture will be plural.
That creates a clear decision for founders.
Do you build a closed product around one rail and hope the market conforms to it? Or do you design a modular product that can route value across several rails while preserving one coherent customer experience?
The first option may be faster in the short term.
The second is more likely to survive changes in regulation, liquidity, infrastructure and user behaviour.
What I would do
I have spent more than 25 years working at the intersection of marketing, strategy and regulation. That has included contributing to Malta’s pioneering DLT framework, launching Moneybase as Malta’s first neobank, and leading global marketing and strategy for a Layer-1 connecting banking infrastructure with Web3 across Europe, Asia and beyond.
Across regulated finance and Web3, I have seen a recurring pattern: single-rail thinking creates hard limits.
A company may have strong technology but weak distribution. A product may have liquidity but limited regulatory access. A platform may have community momentum but no clear path to institutional trust.
The limitations usually appear at the boundaries between systems. That is why, if I were designing a European payments or digital-finance product today, I would make interoperability a board-level decision from the beginning.
I would treat MiCA-native euro stablecoins as the programmable euro layer for appropriate consumer, merchant, treasury and cross-border use cases. I would design the product so that digital-euro functionality could eventually be embedded through existing wallets, accounts and payment channels.
I would map how tokenised assets, deposits and collateral could connect to Pontes and the wider Appia architecture as those initiatives develop.
And I would preserve the ability to connect all of this to cards, instant payments and legacy bank infrastructure.
Not because every product needs to use every rail immediately.
That would be inefficient and, in some cases, unnecessary.
The point is to avoid building a product that cannot connect to the rails your customers, partners, and regulators will eventually expect.
Interoperability should not be an integration backlog. It should be part of the original business model.
The stack founders should design for
Europe’s digital-money future will not be defined by one winner replacing everything that came before.
It will be defined by the interaction between private innovation and public infrastructure.
MiCA-native euro stablecoins can provide programmability and on-chain flexibility. Tokenised central-bank money can provide institutional settlement confidence. The digital euro can provide public reach and a common European payment baseline.
The commercial opportunity lies between these layers.
Founders who understand this will build products that hide complexity from customers while managing it rigorously underneath. They will make compliance part of their market positioning, not merely a legal obligation.
They will treat trust, redemption, interoperability, and resilience as product features.
The market is moving beyond the question of whether crypto belongs in finance.
The more important question is whether finance can become interoperable enough to use crypto-native rails without sacrificing trust.
That is the opportunity in front of European fintech and Web3 leaders.
Not to choose one monetary regime. To build for the stack.
About the Author
I’ve spent more than 25 years at the intersection of marketing, strategy, and regulation, helping design Malta’s pioneering DLT framework, launching Malta’s first neobank, and leading global marketing and strategy for a Layer‑1 that bridges traditional banking infrastructure with Web3 rails across Europe, Asia, and beyond.
My focus is simple: turn complex, high‑stakes environments like Europe’s evolving digital‑money stack into clear narratives and go‑to‑market strategies that boards, regulators, institutions, and communities can align behind.
If you are building on these rails, your biggest risk is not that you choose the “wrong” technology. It is that you design for too little of the stack.
A market maker’s job looks simple from the outside: keep buy and sell orders in the book and update them as the market moves.
What is less visible is everything that has to happen before those orders can be updated correctly. The strategy needs to receive the latest market data, decide how its prices should change, send instructions to the exchange and learn what happened to its previous orders. All of that can happen through different connections with different speed, delivery and recovery characteristics.
So when a market maker evaluates an exchange, “Does it have an API?” — is only the starting point. The more useful question is whether the entire path from a market event to the next order is reliable enough to trade on.
What happens before an order reaches the book
A simplified market-making cycle looks like this:
market event → order-book update → pricing decision → order entry → execution → inventory update → next order
Every step depends on the one before it. If market data is late or incomplete, the pricing decision is based on the wrong market. If an order reaches the venue later than expected, the price may already be outdated. If a fill is not reflected quickly enough, the strategy can continue quoting without an accurate view of its inventory.
That is why connectivity is part of the trading system itself, not simply the technical work required to connect the system to an exchange.
Three Layers Behind Every Quote
The stack can be simplified into 3 main layers:
Market data. The strategy needs a current view of bids, asks and order-book changes. With incremental feeds, that usually means building a local book from a snapshot and applying every subsequent update in the correct sequence.
Order entry. New orders, cancellations and amendments need a channel with low and, importantly, predictable latency. A strategy that cannot estimate when an instruction reaches the venue has a harder time controlling its exposure.
Execution state. Acknowledgements, fills, partial fills and cancellations need to flow back quickly enough to update inventory and trigger the next quote.
Different venues may expose these functions through WebSocket, FIX, REST, drop-copy feeds or other channels. What matters is not having the largest number of protocols, but using the right channel for each part of the trading cycle.
Why state consistency matters at scale
Raw latency gets most of the attention, but synchronization can be just as important.
Consider an incremental order-book feed. If one delta is dropped and the consumer misses the gap, later updates can continue arriving normally. The connection still looks healthy, but the local book is now being updated from the wrong state.
That creates one of the most dangerous situations for a market maker: the strategy keeps quoting, but the market it is quoting against is no longer the market the venue sees.
Recovery therefore has to be part of the design. The system needs to detect missing sequences, stop relying on corrupted state, retrieve a valid snapshot and rebuild the book before normal quoting resumes.
Three connectivity stacks in practice
There is no single architecture used by every venue. Current institutional offerings show several ways to separate market data, order entry and account or execution events.
the program covers Spot, Perpetuals/Futures and Options, with market-maker levels reviewed monthly;
on Spot, qualification starts at more than $25M in 30-day trading volume for MM1, while higher tiers depend on maker-volume share or liquidity requirements;
current Spot maker rebates range from -0.001% to -0.0075% depending on tier;
new market makers receive a one-month trial period, while institutional clients also get REST/WebSocket API integration and dedicated support.
new market makers can qualify for an initial tier through account assets, proof of market-maker status on another exchange or existing maker volume; asset thresholds currently range from 50,000 USDT for Tier 5 to 2M USDT for Tier 1;
current Spot maker rebates reach -0.010% on Group A and -0.015% on Group B for Tier 1, while Futures rebates reach up to -0.010% depending on the pair group;
tiers are reassessed monthly using weighted maker volume and market-making performance;
higher tiers also receive increased infrastructure capacity: Tier 1 UTA accounts can reach 300 API requests per second, alongside an institutional dedicated cluster and technical support.
The comparison is therefore broader than the headline maker rebate. A market maker is also choosing the qualification model, available infrastructure and the operating conditions under which its strategy will have to maintain liquidity.
Evaluate the path, not just the API
For a market maker choosing a venue, a basic API checklist does not go far enough. The better questions are:
How does market data reach us? What happens if an update is missed? How do we send and cancel orders? How do we learn that an order has been filled? How do sessions recover after a disconnect? How quickly can we rebuild a trustworthy state?
Those questions connect infrastructure directly to the job the market maker is trying to do: keep orders in the market while prices, executions and inventory are constantly changing.
A strong connectivity stack does not eliminate trading risk. It gives the market maker the information and execution channels needed to understand that risk fast enough to act on it.
Disclaimer: This is not financial or investment advice. DYOR before making any decisions. Use at your own risk.
Login
