Crypto Total Market Cap Excluding BTC and ETH, $ Forum & Chats (CRYPTOCAP:TOTAL3)

2 days ago

$(TOTAL3-USDT)/BTC shows the correlation between the 2021 bull run and the current trend

5 days ago

JUST IN: IN THE PAST FEW HOURS #BINANCE SENT MILLIONS WORTH OF TO WINTERMUTE.

THEY ARE PREAPRING FOR SOMETHING...

Wintermute, as a major crypto market maker, has indeed stirred some controversy and mixed opinions within the industry. They’re a big player, providing liquidity to exchanges and facilitating trading, which is a critical role in keeping markets functional. Without market makers like them, price spreads could widen, and trading could become a lot less efficient—especially in a volatile space like crypto. Their CEO, Evgeny Gaevoy, has been upfront about their goal: they’re not a charity, they’re here to profit from market opportunities. That’s the nature of any market maker, really—they buy low, sell high, and pocket the spread.
That said, there’s a flip side. Some folks in the crypto community—especially retail traders—point to instances where Wintermute’s actions seem to amplify volatility or pressure prices in ways that benefit them more than the broader market. For example, their withdrawal of $38 million in Solana (SOL) from Binance right before a massive $2 billion token unlock in early 2025 raised eyebrows. Critics argued it looked like they were positioning to profit from an anticipated sell-off, which isn’t illegal but can feel like they’re gaming the system. Similarly, posts on X and reports from early 2025 highlight accusations of them dumping large amounts of tokens like ETH and SOL, contributing to price drops while they scoop up assets at a discount.
On the other hand, Wintermute’s defenders—like Gaevoy himself—argue that they’re just doing their job in a market driven by supply and demand. When they sold 47,000 ETH in August 2024 amid a broader crash, they said it was routine inventory management, not a deliberate attempt to tank prices. They’ve also pointed to external factors, like Trump’s tariffs or TradFi events, as the real culprits behind market downturns, not their trading. Plus, their growth—like the 240% surge in institutional OTC trading in 2024—shows they’re meeting a demand from big players who need off-exchange liquidity.
So, are they shady? It’s murky. They’re not breaking laws—market manipulation is a high bar to prove, and no regulator has pinned them with it yet (unlike, say, Gotbit’s CEO, who pleaded guilty to it in March 2025). But their size and influence mean their moves can hurt smaller traders, even if unintentionally. They’re extracting value, no doubt—hundreds of millions in crypto under management, per Ark [Arkham Intelligence pegs them at $554 million in holdings—but whether they’re “helping” the industry depends on perspective. They stabilize markets, sure, but they’re also profiting handsomely while doing it, sometimes at the expense of retail. It’s capitalism, not charity. What’s your take—do you see them as a necessary evil or something more predatory?