Market making across CeFi and DeFi venues
Raven quotes actively across the major CeFi and DeFi venues. Tier-one exchanges, mid-tier venues, regional and specialist exchanges, on-chain orderbooks, prediction markets. Each venue has its own economics, its own depth and spread targets, and its own uptime measurement.
A mix of CeFi and DeFi venues, grouped by category. Specific venue mix is negotiated per mandate.
Tier 1 CeFi
Global volume leaders
Mid-tier CeFi
Established venues
Regional CeFi
Specialist venues
DeFi perps & CLOBs
On-chain orderbooks
DeFi AMMs & options
Structured and automated
What a partnership with Raven actually looks like
01
The venues in the mandate are live at the start of the engagement. A token's early days set the tone for how the market perceives it, and that window deserves full attention, not a partial setup.
02
Depth on each venue is built around how that specific book behaves. Flow patterns, volatility, and the composition of traders on a given exchange all shape what liquidity looks like there, and the quoting reflects that.
03
Raven operates across both venue categories natively. Issuers do not need to combine separate market makers to cover their community's full trading footprint.
01
Raven provides liquidity across CeFi and DeFi, spanning spot, perpetuals, and prediction markets. On the CeFi side, that includes tier-one venues like Binance, Coinbase, Bitget, and Crypto.com, mid-tier exchanges like KuCoin, Gate.io, Gemini, Backpack, and Bitvavo, and regional or specialist venues like Revolut X, BitMEX, and Paribu. On the DeFi side, we're active on on-chain order book venues including Hyperliquid, GRVT, Hibachi, and Rails, options and structured product venues like Derive, and a growing set of prediction market platforms. The list is constantly growing and evolving.
02
A project listed across multiple exchanges needs consistent liquidity on each of them, not only on the headline venues. Fragmented liquidity leads to fragmented price discovery. Arbitrage gaps between exchanges stay open longer, spreads widen on smaller venues, and the token trades as if it were several different assets rather than one. The consequences often surface in places founders don't anticipate. Data aggregators flag inconsistent pricing. Listings teams at other exchanges notice thin books on venues where the token already trades and raise questions. Traders attempting to enter or exit on a secondary venue receive worse fills than expected and form views of the project accordingly. A market maker that quotes consistently across the full set of listed venues closes those gaps.
03
Often, yes. When a project is listing on a venue we don't currently cover, or a new venue is launching and requires liquidity at go-live, we evaluate the opportunity on the same basis as any other: whether the market structure is one we can quote effectively, whether the integration is reasonable in scope, and whether the commercial terms work for both sides. We're more inclined to proceed when the venue has genuine infrastructure quality and the partnership is substantive enough to justify the integration work. We're more likely to decline when the mechanics don't suit systematic market making or when the commercial terms don't align. The most direct way to find out is to ask.
04
The short version: the execution infrastructure, inventory dynamics, and counterparty profile are structurally different between the two. A firm that treats one side as core and the other as a side project tends to quote the secondary side poorly, which matters for any project listed across both environments. Token launches, in particular, almost always involve CeFi exchange listings alongside DEX and on-chain liquidity, and the two need to be quoted in a way that keeps prices coherent across environments.
05
For a token launch, Raven typically quotes across the set of venues where the token is listing at TGE, and across additional venues as further listings come online — venue selection sitting with Raven and being one of the parameters it agrees as part of the commercial framework. The market-wide effect is consistent two-sided activity across the venues where the token trades, from the first minute. For an exchange launch, the question is different: it's about Raven quoting the venue's markets from go-live rather than one token across multiple venues. There, the relevant question is breadth across the venue's active markets, with Raven deciding independently how to allocate its quoting across them within the agreed parameters. Either way, the engagement starts with a conversation about which venues are in scope, when, and the market context Raven would be trading into.
If your token needs continuous market making across a mix of CeFi and DeFi venues we can discuss what that mandate looks like for your specific venue footprint.
Let's connect →