Thank you, Elad. I really want to express my gratitude to you for taking the time to respond to our Temp Check, it means a lot. After your reply, Yuting and I discussed it together.
We would like you to know that we previously tried to get more clarity on the Selini Report by asking questions in the SSV forum, but we didn’t receive any response. That experience led us to propose the idea of an independent Market Maker (MM) Oversight Committee. Additionally, the MM meeting we had the chance to join did not give us full confidence.
Forum link where we asked Selini questions but didn’t receive a response:
We understand that over-disclosing MM activities can make it harder to work with top-tier partners, who often require confidentiality around their strategies and positioning. That’s why we’re proposing a neutral, third-party oversight committee that collects data from platforms like Kaiko and Amberdata and publishes clear monthly reports for the SSV community.
About the Weekly Sync Participation, it’s a great step toward transparency. That said, to fairly evaluate MM performance, I believe we need independent data, not just the MM’s own reporting. Understanding market maker behavior takes time, tools and preparation. A dedicated committee would add an essential layer of independence, continuity, and verification, complementing weekly syncs.
It’s great to hear that core contributors will be involved in setting expectations and aligning the next phase of liquidity support with community values. However, for contributors to offer meaningful insights, they need a strong understanding of market dynamics and access to advanced tools for analyzing MM behavior and the $SSV market environment in general.
In my view, the real question is if the SSV Network truly needs an independent third party to oversee the MMs selected by the Foundation, or if we can place full trust in their good faith and efficiency. I believe such a committee would not only help the community assess the performance of market makers, but also monitor for signs of broader market manipulation, whether from MMs, traders, or other participants in the SSV market.
While I recognize that the selected MMs are top-tier, regulated firms with strong compliance reputations, history has repeatedly shown that even well-respected institutions can be involved in serious scandals and misconduct.
It’s also important to note that potential manipulation in the SSV market might not come from MMs alone, it could just as easily stem from traders or investors. This makes the case even stronger for neutral, data-driven oversight to provide the community with a clear picture of market dynamics.
If this Temperature Check doesn’t get strong support, I’m happy to drop the idea. But I do believe it’s worth exploring. One option is to launch the committee with a 3-month trial. During that time, we’d deploy data tools to assess MM activity and the overall $SSV market landscape. If the data shows no issues and confirms the MMs are performing well, we sunset the committee.
As a personal initiative in my role as an active SSV participant, I’ve already reached out to Kaiko to request a free test drive of their platform.