Market Maker Composite Score
A market maker composite score is the weighted overall score used to rank market makers across the leaderboard, reflecting performance across trading KPIs, trust, coverage and capabilities, uptime, and integration level. The rank is the ordering that score produces, and the grade is a letter compression of the same number.
TradFi parallel: Like a credit rating: many separate measures collapsed into one comparable score, plus a letter that travels further than the detail behind it.
Key Takeaways
- 01The composite is the weighted overall score used to rank market makers across the leaderboard, and Forgd sets the weighting
- 02Five inputs feed it: trading KPIs, trust, coverage and capabilities, uptime, and integration level
- 03Rank is the ordering the composite produces and grade is a letter compression of it, so all three describe one number
- 04Trading KPIs draw on execution quality across 500+ tracked engagements, spanning depth, volume, spread and adherence to agreed obligations
- 05Trust and integration level describe how much is verifiable about a firm rather than how well it quoted
- 06Equal composites can come from opposite strengths, so treat the score as a shortlist and check the per metric leaderboards
How It Works
Five inputs feed the composite, and each answers a different question. Trading KPIs measure historical execution quality across 500+ tracked engagements, covering liquidity depth, trading volume, spread performance and adherence to agreed trading obligations. Trust reflects Forgd's confidence in a firm's observed performance, based on how many engagements are tracked and whether Forgd has identified potential trading abnormalities. Coverage and capabilities evaluates the breadth of exchange coverage, ecosystem reach and broader service offering. Uptime measures consistency in meeting contractual obligations across tracked engagements. Integration level reflects how deeply the firm is connected to Forgd's data systems, where higher integration provides greater visibility.
Rank and grade are both derived from the composite rather than measured separately. Rank is simply the ordering, so the firm at number one is the strongest overall performer on the leaderboard. The grade is a simplified letter rating designed to make standing easier to interpret without relying solely on individual numerical scores, using credit style bands that run from AAA down to CCC. Because it is a banding, small differences behave unevenly at the edges: two firms a fraction apart can share a grade, or sit either side of a boundary and read a full letter apart. Scan the grade, compare the score.
The cost of any composite is detail, and that cost is worth being explicit about. Two firms can reach the same score from opposite directions, one strong on trading KPIs with narrower coverage, the other broadly integrated and covered while quoting less impressively. Which of those is the better partner depends entirely on the mandate. A token listing on a single venue with tight spread obligations cares about different inputs than one that needs breadth across ecosystems. The composite is the right place to start a shortlist and the wrong place to end one, which is why the per metric leaderboards for depth, volume, spread and KPI adherence sit next to it.
Two of the five inputs describe evidence rather than execution. Trust and integration level are about how much is genuinely known about a firm: how many engagements Forgd has tracked, and how much data flows from the firm's systems into Forgd's. A capable market maker with few tracked engagements or limited connectivity can score below what its quoting alone would suggest, not because its quoting is worse but because less of it is verifiable. Reading the score as a measure of demonstrated performance, rather than of potential, is what keeps that distinction straight.
Real World Examples
Same score, opposite strengths
Two firms sit next to each other on the leaderboard. One earned its position on trading KPIs and uptime with narrow venue coverage, the other on breadth and integration with more modest execution scores. For a token quoting on two exchanges, those are not interchangeable partners.
A grade boundary doing too much work
Two firms with nearly identical composites land either side of a band edge and display a full letter apart. Nothing meaningful separates them. The grade is built for scanning a long list quickly, and the underlying score is what comparison should rest on.
Strong quoting, limited visibility
A firm with a short history of tracked engagements and a low integration level scores below where its actual quoting would place it. There is no fault in its market making. There is simply less evidence behind it, and the composite reflects what can be verified.
Rank one is not automatically the right choice
An issuer with a depth heavy agreement at a tight threshold shortlists purely by overall rank. The firm leading that specific depth leaderboard sits several places lower overall. The composite pointed at general strength and the mandate needed a particular one.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between the score, the rank and the grade?
They are three views of the same figure. The composite score is the weighted number itself, the rank is where that number places a firm against every other, and the grade is a letter band the score falls into. Only the score carries the resolution to compare two firms closely, which is why the rank and grade are best used for orientation.
How are the five inputs weighted?
The weighting is Forgd's, and Tokenomist presents the resulting score rather than recomputing it. That means the productive question is not how much each input counts but which inputs a given firm is strong in, since a score reached through coverage and integration describes a different partner than the same score reached through execution quality.
Why might a good market maker have a lower composite?
Usually because of trust or integration level. Both scale with how much Forgd can observe, so a firm with few tracked engagements or limited data connectivity has less verifiable history behind it regardless of how it quotes. The score measures demonstrated performance, and a shorter record shows up as a lower number rather than as a gap.
Should I choose a market maker by composite rank alone?
No. Use it to narrow a long list, then read the leaderboards that match the obligations you intend to write, whether that is depth at a specific threshold, spread tightness, uptime or maker weighted volume. The strongest overall performer and the strongest performer on the one metric your agreement turns on are frequently different firms.
Related Terms
Track on Tokenomist
Supply-side analysis for educational purposes. Not financial advice. Verify assumption and precision labels on the relevant token page.
Tokenomist.ai provides a complete solution for supply-side tokenomics data. Analyze future token emissions, track vesting schedules, and compare standardized tokenomics and allocation across projects to gain actionable insights