A place to pay for liquidity on your tokenized asset, and measure how good it is.

Three steps, end to end.

A sponsor — typically a token issuer, but also any operator who cares about the secondary liquidity on a particular asset — funds a USDC quality budget. They set the size, the eligible dealer set (by geography, license, or a vetted list), and the weights the scorer should use: tight spread, uptime, after-hours coverage, whatever matters for that asset.

Dealers compete on signed quotes against a canonical fair-value reference: NBBO for stocks, LBMA for gold, ICE for oil, Pyth for assets without a centralized reference. Every quote and every fill is scored on-chain in real time. There is no retainer, no quarterly review, no human in the loop.

At the end of each epoch, the budget pays itself out programmatically via Merkle proof to whichever dealers met the bar. Unspent budget stays with the sponsor. Whoever quoted tight gets paid; whoever didn’t doesn’t.

Today, an issuer has no good way to direct liquidity quality on their token.

Most issuers end up with one of three options. A bilateral OTC contract with a single market maker pays a monthly retainer for promised behavior the issuer can’t measure. An AMM pool produces whatever spread emerges from LP incentives, with no dealer accountability. A closed-loop integrated stack like the one Securitize, Jump, and Jupiter built for tokenized US equities ties the issuer to one quoter on take-it-or-leave-it terms. In every case, the issuer doesn’t actually control how good their secondary market is.

Qualiq is the open-network alternative: any issuer can fund a budget, any dealer can quote, and the on-chain scoring layer decides who got paid. The issuer keeps the controls. The infrastructure does the measurement and the payout.

The same mechanic works for perp markets.

The sponsor budget, the dealer competition, the on-chain scoring, and the Merkle payout aren’t specific to spot. A perp market needs dealer competition too, and a HIP-3 deployer who bonded $25M of HYPE on Hyperliquid faces the same dealer-recruitment problem any issuer does. The only differences in production are the fair-value reference (a Pyth feed instead of NBBO / LBMA / ICE) and the settlement chain. If you operate a perp market that needs dealers, the mechanic reads the same.