COUNTERPARTY FILE · last re-checked 2026-09
Jump Trading (institutional market maker) — institutional liquidity provider
This record highlights notable gaps in verifiable information regarding the firm's operations.
Licence, read literally
| Regulator | Licence number | Jurisdiction | Tier | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC/FINRA (broker-dealer) | 8-52989 | United States | tier-1 | open source ↗ |
Tier classification follows the same scale as the retail register: tier-2 means real supervision and client-money segregation, without an investor compensation scheme — never misread it as tier-1 protection.
Residuals a counterparty carries
Unverified founding year
The 1999 founding year is widely reported but not stated on Jump Trading's own pages.
Source: firm disclosures page
Lack of published venues
Jump Trading has not published any trading venues.
Source: firm disclosures page
The claims ledger
Claims specific enough to be falsified — and the ones that remain the venue's own measurement.
Testable claims
- Trading page lists Equities, Options, Credit, Commodities, Digital Assets, Futures as trading areas (jumptrading.com/trading)
- Publishes an FX Global Code Liquidity Provider Disclosure Cover Sheet and Algo Due Diligence Template (jumptrading.com/disclosures)
- States a copy of Jump Trading Europe B.V.'s Pillar III disclosure can be obtained via compliance@jumptrading.com (jumptrading.com/disclosures)
- Operates Jump Crypto and Jump Capital as affiliated brands (jumptrading.com footer)
Claims we cannot verify from outside
- Self-describes as solving 'the hardest market problems' via og:description — marketing
- 1999 founding year widely reported but not stated on fetched own pages
Perimeter and coverage
| Asset classes | Venues | Connectivity | Clients accepted | Explicitly refused |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equities, Options, Futures, Credit, Commodities, Digital assets | FIX | Institutional counterparties (FX Global Code LP disclosure published) |
A firm that publishes its own negative space — who it refuses, where it is not licensed — is materially easier to diligence than one that doesn't. The refusal list is treated here as disclosure, not as a defect.