Beyond FX HedgePool: what’s next for all-to-all?

FX HedgePool was meant to be the template for a new kind of foreign exchange market – one where swaps users, initially asset managers and subsequently dealers as well, could match their hedging flows against each other anonymously at the mid, and leave the bid/offer spread behind.

But growth stalled, the co-founders and most of the original team departed, and at least two large buy-side users paused the swaps matching service, FX Markets reported last month.

For those still trying to build all-to-all trading in FX, that stumble might read as a warning. But venue operators say they are unfazed and confident that all-to-all has a continuing role to play for spot, forwards and swaps.

“We’re certainly supportive of anything in the market that helps clients get a better execution. I don’t think it’s going to supplant the banks anytime soon… But there’s definitely a place for it, and I think clients see value in it,” says Greg Fortuna, head of GlobalLink at State Street. which recently facilitated LoopFX’s first peer-to-peer-to-bank trade within its FXConnect venue.

All-to-all trading breaks down the traditional divide between buy-side and sell-side participants. This means that any firm could act as both price maker and price taker – a corporate trading against a hedge fund, an asset manager against a regional bank, a market-maker against another market-maker.

Thin pools produce few matches, and few matches deter the participants who could deepen liquidity

The model is becoming popular in fixed income markets, where any buyer and seller are matched on-screen. Last year, a report by Coalition Greenwich found that all-to-all trading constituted 11% of market volumes in April 2025, rising from 6% two years ago.

In FX, the appeal is straightforward. Match an offsetting interest directly and both sides transact at or near the mid, paying only for the credit component rather than a dealer’s bid/offer spread. Passive interest can rest in the pool, anonymity limits information leakage, and the best price on the screen wins.

It potentially flips the market on its head by essentially eliminating the traditional bifurcated roles of market-maker and client.

Currently, all-to-all trading resides mainly within anonymous interbank matching platforms such as EBS Market, LSEG Matching and CME’s Spot+.

But trading this way for the buy side is a little more complicated. For instance, it relies on the existence of offsetting interest from another buy-sider arriving at the same time. As FX HedgePool discovered, that can prove tricky.

LMAX’s Cürex and Siege FX have evolved their offering from pure peer-to-peer to include banks in the process, either by giving algos access or by letting banks match with the buy side directly in dark pools.

Similarly, the new LoopFX venue includes bank axes in its liquidity pool, meaning that if no match is available via the peer-to-peer network, offsetting flows may still be found.

For the bigger and potentially more impactful FX swaps market – given the mechanical hedging flows that come from the big asset managers – there are fewer options.

CME Group runs FX Link, where market participants can use futures to replicate FX swaps risk in an all-to-all environment. Another example is SpectrAxe, which went live in 2024 with the market’s first over-the-counter options Clob, letting hedge funds trade anonymously with other hedge funds, regional banks and market-makers through existing prime brokerage relationships.

At the start of 2026 it filed to extend the offering into FX forwards and swaps, and as of January had gone live with the post-trade allocations part of its offering.

Some buy-side users are confident that all-to-all continues to show promise, particularly in swaps, even if banks are not falling over themselves to support it. One says market share could end up being 10% or 50%, but “it’s not going to zero.”

But the model isn’t without its challenges. This mode of trading depends on a critical mass of volume and flow that is superior to what is already available from traditional outlets – or at least enough to entice a firm to spend the time and money to onboard.

Thin pools produce few matches, and few matches deter the participants who could deepen liquidity.

There are other, broader questions, such as who funds it? On bank-led platforms, the buy side doesn’t expect to pay fees, even if they are embedded in the price to some extent. But if banks are price takers just like everyone else, will they be as willing to put their hand in their pocket?

Some top-tier banks have also been investing heavily in newer internalisation models which, in effect, enable them to offer their own dark mid-matching platform on which systematic hedge funds can passively provide liquidity to their wider client franchise.

All-to-all’s sluggish pace of development is leading to comparisons with traditional asset managers’ use of FX options products – they can see the benefits and are starting to trade them, but overall volumes remain relatively small for now.

Editing by Lukas Becker and Joe Parsons