Or if they don't want to do it themselves they could always pay an entity with sufficient capital to be market maker offering them free execution trades and a cut of the counterparty commission in exchange for a spread that doesn't exceed some agreed upon limit.
Sure. This is feasible. Before they hit critical mass though, they (and I say this with utmost respect for what they're trying to do) absolutely need a do-over. I'm displeased with the dot net nuke looking custom modules, and the kludge. It feels like I'm stuck in 2005, and with any substantial volume the site doesn't "feel" like it'll be able to handle itself. I wish they'd consider allowing others who are trusted and experienced in this community to just do a clean room implementation, nest account and exchange options in a more cohesive and intuitive way, and optimize for UX/UI speed. I'm in the USA and 250+ ms times are also not ideal. Overall, the fact that they have the licensing and legal issues handled is great. Now I really have this feeling that the owners are dragging their feet, maybe because they feel their in house resources for development are more ideal than more apt or capable hands.
One thing is clear: Nobody should have any attachment to the core software, name or anything else. All people care about is liquidity, depth and rapid execution. Look to Bitcoinica as a shining example of a lightweight yet fully functional implementation of an example. Second, if you want to have an intuitive interface, you need look no further than MtGox and their lego brick nonsense. It's ugly, but hey - it's what everyone is used to. The next successful exchange will rip them off entirely.
Best of luck,
Jonathan