Deployment of GMX in BNB Chain

[hq21]

From what I understand there were technical/structural reason for GMX to leave BNB chain in the first place, have these been overcome?

[randomishwalk]

Part of the migration (which took place I believe in mid-2021 leading up to the Arbitrum chain launch later that year) also had to do with collapsing the previous, complex and somewhat incentive-incompatible multi token design, into the GMX design we are more familiar with today.

Will allow @xdev_10 and other contributors & early community members who were directly involved in that migration opine on the technical & strategic rationale for why Gambit on BSC evolved into GMX on Arbitrum.

[brawlaphant]

If we only deploy synths, and X/team are for it. Otherwise, give us X4… please

[redsheep]

If this initiative will not cannibalize liquidity from Arbitrum, I look at this initiative positively, in any case, only market participants will decide how viable this idea is. Moreover, the GMX team has experience in this network, which is a competitive advantage. We as investors have to look not only at ethical preferences, but also at business opportunities for the project.

[cryptohippo65]

There are currently a lot of unknowns with the BNBchain(s).

A lot have already been listed by other users above (centralization with low number of validators, questionable DAU, security/reputational risk etc), but there is also one major overlooked issue with the BNBchain:

-How many circulating BNB even exist?

Coinmarketcap says 160M.
Coingecko says 163.3M.

BNB is spread across Ethereum, BSC, and Beacon chain, with the following amounts listed as the circulating supply on each chain:

BNB on ETH: 24.2M
BNB on BSC: 16.5M
BNB on Beacon: 137M

This adds up to 177.7M, which is an additional 14-17M BNB.
Thats a $5.5 - $6.3 billion discrepancy.
Coinmarketcap is owned by Binance so why such a large discrepancy?

If the basic tokenomics of the BNBchain cannot even be accurately defined, then I would recommend careful due diligence before proceeding with the proposal.

[adambnb]

Hello @randomishwalk & @IceCream

@randomishwalk

Furthermore, I would challenge the audience here to name a single DeFi protocol (a straightforward one, not one of these aggregator or meta-aggregator apps like Beefy) with 1) significant economic activity and 2) is deployed across more than one chain that does not follow this rule: thus far in the (admittedly very short) history of defi, economic activity for a Defi protocol *tends* to concentrate in one or two chains.

It depends on which angle you look at it, if you are looking at a % total TVL by chains, protocols like AAVE, Uniswap, Balancer, Curve, etc. are consistently becoming top protocols on chains they expand to.
So liquidity on those chains will tend to concentrate on those reputable DeFi protocols, but overall chains liquidity they expand to is much lower than Ethereum so in absolute numbers won’t look so good!

@IceCream

• The GMX LP does not have any incentives from GMX. This could be the case on BSC as well. Therefore no clear risks to tokenomics. esGMX is however distributed if GLP yields are below a certain amount. I don’t consider more esGMX a tokenomic risk, although it is dilutive, so it would be great to see @adambnb BNB chain provide $BNB incentives on GMX.

It’s a very interesting point, I’m wondering how the community sees this kind of incentive.
We are confident that there is an untapped new market with new users and fresh liquidity for GMX on the BNB Chain, but this kind of incentive will also encourage users from Arbitrum / Avalanche to come to BNB Chain which is not so interesting I think for the community and the team, what’s your view on that?

[Wazi]

Think just about fees-part right now. Imagine incentive program and closer cooperation with Binance. In the bull market, this can help us generate a lot more fees for stakers. From the business side it is a good deal from ideology side centralisation may bother some…
i decided to fully support this proposal

[hem19]

Let’s look at the data.

1. BSC consistently among top chains to earn fees - https://cryptofees.info/
2. BSC’s DAU count is among top 2 for last 6 months - Daily active users | Metrics | Token Terminal
3. Pancakeswap, DEX on BSC is among top 3 DEX’s - Exchange | Markets | Token Terminal
4. Almost all the top dApps have already onboarded to BSC
5. BSC is decentralized enough, I don’t see it being centralized more than any other side chain or L2

All in all, looks good proposal to me. The only concern I have is if developers have time to start working on it or not. They are already busy with synths right now and then further developments are already in pipeline

TLDR; I am fully in support of this proposal.

[relied]

@IceCream

GMX and Binance should explore integrating GLP into Binance CEX DeFi staking and liquidity farming to directly access liquidity from a CEX within GLP. @adambnb

That is a very interesting idea imo, both a good catalyst for on-chain trading, as well as an interesting option to increase GLP liquidity.

[adambnb]

Indeed, I find it very interesting too.
And from BNB Chain side, we will be happy to strongly support this initiative and make it happen!

[Jonezee]

The main issue with the BSC chain back then was that the RPCs were unreliable. That hampered the on-chain trading experience for users significantly.

But this has been remedied for a while now, as far as I know.

[randomishwalk]

That is a great point yes they have made some strides there.

But you could I think also say the same thing for Polygon PoS sidechain (RPCs were bad, now they are less bad). And at least they have every intention to migrate to a better security model.

[randomishwalk]

I think the only reliable measure of activity is fees (protocol or total fees). If people are not willing to pay for a service like a DeFi protocol, it is hard to claim I think that it is being used in an organic basis. But just my personal POV. That is a good point you make!

[russiamanbit]

Lets make BNB Chain great again!
If not we, then WHO?
I want my assets to be exposed to Binance marketing machine!
Dont forget their intention to focus peoples attention on self-custodial wallets (TrustWallet) and Binance need a good solid toys for all that army of self-custodial new Chad’s. So its better to give them GMX instead of some cheap clone with dubious reputation… so its kind of our duty! to expose great protocol to new wave of web3.0 users… because…
If not we, then WHO?

PS: @randomishwalk @gmx your comments and thoughts is really interesting btw… and ofc I agree with them in parts… but… instead of making restriction for “move” may be lets reveal all the most biggest potential pains in that intention and lets define possible actions in that extreme cases.

[randomishwalk]

@russiamanbit

lets reveal all the most biggest potential pains in that intention and lets define possible actions in that extreme cases

Yes precisely! Let’s surface the key technical/operational/security issues this poses, see what we can deal with vs not and then determine best course of action, subject to some criteria that’s something along the lines of “hey what are we actually trying to accomplish here”

@russiamanbit

So its better to give them GMX instead of some cheap clone with dubious reputation

yes that’s a great pt. again I don’t think this should be done to the detriment of the existing community and loyal users which is why this should be deliberated over and explored some more before committing to anything. I am still pretty unconvinced, but tbh we don’t have all the information here available to make a good decision

[cryptohippo65]

Please before proceeding with this proposal, just get the answer to one important but simple question:

How many BNB are actually in circulation?

[Richard]

Strongly agree on the “NO”!

[bara]

How to dislike this post?

[LeoniIX]

Yes!! I’m in favor!!

Curious to see the outcome of the snapshot!

[kreitz.eth]

oh man this is going to be a split vote it looks like. Need to do more thinking before I decide but commenting to follow the thread.