GMSOL: Bringing GMX V2 to Solana and realizing the trinity of decentralized leverage trading

I think the oracle model is fundamentally not suited for long tail assets. I’d be curious to understand how you are able to overcome this limitation of relying on oracles to price long tail perp markets?

The LP experience can be simplified with a unified LP pool, tho it’d be important that this pool is profitable (in USD terms). An LP would not want to take on price exposure for many long tail assets.

For more margining options, I just mean offering cross margin. Multi-collateral margin would be nice too.

1 Like

I don’t quite understand what you mean by overcoming this difficulties. The prices are provided by oracles, and as long as the oracles support us, we can build GM Markets based on the GMX V2 framework using this price source. We only need to integrate the oracles properly and enhance the scalability of the interfaces (which has been completed). No extra effort is required.

I agree that we may simultaneously offer SS SOL Unified Pool and SS USDC Unified Pool, allowing users to choose freely. More SS Unified Pools may also be provided, similar to the GMX V1 solution, to meet the needs of different users.

I understand your point. We are indeed evaluating the feasibility of implementing cross margin and unified accounts, which may involve potential options trading modules. Therefore, both cross margin and unified accounts might be necessary.


rest and chill too. grateful to you guys, but do note its a marathon, not a spirit and sooo please take time out to rest and enjoy life =)


It is a bit strange that this proposal focuses mainly on request of DAO funds for audits, but does not talk much about acquiring v2 code license itself. I am convinced that the approval of the DAO for the licensing terms should be obtained first and only later should one think about asking for additional funds to cover audits.

Thanks for all of your work on this. The more I think about it, the more it is a clearly good thing.

My only quibble is re: fee share vs GMX buyback.
What do you think about instead of doing e.g. 60% MX buy and hodl in the treasury, GMsol does 40% buyback and 20% direct fee share with GMX stakers (or something like this).

GMX’s real utility, apart from directing the DAO, is as an engine for revenue share, not just price accrual. Thanks

It is a bit strange that you can arrive at such a conclusion. If you can read through the proposal and raise some meaningful questions, I would be willing to talk more with you.

As for this request, as mentioned in the proposal, the license and audits are simultaneous with no sequence; feel free to oppose or support it.

Thank you for your affirmation.

Regarding real yield and buyback, I have always believed that buyback is greater than real yield. I initially even wanted to initiate a proposal on GMX to change real yield to buyback for voting, which should be a very intense competition, and I expect the votes for both to be neck and neck. However, considering the potential division and unpredictable negative effects that such a large-scale change may bring to the community, I took a different approach. I introduced buyback to GMX in an incremental way, which is through GMSOL.

It may be the case that both buyback and real yield have their own advantages and disadvantages. As you said, one acts on revenue share and the other on price accrual, and neither has an absolute advantage. Both are important for GMX. Adopting both simultaneously without conflict is a mild and powerful solution, and I believe this is best for GMX.

1 Like

Request for license with detail terms and conditions and request for audit covering funds should be two separate proposals. License itself can be more valuable than asked funds. You said you will cover audit expenses yourself if DAO will not approve it. But without license grant it is also won’t happen.

And how about DAO voting process itself? As directly related person you should abstain the vote?

Your suggestion is very good, so there will be three options, which should be able to respond well to your suggestion:

  1. Support license and support audit fee
  2. Support license and do not support audit fee
  3. Do not support license and do not support audit fee

I am very clear that I will NOT abstain. As the current largest holder of GMX, and as the GMX Delegate representing over 400 community members, I have a responsibility to vote for the option that is most beneficial to the development of GMX, both for myself and for them.

Moreover, the audit fee is paid to the auditing institution and is not directly paid to GMSOL. Strict auditing is not only a safeguard for GMSOL but also a safeguard for GMX. Everyone should understand this point.

As the current No.3 GMX Delegate, I am also very interested in your choice among the above three options, and which option you think preserving the GMX legacy will guide you to make?

I am No.2 delegate because X has hinted he will not vote on any DAO proposals. There is still a lack of detailed information on the terms and conditions for license grant but given the discussions and answers above I would vote for option 2 for now. In other words - support GMX ecosystem and partnership expansion but be strict on treasure expenditures

apologies that there was a miscommunication about whether i would vote

initially the suggestion was that contributors should not be delegates, to allow for a better separation between the DAO and contributors, but this was later re-discussed and the opinion was changed to allow contributors to be delegates

i created a delegate account as i received requests from a few people who wanted to delegate, i did not expect the amount of delegations received, i’m grateful for the support and opportunity to represent the GMX community

i will vote to the best of my ability based on my understanding of which choice the GMX community in aggregate prefers

we also realize that contributors would likely need to create proposals e.g. for the DAO to grant permissions to new contracts, which requires some amount of voting power, so being a delegate is necessary in that sense

with regards to that, G who has done a lot of development work for GMX and xhiroz who helps with the frontend development also have created delegate profiles:

just mentioning, in case anyone would like to delegate to them, as i think a larger distribution of delegates is a net positive


I completely agree. Thank you for your leadership. I will also follow your lead and, based on my understanding of the GMX community’s overall preferences, I will do my best to vote accordingly. Glory to GMX!

sorry i missed this message, i am in support of gmsolq’s (Q) proposal and the GMSOL points mechanism

as Q mentioned, the use of the GMX bought back and the tokenomics can be adjusted, i believe that allowing GMSOL points to have its own benefits and ecosystem makes sense because it would help to bootstrap the protocol while being mutually beneficial for GMX

for the audit / license, my personal opinion is that it is reasonable to subsidize the audit up to a certain value, probably need a vote for the amount, in exchange for the license

currently we have grants that subsidize development work related to GMX, so i would view this as a scaled up version of it

1 Like