GMSOL or GMX-SOLANA? Decide then Sail

Proposals
1

image
image2876×1130 122 KB

GMSOL: Bringing GMX V2 to Solana and realizing the trinity of decentralized leverage trading In this proposal, we explored the goals of GMSOL in detail.

image
image1528×352 31.3 KB

After nearly seven months of continuous development, the core development work for GMSOL v0.2 is nearing completion. All migrations from GMX V2, including the latest Shift and GLV, have been completed. The contract is currently pending further progress from our partners on the Solana deployment to finalize the integration. Some frontend modules related to GMSOL v0.2 also require adjustments based on partner‘s integration. We are working towards completing a preview version on Solana Devnet as soon as possible and allowing all users to test it.

The core overview of GMSOL is as follows:

  1. GMSOL will fully align with GMX V2 in terms of model and will primarily rely on GLV to provide liquidity to the entire market. The core code of GMSOL will be open-sourced after audits and before launch. Currently, the code can be viewed through the invitations, where GMX Delegates can apply for the access.

  2. 60% of the fees will be allocated to the GMSOL Treasury, which will consist of 50% for buyback of GMX and 50% held in USDC.

  3. Once the GMSOL Treasury reaches a certain scale, GLV: GMX-USDC will be deployed, and GMX will become a global liquidity token, providing liquidity to all markets supported by Chainlink Data Streams. This also prepares initial liquidity for potential deployment on more chains in the future. The GMSOL Treasury will be the key foundation for GMX becoming a global liquidity token across chains.

  4. The address of the GMSOL Treasury will be public, with a 3/5 multi-signature structure: GMX Core Contributors will control 3 signatures, while GMSOL Core Contributors will control 2 signatures.

  5. GMSOL and the GMSOL Treasury will be fully managed and supervised by GMX DAO, but the initial updates to contracts and maintenance of risk parameters will be handled by a council made up of founding team members. Over time, as the project and community evolve, the governance structure will gradually achieve full decentralization. This governance structure ensures the project’s stable development while maximizing the safety of funds and maintaining close ties with the GMX community.

Building on the original proposal, Xdev believes there should also be a vote on the name of GMSOL, choosing between GMX-SOLANA and GMSOL. The logo can remain unchanged, and there can be separate Twitter and Telegram groups. Xdev thinks that GMX-Solana might sound better to users, and since the GMX brand is owned by the community, it would be up to the community to grant permission for this usage. Xdev has also purchased the domain gmx.sol as a backup option.

We agree with Xdev’s analysis and acknowledge that both GMX-SOLANA and GMSOL have their own advantages. This matter should be left to the community to decide. Therefore, the vote will include four points:

  1. Should GMX DAO authorize GMSOL (GMX-SOLANA) to use the GMX V2 model and frontend code? GMX DAO would also retain the rights to GMSOL’s current and future models and code.

  2. Should GMX DAO authorize the GMX Treasury to fund GMSOL (GMX-SOLANA)'s first audit, with a cap of $250k?

  3. Name choice: GMSOL or GMX-SOLANA?

  4. Domain choice: gmsol.pro or gmx.sol? (Note: The domain choice is independent of the name choice, meaning any combination is possible: (GMSOL, gmx.sol), (GMSOL, gmsol.pro), (GMX-SOLANA, gmx.sol), (GMX-SOLANA, gmsol.pro)).

Since many of these critical issues have been sufficiently discussed in the initial proposal and there is broad consensus, we need to move forward as quickly as possible to meet key milestones/events for release. Therefore, this proposal will be put to a Snapshot vote in 5 days, and the vote will last for 5 days.

image
image2924×924 122 KB

7 Likes
2

Thanks for the update about the progress, Q; great to see. Look forward to hearing people’s take on the pros and cons of the two names.

5 Likes
3

gm, thanks for the update, really great to see things moving forward, here are my thoughts:

  1. Yes. It allows for a quick and efficient integration while ensuring a smooth user experience. Plus, the DAO keeps the rights to future models, which helps protect the GMX ecosystem.

  2. Yes. An audit is crucial to ensure the project’s security and build trust. Its in GMX’s best interest to make sure any project within its ecosystem adheres to the highest security standards.

  3. GMX-SOLANA. While GMSOL is short and catchy, GMX-SOLANA is more descriptive and instantly connects with the Solana ecosystem. It helps leverage the GMX brand and makes the project more accessible to users outside the GMX ecosystem, this name could appeal to a wider audience, some of whom might not be drawn to “GMSOL” alone.

  4. gmx.sol. Its better aligned with the brand and much easier for users to remember.

I look forward to seeing how your proposal takes shape :blueberries:

6 Likes
4

As a GMX delegate below are my views of each of the points:

4 Likes
5

I think GMX-Solana will be better since its very familiar to people who has no association with GM.

4 Likes
6
  1. YES. All in a family.
  2. Yup, lets build a safe environment for all part of the ecosystem of GMX.
  3. GMX-Solana - creating clear official links to GMX for those traders and LP who knows that GMX is an established brand
  4. gmx.sol is so much neater.
4 Likes
7

We are very pleased to see GMX-SOL making its way into the Solana ecosystem. This is an important and positive step forward.

However, we believe that the name “GMX-SOLANA” would be more appropriate, as “GMSOL” may cause confusion with the GM-SOL pool in GMX V2.

Additionally, we should carefully consider the fee distribution structure. If 60% of the total fees go to the treasury, it could impact our ability to attract TVL and compete effectively with JLP on Solana. Given that the yield for GMX V2 on Arbitrum is already low, introducing a new chain with an even lower yield could be challenging.

4 Likes
8

Hi Time Research @Time_Research ,

Thank you for raising this important question, which has also been discussed within the community. Below is our perspective for your reference and further discussion.

I agree that 30% for LPs may not seem like much, but it’s important to clarify that GMSOL does not directly take 60%.

The mechanism works like this: for traders, we will implement a “Trade to Mint” mechanism, meaning that traders’ transaction fees will mint a certain amount of GMSOL tokens/points. The GMSOL treasury will maintain liquidity and value by conducting daily buybacks of these tokens/points.

For traders, GMSOL tokens/points will serve as rebates, significantly reducing or even completely offsetting transaction costs.

Our approach offers LPs a 30% real yield, but by substantially lowering transaction costs, we aim to maximize trading activity, thereby increasing value for LPs.

This is in contrast to a plan where 90% is allocated to LPs, which is something GMSOL could technically achieve. However, the GMSOL treasury is fundamentally designed to operate “from traders and for traders,” ensuring a balanced system that benefits all participants.

2 Likes
9

  1. We support GMX DAO in authorizing GMSOL to use the GMX V2 model and code to ensure the smooth development of GMSOL, while retaining the rights to GMSOL’s future model and code.

  2. Yes, we strongly support for GMSOL performing an audit, as the protocol’s security is the top priority. While aligning with the best interests of GMX’s ecosystem.

  3. No general actual preference; both options are acceptable.

  4. No general preference, but gmx.sol or gmxsol.pro are more recognizable.

2 Likes
10

It’s nice to see the strong support for authorizing GMSOL (GMX-SOLANA) to use the GMX V2 model and frontend code.

Regarding the name, while there are valid points on both sides, we are in favor of what seems to be what the community is leaning slightly towards: ‘GMX-SOLANA’, for its clarity and alignment with the Solana ecosystem.

For the domain, ‘gmx.sol’ seems to be a clear favorite for its brand consistency and ease of use, and we agree. Looking forward to the Snapshot vote!

2 Likes
11

As a community contributor, I’d lean towards;

  1. Yes GMX DAO should authorize GMX-SOLANA to use GMX V2
  2. Yes contributing to the audit feels fitting, considering the strong alignment between the two projects in revenue and tokenomics
  3. For branding purposes, I prefer GMX-SOLANA
  4. gmx.sol feels like the way to go
2 Likes
12

@gmsolq just to clarify, so there isn’t confusion on the communities understanding of the language.

The source code will be open sourced means that it will be made public following in the tradition of GMX to ensuring our code is open and publicly verifiable. It doesn’t mean that it will be open for replication under an MIT type license, but instead will be placed under a business license.

The license should be for (i) a period of time no shorter than the license that is held on the GMX V2 code base, (ii) a royalty free perpetual license to re-use any part of the code base provided to GMX Labs for the benefit of the GMX DAO and (iii) a restriction on further licensing the GMX Solana code base or deploying outside of Solana.

2 Likes
13
  1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. Why not simply GMX SOL?
    four syllables is better than six
  4. gmx.sol.
    see previous
2 Likes
14

yes to the first 2
3,GMX SOL keeps the GMX branding, I think any chain that we operate on should always be GMX-!!! I think it will lead to brand recognition
4, gmx.sol same reason as above

2 Likes
15

We are in favor of the GMSOL (GMX-SOLANA) proposal as it represents a significant step in expanding GMX’s footprint into the Solana ecosystem while leveraging its proven V2 model. Below are our positions on key points raised:

Key Points:

  1. Audit Funding:

    We support the GMX DAO funding GMSOL’s audit, especially since GMX DAO is the primary beneficiary of the expanded use case. Ensuring the security of the new platform is critical, and the $250k audit funding cap seems appropriate for this purpose.

  2. Fee Structure:

    We share @Time_Research’s concerns regarding competition with Solana-native platforms like Jupiter, particularly on LP APRs. We would like to see fee structure models or simulations post-launch to ensure competitiveness and fair distribution of fees to all parties. It’s essential to understand the full impact of both buybacks and GMX staking yields, especially under varying market conditions.

  3. Naming and Branding:

    We align with the community’s preference for GMX-SOLANA as the name, paired with gmx.sol as the domain. This keeps branding consistent and easily recognizable, while clearly linking GMX’s reputation with its expansion into Solana.

Answering Direct Questions:

  1. Authorize GMSOL (GMX-SOLANA) to use the GMX V2 model and frontend code?

    Yes, we support authorizing GMSOL to use the GMX V2 model and code, as it strengthens the GMX brand and retains full rights for future developments.

  2. Authorize GMX Treasury to fund the first audit with a $250k cap?

    Yes, the audit is a necessary step to ensure the security and integrity of GMSOL before launch, and we believe the audit cap is reasonable.

  3. Name Choice: GMSOL or GMX-SOLANA?

    We prefer GMX-SOLANA for clarity and brand consistency.

  4. Domain Choice: gmsol.pro or gmx.sol?

    gmx.sol is our preferred domain, as it aligns well with GMX’s established brand and is easier for users to remember and associate with the broader GMX ecosystem.

In conclusion, we believe that GMSOL (GMX-SOLANA) is a strategic expansion that will benefit both GMX and the Solana ecosystem. With the right security measures and competitive fee structures in place, it has the potential to be a strong addition to the GMX family.

5 Likes
16

Thank you for the proposal, its been long since anticipated!

  1. Should GMX DAO authorize GMSOL (GMX-SOLANA) to use the GMX V2 model and frontend code? GMX DAO would also retain the rights to GMSOL’s current and future models and code.

I support this request, so long as GMX and the DAO remain the primary beneficiaries of its usage.

  1. Should GMX DAO authorize the GMX Treasury to fund GMSOL (GMX-SOLANA)'s first audit, with a cap of $250k?

I think it is reasonable for the DAO to authorise the spend to cover the costs, up to a cap of $250k. If costs exceed this initial estimate it is worth discussing further.

  1. Name choice: GMSOL or GMX-SOLANA?

GMX-SOLANA is the preferred choice purely for brand recognition purposes.

  1. Domain choice: gmsol.pro or gmx.sol? (Note: The domain choice is independent of the name choice, meaning any combination is possible: (GMSOL, gmx.sol), (GMSOL, gmsol.pro), (GMX-SOLANA, gmx.sol), (GMX-SOLANA, gmsol.pro)).

gmx.sol makes most sense given the preference for the name “GMX-SOLANA”

Looking forward to the next steps in the journey.

2 Likes