I mentioned MP because it, along with BB&D and the proposal topic of expanding BB&D fee coverage, are all possible adjustment schemes for value retention rather than value enhancement. I found it very interesting to see you criticize ending MP again.
Another famous observation by Nietzsche about people is: “There are no facts, only interpretations.”
In the face of a downward trend, if you do an equal amount of work, it will reverse the downward trend and maintain stability, rather than cause an uptick. If you do twice the work, it will break away from stability and achieve an upward trend.
Since the MP decision, GMX/ETH has ended its downward trend and built a stable bottom. Yet because it hasn’t risen, you ignore, question, or even ridicule the benefits of changing MP, and believe that “the entire community had all made an unspoken agreement to just not acknowledge that we now have months & months of data that demonstrate that MP’s were never a barrier for getting new buyers.”
If you define auto-compounding as the core advantage of GMX V2, then indeed, losing auto-compound would be game over for GMX.
First of all, I don’t deny that auto-compounding has its unique benefits. However, if auto-compounding had such a decisive advantage, why is the scale of GM decreasing compared to GLP? Why has GLP, which doesn’t have auto-compounding, achieved a much larger scale than GM?
From this perspective, auto-compounding is not decisive. But adjusting auto-compounding would indeed have a negative impact on some of the current GM LP audience who have already embraced auto-compounding. It’s important to distinguish that this is not a decisive negative impact.
Compared to auto-compounding, changing the reward form to GMX instead of pool assets would have a greater impact. This is because LPs will inevitably worry about the volatility of GMX (volatility itself can be hedged), but they are more concerned about the liquidity of GMX (liquidity cannot be hedged). If liquidity is poor, LPs would only receive paper gains, and I think this would be a fundamental blow to the current GM LPs.
However, this issue has been analyzed clearly in the further reply to Time Research above.
Additionally, you mentioned “too many other platforms out there in the DeFi space.” If you care about real yield and only look at APY, there are indeed better options. But please provide an example of a product that can achieve such a high APY with such low risk exposure (thanks to an excellent OI balance). Remember, the ultimate return for LPs is not determined by the fee-based APY; traders’ PnL is the dominant factor and the biggest risk.
The dynamic relationship of LPs has been analyzed very clearly above. The trade-off here is whether the negative impact on existing LPs can be offset by the addition of new LPs. Under the current mechanism, even if there’s some flexibility, it’s undeniable that there’s an element of risk involved, and I understand that we don’t need to take that risk.
Therefore, through discussion, if we want to further propose a specific plan, prerequisites like capital utilization and OI capacity need to be improved—that is, improvements like net OI, cross-margin, and cross-collateral are necessary. These enhancements will maximize GMX’s flexibility and minimize the risks of this proposal. Based on this premise, the proposal becomes more feasible.
Additionally, I want to point out that while MP is indeed a change in tokenomics, please be clear that BB&D is not a change in tokenomics. The USD value of the rewards when distributed is consistent; it’s just different forms of distribution—pool assets/ETH/AVAX/GMX—and whether they need to be claimed or are auto-compounded. These are not changes in tokenomics but product features.
I agree with this point. At present, technical resources should be prioritized towards value creation. Moreover, if a series of optimizations are implemented, the risks of this proposal will be further reduced, and its benefits will be further amplified.
So this is just a proposal—perhaps calling it a discussion would be more appropriate. I have always believed that aggressively proposing ideas and exploring various possibilities is beneficial, but when it comes to deciding what to do, we must remain very cautious, including in the selection of priorities.
I don’t deny that I might be one of the most aggressive members of the community, but rest assured, the ones truly safeguarding GMX are the GMX core contributors you admire, as well as the other GMX-Sol core contributors, who are equally prudent. The valuable parts of my ideas will be absorbed, the assumed priorities will be adjusted, and plans that are either flawed or excessively risky are often rejected.
I am a little apprehensive to want to jump to make a change to the BB&D mechanism already even if it could pump my bags.
I am a strong believer and advocate for simplicity and consistency (look at the hate eth gets for its economic model changing) i would agree that at face value this is good for GMX price, i would also take the counter argument and say if we 3X the protocols fees it will have the exact same effect on price but with the caveat of an added tail wind which we won’t have alone from reallocating the fees earned.
To put it simply i am leaning towards GMX being to established that it doesn’t make sense to have so many economic changes happening at once, if we work on growing value creation without weakening the foundation our bags may appreciate slower but it will be on a more robust base which is in turn more sustainable.
unfortunately, i dont think GMX should be viewed thru the same eyes you look at meme coins wanting an overnight 100x IMO GMX should be viewed on the same premise as an investment youd make in your 401K pursuing slow but steady gains while also earning yield that compounds its an old school approach but its tried and tested
P.S sorry to make my analysis all about price but it appears that’s what 90% of this proposal is about
I believe that the thought to expand the BB&D is there, but we do have strong community feedback with regards to this. And I personally think that we shouldn’t touch v2 fee mechanism.
Instead we could convert all GLP fees to GMX instead and distribute from there, as fees are not auto-compounded there, it be reasonable to do it and the buying mechanism is already in place.
If you call for a Vote, please allow just GLP fees as a option and let the community select from there, and personally believe we shouldn’t do v2 fee change due to the strong sentiments towards tax requirements.
People need to look at HYPE and the evolution there. GMX had a clear market lead when launching on Arb. We didn’t take advantage of it and watches competitors spring up left/right to take market share. While Q’s proposal maybe extreme to some we need to keep pushing the envelope.
(sorry to hijack the thread, maybe it would be a better fit elsewhere)
So Hyperliquid did a vampire attack - it’s one battle but not the war.
First, the security of their own L1 is probably way inferior to Arbitrum. They probably achieve their TPS through a small set of closely connected servers (maybe even controlled by themselves).
Second, they managed to create fake volume by promising points to incentive people to wash trade. It’s clear from the many accounts that clearly brag about it on X, screenshots as proof.
Third, they executed the hype with KOLs extremely well to entice people to buy their token at a $9bn FDV now which is insane. It’s 30x GMX, and GMX has twice the liquidity of HYPE and they even offer lower yield to their LPs (because positions are held for 10 minutes there, which was required to get the points, contribute to the volume several times, etc.).
Fourth, by launching their own token principally on their own product, they can now claim the volume is still rising.
The questions are: Since many trades were fake to begin with, how will the volume evolve after some people try to take profit from their HYPE?
Second: Starknet is reducing their gas fees, can GMX work closely with Arbitrum to achieve the same gas price reductions? Becoming more competitive when security is taken in account.
Third: Does it make sense to lower fees (I think an experiment with the SOL pool is going on)?
Fourth: How to market to real users that the OG GMX is here, provides better security which should matter to anyone trading with size.
for the purpose of discussion even if we assume what you said is 100% true (not saying it isn’t) simply putting mechanisms in place to effect the price upward alone doesn’t change the value of the underlying protocol
if we truly are/were the best the best way to get back there imo is develop the protocol to a point where it is superior
There are many benefits for GMX holders if one of the proposals is approved. In my opinion, we should modify some aspects to be more favorable for liquidity providers. I will use Option 1 as an example.
GMX holders will receive esGMX, while liquidity providers will receive GMX.
When the APR increases, the reward distribution ratio for liquidity providers should also increase while the reward ratio for GMX holders decreases. For example, if the APR is 60% with a ratio of 27:63, GMX holders would receive 60%27/(27+63) = 18%, and liquidity providers would receive 60%63/(27+63) = 42%. If the APR increases to 80%, then GMX holders would receive 80%(27-2)/(27+63) = 22.2%, and liquidity providers would receive 80%(63+2)/(27+63) = 57.7%. These numbers are just examples.
I dont think we should be looking at bb&d at the moment, we are at the beging of an alt season so we will see a fair few people leaving GMX. I see this idea as short term price manipulation and not something that is healthy for the future of the platform
@woofbark - the conversation is effectively finished. Everyone had their say and nobody had posted in the thread in a week.
Resurrecting dead threads just to give an entirely unnecessary opinion (nothing you said adds to the convo that hasn’t already been said) is considered bad internet etiquette. And it’s been that way since 1995 AOL message board era. Next time please take note of the date of the last post in a thread. If it’s been more than 5 days, and you’re just chiming in to say “I agree with XYZ sentiment”, it’d be preferable if you didn’t post at all.
Discussions intentionally move slow on this Governance forum, and many community members only log in once every few weeks. I don’t think there’s a good reason to suggest that any thread that hasn’t had a new post in 6 days, shouldn’t be engaged with.