GMX Labs Funding Proposal (2026-2027)

PROPOSAL SUMMARY

GMX Labs requests authorization for continued funding for 2026-2027 through a comprehensive two-year framework that includes operating funds and contributor tokens. The proposed plan implements floor and ceiling mechanisms to balance operational stability with fiscal responsibility, leveraging the strengthened treasury position achieved during the 2024-2025 mandate.

Building on 2024-2025: During the previous two-year period, GMX Labs demonstrated operational efficiency by maintaining lean direct operations at $9.4M over two years supporting full protocol development and maintenance (with $19.4M total over two years including contributor tokens and other key DAO expenses), while generating $80.6M in protocol proceeds over the period (~$40M annually) and contributing $21.5M net to the DAO treasury. Additionally the bonding program successfully raised $4.2M in accumulated balance during this period, complementing the broader treasury strengthening efforts.

2024 - 2025 Reconciliation
Operating Activity
Protocol Fees (net of LPs) 65.0 Operations 9.4
Price Impact Pools 15.6 Contributor Tokens 5.6
V1 Security Payout 2.0
Chainlink 1.6
GMX Solana 0.8
Total Proceeds from Protocol 80.6 Operating Use of Funds 19.4
Net Contribution from Operations 61.2
Financing Activity
Net Contribution from Operations 61.2 Distribution to GMX Stakers 50.3
Add-back: Contributor Tokens (GMX) 5.6
Proceeds from Bonding (GMX to USDC) 4.2
Add-back: Vendors paid in kind (GMX) 0.8
Total Sources 71.8 Total Uses 50.3
Net Retained after Staking 21.5

Notes

  • The report follows a modified format of a cash flow statement, reflecting full expenses in operations, using the financing section to adjust for non-cash payments. No investment section has been presented here
  • vendors were paid $1.0m GMX in-kind, of which $0.8m was issued from the treasury and $0.2 was purchased from the market
  • all amounts where possible were valued at the time of receipt / distribution.
  • contributor tokens were valued based on the monthly closes of GMX assuming 24 months of full distribution. This marginally overstates the total.

Scaling: Labs now supports an expansion to 30 contributors supporting GMX’s continued maturation. We have fortified the protocol through a combination of top-tier service providers including Guardian, Chaos Labs, and Alchemy alongside a near-tripling of our internal engineering and product headcount, which has grown from 7 at the start of our prior mandate to 19 today. Spanning everything from smart contract development to UI/UX design, this diversified talent pool minimizes operational risk and establishes a robust, sustainable foundation for long-term growth.

Labs/DAO History: The GMX DAO was already established, and in October 2022, a proposal passed to create a Labs entity to support it. This entity was mandated by the DAO to act as its service provider: developing and maintaining code, administering delegated responsibilities, securing and holding IP, and acting as a counterparty for contributors and other service providers. Labs operates in full alignment with the DAO.

This Proposal Requests:

  1. Two-year authorization to utilize the V2 fee stream to fund protocol operations
  2. Two-year continuation of the contributor token grant program

FUNDING REQUESTS

1. Contributor Token Allocation

Request: 250,000 GMX tokens over 25 months (December 2025, 2026-2027)

Structure:

  • Linear monthly distribution: ~10,000 GMX per month
  • Represents 1.9% of total supply over the period
  • Maintains historical pattern from Years 1-4

Rationale:

  • Alignment: Ensures contributors remain aligned with long-term protocol success
  • Retention: Competitive compensation to retain experienced talent with institutional knowledge
  • Proven Model: Continues successful approach from previous funding periods
  • Cumulative Allocation: 6-year total of 750,000 GMX (~5.7% of total supply)

Historical Context:

  • Years 1-4 utilized ~3.8% of supply for team compensation
  • No founder allocation or pre-mine
  • Community-first approach maintained throughout
  • Token grants have proven effective for retention and alignment

2. Revenue-Based Operating Funds

Source: Unallocated 10% share of V2 protocol fees accumulating in DAO treasury

Annual Floor: $7,000,000
Annual Ceiling: $9,000,000

Mechanism:

Labs funded from the 10% V2 treasury allocation (currently 8.8% net after 1.2% Chainlink payment):

  • If annual revenue < $7M: Shortfall supplemented from DAO treasury reserves
  • If annual revenue $7M-$9M: Labs has full access to the V2 protocol fees for operations
  • If annual revenue > $9M: Labs capped at $9M, excess remains in DAO treasury for governance allocation

Key Features:

  • Leverages the strengthened treasury built during 2024-2025
  • Creates predictable operational funding across market cycles
  • Returns excess value to DAO during favorable conditions
  • Maintains fiscal discipline through ceiling mechanism

RATIONALE FOR FUNDING FLOOR

Why a Floor is Critical

The $7M funding floor ensures availability of resources across all market conditions for:

Core Development Team Retention:

  • Maintaining experienced contributors with institutional knowledge of the protocol
  • Preventing sudden resource reductions that compromise development velocity
  • Enabling competitive compensation in both bull and bear markets

Critical Security Operations:

  • Ongoing audits and security assessments
  • Continuous monitoring and threat detection
  • Rapid incident response capabilities
  • Proactive vs. reactive security posture

Essential Infrastructure Costs:

  • Oracles, keepers, RPCs across multiple chains
  • Monitoring systems ensuring protocol operational health
  • Multi-chain infrastructure maintenance
  • System reliability and uptime

Legal and Compliance Baseline:

  • Entity maintenance and corporate governance
  • Regulatory compliance across jurisdictions
  • Governance coordination and administration
  • Professional legal counsel for evolving regulatory landscape

The Risk Without a Floor:

Extended bear markets without a funding floor could force:

  • Sudden team reductions losing institutional knowledge
  • Infrastructure cuts compromising protocol reliability
  • Security compromises through reduced audit frequency
  • Reactive-only incident response capabilities

The $7M floor represents the conservative funding level needed to maintain professional operations. The bonding program and DAO treasury reserves provide the buffer to supplement protocol revenue when market conditions require it.


RATIONALE FOR $9M CEILING

Fiscal Responsibility

The ceiling mechanism ensures:

Prevents Excessive Accumulation:

  • Labs does not over-accumulate funds during bull markets
  • Maintains lean operational philosophy
  • Aligns with DeFi industry standards (comparable to Uniswap, Compound)
  • Returns excess value to DAO for community governance

Enables Strategic Treasury Use:

When protocol revenue exceeds $9M annually, the excess enables:

  • Ecosystem Grants: Community-governed grant programs
  • Strategic Initiatives: DAO-directed growth and partnerships
  • Emergency Reserve: Buffer for extraordinary circumstances
  • Sustainable Model: Long-term treasury growth for protocol resilience

Balance with Efficiency:

The $7M-$9M range:

  • Covers essential operations comfortably
  • Allows for strategic growth and contingency (up to 35-40 contributors)
  • Prevents waste through spending caps
  • Returns significant value to DAO during favorable conditions

AUTOMATIC REVIEW MECHANISM

Trigger Conditions

If either condition occurs, all three funding components (treasury fee allocation, token grants, bonding program) will be subject to automatic DAO review at the 1-year anniversary:

Condition 1: Token price prior to the one-year anniversary is below the current token price (both taken as 30-day TWAPs)

Condition 2: Protocol fees are insufficient to cover the $7M floor, and DAO treasury/bond program funds are tapped

Review Process

When triggered, the review includes:

  • Comprehensive assessment of all three funding components
  • Community discussion period on adjustments or continuation
  • Governance vote on whether to modify, continue, or terminate any component
  • Ensures funding structure remains appropriate for evolving market conditions

Purpose:

This mechanism provides:

  • Accountability: Regular assessment of funding effectiveness
  • Flexibility: Ability to adjust to changing circumstances
  • Transparency: Community oversight and input
  • Protection: Automatic check on value delivery to token holders

EXPENSE ALLOCATION FRAMEWORK

Proposed Budget Breakdown

Category Allocation Uses
Core Development 45% Contributors (Development, Product, Ecosystem, Community)
Security & Risk 27.5% Audits, risk management, threat monitoring
Infrastructure 15% Keepers, RPCs, monitoring systems
Legal & Compliance 5% Entity maintenance, regulatory, governance
Strategic/Contingency 7.5% Growth initiatives, emergency response, contingency

2026-2027 Baseline Budget Projection

Based on current protocol performance and operational requirements, the following projection represents expected annual operations:

Operation Activity

Source of Funds Amount (Annual) Use of Funds Amount (Annual)
Protocol Fees (net of LPs) $22.2M Operations $7.0M
Contributor Tokens $1.2M
Chainlink $0.7M
Marketing TBD
Risk / SAFU Contingency TBD
Total Proceeds from Protocol $22.2M Operating Use of Funds ~$8.9M

Financing Activity

Sources Amount (Annual) Uses Amount (Annual)
Net Contribution from Operations $13.3M Distribution to GMX Stakers $16.2M
Add-back: Contributor Tokens (GMX) $1.2M
Proceeds from Bonding (GMX to USDC) -
Total Sources $14.5M Total Uses $16.2M
Net Contribution to DAO ($1.7M)

Key Assumptions & Notes:

  • Protocol fees of $22.2M annually represents net fees to LPs and stakers after operational costs, based on stabilized V2 performance over recent quarters
  • Contributor tokens valued at $10 reflecting last quarter average price
  • Currently no add-back for vendor paid in kind
  • Bonding program may be re-initiated but not taken as a baseline for understanding financial health
  • Marketing and Risk/SAFU Contingency funding levels to be determined through separate governance proposals
  • This baseline shows operational sustainability with protocol fees comfortably covering operations even in moderate market conditions

Floor/Ceiling Context:

The $7M-$9M floor/ceiling mechanism provides:

  • Floor ($7M): Below the baseline operational needs, requiring treasury supplementation only in severe market downturns
  • Ceiling ($9M): Cap before separate governance proposals required, ensuring fiscal discipline

TEAM COMPOSITION AND SCALING

Current Team Structure

Present: 30 contributors across all functions

Planned Capacity: 35-40 contributors where operationally feasible

Scaling Approach

Growth will be measured and strategic:

  • Market Conditions: Scale during favorable conditions when revenue supports expansion
  • Protocol Needs: Add capacity in critical areas (security, development, infrastructure)
  • Efficiency First: Maintain lean philosophy, avoid unnecessary overhead
  • Talent Quality: Prioritize experienced contributors with DeFi expertise

Retention Focus

The funding structure prioritizes retention of:

  • Core development team with institutional protocol knowledge
  • Security specialists familiar with GMX architecture
  • Infrastructure operators ensuring multi-chain reliability
  • Product and ecosystem contributors driving growth

ACCOUNTABILITY & GOVERNANCE OVERSIGHT

Ongoing DAO Control

These distributions to Labs remain subject to governance at all times, with key provisions:

Termination Rights:

  • Future distributions terminable if governance determines payments no longer support DAO requirements
  • Not limited to automatic review triggers - DAO retains full authority
  • Simple governance vote can modify or terminate funding at any time

Continuous Accountability:

  • Labs operates under DAO oversight throughout the funding period
  • Community can raise concerns and trigger discussions
  • Regular transparency in operations and fund usage
  • Responsive to DAO feedback and direction

Labs Commitments

Labs commits to:

Smooth Transitions:

  • Orderly handover to other contributors if so desired by governance
  • Comprehensive documentation of all systems and processes
  • Knowledge transfer protocols for critical functions
  • Minimal disruption to protocol operations during any transition

Transparency and Communication:

  • Regular updates on development progress
  • Clear reporting on fund utilization
  • Open communication channels with community
  • Responsiveness to DAO inquiries and concerns

Professional Standards:

  • Maintaining high-quality development and security practices
  • Industry-leading operational standards
  • Proactive communication on challenges and solutions
  • Continuous improvement in efficiency and effectiveness

COMPARISON TO DEFI INDUSTRY

Treasury Allocations

Industry Context:

  • Many DeFi protocols allocate 15-25% of fees or reserves to teams/foundations
  • Some protocols have uncapped operational budgets
  • Foundation control often opaque to token holders

GMX’s Differentiated Model:

  • Uses only the established 10% V2 treasury allocation (8.8% net) as a target budget
  • Implements spending caps through ceiling mechanism ($9M maximum)
  • Returns excess to community governance for allocation
  • Maintains one of DeFi’s most transparent and efficient structures

Team Token Allocations

GMX’s Minimal Approach:

  • Years 1-4: ~3.8% of supply used for team compensation
  • Proposed Years 5-6: Additional 1.9% of supply
  • Cumulative 6 years: ~5.7% of total supply

Industry Comparison:

  • No founder allocation (many protocols: 10-30% founder allocations)
  • No pre-mine or early investor advantage (common in other protocols)
  • Community-first approach throughout protocol history
  • Token-based compensation aligned with protocol success

Alignment Benefits:

  • Team directly benefits from protocol growth
  • Long-term retention incentives
  • Shared success with community
  • No dilutive founder stakes

TREASURY SUSTAINABILITY PROJECTION

Revenue Sustainability - Already Achieved

Current State (2026):

  • Already revenue self-sufficient: Annual protocol fees of ~$22.2M significantly exceed operational needs
  • DAO treasury has meaningful reserves (built during 2024-2025 from fee retention)
  • Maintained lean direct operations at $9.4M during 2024-2025 supporting full protocol development
  • Protocol generating consistent fees across varying market conditions
  • Multiple revenue streams providing resilience (trading fees, price impact pools, funding rates)
  • Infrastructure and operations at professional standards

Near-Term Outlook (2026-2027):

  • Floor provides continuity: Safeguard if extreme market conditions reduce protocol fees below operational needs
  • Already sustainable: Current annual fee generation of ~$22.2M far exceeds $7-9M operational range
  • Ceiling returns excess: Bull market conditions ensure DAO treasury continues growing
  • Multiple funding sources: Diversified revenue reduces dependency on any single source

Long-Term Vision (2028+):

  • Continued revenue strength: Protocol revenue expected to remain well above operational needs
  • DAO treasury growth: Excess funds accumulate in DAO governance for community allocation
  • Token distribution evolution: Token grants may be reduced or phased out as protocol matures
  • Fully mature operations: Established, efficient operational model with proven sustainability

PROPOSED GOVERNANCE TIMELINE

Phase 1 & 2: Discussion and Refinement (10 days)

Community Input Period:

  • Feedback on floor/ceiling amounts ($7M-$9M range)
  • Discussion of expense allocation priorities
  • Questions and clarifications on proposal mechanics
  • Alternative suggestions and concerns

Key Topics for Discussion:

  • Is the floor amount appropriate for operational needs?
  • Is the ceiling amount reasonable for fiscal discipline?
  • Are expense allocations aligned with community priorities?
  • Are automatic review triggers appropriately designed?

Proposal Adjustments:

  • Incorporate substantive community feedback
  • Finalize parameters if adjustments are needed based on discussion
  • Prepare final proposal text with any modifications
  • Address remaining questions or concerns
  • Clear documentation of changes made based on feedback

Phase 3: Snapshot Vote

Formal Voting:

  • Official Snapshot vote on final proposal
  • Simple majority required to pass
  • Clear voting options and implications
  • Implementation timeline upon approval

Post-Vote:

  • If approved: Implementation begins immediately
  • If not approved: Return to discussion phase with community input on modifications
  • Transparent communication on next steps

WHAT THIS PROPOSAL ENABLES

Protocol Development

V2.3 and Beyond:

  • Enhanced trading features and user experience
  • Advanced risk management tools
  • Performance optimizations and scaling
  • Multi-chain expansion and integration

Technical Infrastructure:

  • Robust, multi-chain infrastructure
  • High-availability systems and monitoring
  • Professional security posture
  • Rapid incident response capability

Security and Risk Management

Proactive Security:

  • Continuous audits from top security firms
  • Ongoing code review and analysis
  • Threat monitoring and intelligence
  • Bug bounty program support (under existing DAO framework)

Risk Mitigation:

  • Enhanced risk management tool development
  • Protocol risk assessment and monitoring
  • Incident response planning and execution
  • Security training and awareness

Team and Operations

Stable, Experienced Team:

  • Retention of core contributors with institutional knowledge
  • Competitive compensation across market cycles
  • Consistent development velocity
  • Professional operational standards

Operational Excellence:

  • Legal and compliance baseline maintained
  • Multi-jurisdictional entity management
  • Professional governance coordination
  • Industry-leading transparency

Community Value

DAO Treasury Growth:

  • Excess fees during bull markets accumulate in DAO treasury
  • Community governance over strategic initiatives
  • Buffer for extraordinary circumstances
  • Long-term protocol sustainability

Staker Distributions:

  • Continued fee distributions to GMX stakers (from remaining 90% allocation)
  • Protocol growth increases overall fee generation
  • Community-first approach maintained

EXCLUSIONS AND SEPARATE INITIATIVES

Items Not Included in This Proposal

This proposal covers contributors and normal maintenance operations. The following items will be addressed through separate proposals to the DAO:

Marketing and Growth Programs:

  • Updates to referral programs
  • Rebate structure modifications
  • Marketing campaigns funded from treasury
  • If successful, potential permanent incorporation into tokenomics

Bug Bounty Programs:

  • Payouts remain under existing approved framework with DAO and security committee
  • No changes proposed to current structure
  • Immunefi program now self-funded from price impact funds

Organizational Structure:

  • Proposed revamp for Labs, DAO, and reinforced leadership team
  • To be brought forward in 2026 for separate consideration
  • May include proposed changes to compensation structures
  • Potential variable incentives for DAO consideration

Why Separate Proposals?

These items are addressed separately to:

  • Maintain focus on core operational funding
  • Allow distinct community discussion on each initiative
  • Enable independent governance decisions
  • Provide clarity on approval scope

CONCLUSION

This proposal establishes a comprehensive, sustainable operating model for protocol operations and funding for GMX Labs that balances operational excellence with fiscal responsibility, leveraging the strengthened treasury position built during 2024-2025.

Proven Track Record: The 2024-2025 period demonstrated Labs’ ability to maintain lean, professional direct operations at $9.4M (supporting full protocol development and maintenance) while overseeing the transition to GMX V2. This proposal builds on that proven efficiency while implementing safeguards to ensure sustainability across all market conditions.

Key Benefits

:white_check_mark: Two-Pillar Funding: Combines contributor tokens and protocol revenue caps for operational stability

:white_check_mark: Leverages Treasury Strength: Built during 2024-2025 through successful fee retention, providing reserves for extreme scenarios

:white_check_mark: Aligns Contributors: Token allocation ensures long-term alignment with protocol success and competitive retention

:white_check_mark: Maintains Efficiency: Combined model among most efficient and transparent in DeFi (30% efficiency ratio vs sustainable fees)

:white_check_mark: Preserves DAO Control: Full governance oversight with termination rights and automatic review mechanism

What This Delivers

Operational Excellence:

  • Stable, experienced team retained across market cycles
  • Consistent development velocity and professional standards
  • Proactive security posture with continuous audits and monitoring
  • Robust multi-chain infrastructure and reliability

Protocol Growth:

  • V2.3 implementation and enhanced features
  • Advanced risk management tools
  • Multi-chain expansion and integration
  • Competitive positioning in DeFi ecosystem

Community Value:

  • DAO treasury grows substantially during favorable markets (ceiling returns excess fees)
  • Already demonstrated: $50.3M to stakers + $21.5M treasury growth in 2024-2025
  • Transparent, accountable operations with proven efficiency
  • Community-first approach maintained

Long-Term Sustainability:

  • Already revenue self-sufficient with annual fees of ~$32.5M far exceeding operational needs
  • Floor/ceiling mechanism provides predictability, not a path to sustainability
  • Protocol generates ~3.4x annual revenue vs operational needs
  • Token grants may reduce over time as protocol matures
  • Strengthened position for future challenges and opportunities

Request for Community Support

GMX Labs requests community support for this funding structure, enabling continued professional stewardship while maintaining the efficient, community-first approach that defines GMX.

This proposal provides:

  • Stability: Operational continuity across market conditions
  • Accountability: Automatic review triggers and ongoing governance oversight
  • Efficiency: Industry-leading lean operational model (30% efficiency ratio vs sustainable fees)
  • Alignment: Contributors directly tied to protocol success
  • Fiscal Discipline: Already revenue self-sufficient with smart floor/ceiling safeguards

KEY PARAMETERS SUMMARY

Parameter Amount Purpose
Contributor Tokens 250,000 GMX 25-month linear distribution (~10k/month)
Annual Floor $7,000,000 Minimum operational funding guarantee
Annual Ceiling $9,000,000 Maximum annual allocation cap
Funding Source 8.8% net V2 revenue From 10% treasury allocation (minus Chainlink)
Bonding Program Recommend transfer to treasury committee When committee established
DAO Control Full oversight Terminate/modify anytime via governance
Duration 2026-2027 Two-year authorization period
Automatic Review At 1-year mark If either trigger condition met
Team Size 30 current, 35-40 planned Where operationally feasible

Review Triggers (Either Condition)

  1. Token price below starting price (30-day TWAPs compared)
  2. Protocol fees < $7M floor requiring treasury/bonding funds

This proposal builds on the successful 2024-2025 framework detailed in the companion Economic Activity Report, positioning GMX for continued growth and excellence while maintaining the transparent, community-first approach that has defined the protocol since inception.

5 Likes

Retained for proposal updates

Context for the GMX Labs 2026-2027 Funding Proposal

Have just posted the GMX Labs Funding Proposal for 2026-2027. As a core contributor and a token holder, I want to start by acknowledging the challenging state of token performance and the reality that GMX has seen its mind and volume share shrink with the rise of CLOB DEXs. These facts are not lost on us, and they are the primary drivers behind the shift in direction we are currently undertaking and will bring to the DAO.

The reason these market realities are not the central focus of this specific proposal is due to its foundational nature. Before we can execute a major strategic pivot, we must ensure the DAO has a professional base of contributors, service providers, and infrastructure in place. This proposal provides that stability. It is backed by a track record of success over the last two years, where our operations generated a contribution of $61.2 million net of LPs and operating costs and distributed over $50 million to GMX Stakers.

We are treating this as a “Stability First” framework. It includes rigorous floor and ceiling mechanisms to ensure fiscal responsibility and automatic reviews tied to token price to ensure accountability. Consider this proposal the baseline.

In the coming weeks, we will bring forward separate initiatives to address leadership structure and growth programs. We are prioritizing these tactical proposals and a more concentrated development cycle over a static year-long roadmap to ensure we are acting immediately on both short and longer term plans. This approach will ensure our execution matches the scale of the opportunity ahead. We are well placed to capture the market, but we must be far clearer in our direction to do so.

3 Likes

Never stop compounding, be it tech, talent, or tokens.

GMX DAO is clearly looking to compound.

2 Likes

Appreciate the transparency in the proposal, would vote Yes to continue funding the labs. The acknowledgement of recent token price is nice but do hope team actually pushes with better strategy compared to the past two years. Believe gmx has a spot in the perp space especially as an oracle perp vs CLOB, maybe we can find an edge via megaeth to showcase the tech.

Another point to note is that we could consider refactoring the arbitrum codebase to stylus(rust) for even cheaper execution. This would be a massive undertake for contributors but a point that we could consider for further optimization.

2 Likes

Thank you for the support

Contributors are building, devs are cooking, we hope the community can give space for the devs as they are building a lot, and prefer to focus on building and not on tokenomics.

Megaeth is something we are looking forward to!

The business fundamentals of GMX are very strong, as illustrated by the strong Treasury growth and the ratio of Earnings to Spending.

I’m eager to capitalize on those foundations and also bring the token and community back to prominence. Let’s go.

1 Like

I support “stability first” as the baseline. The real follow-on question is: what creates renewed excitement and a durable hook for new, experienced traders (and agents) to make GMX their home vs routing elsewhere? If it’s product performance + transparency, lean hard into mainnet traction and the latency/perf wedge (MegaETH, etc.).

On value accrual (no new dev assumptions): if staking APR is mostly net-sold, consider routing some fees into a compounding GMX/USD GM LP (buy + LP) so we build deeper GMX liquidity and a more self-sustaining fee base instead of distributing sell-pressure.

1 Like

We shouldn’t double down on something that isn’t working. The fact that staking APR is overwhelmingly sold indicates the market is rejecting receiving GMX as the apr fee.

Anyways, back on subject - @coinflipcanada this project is in crisis mode on several fronts. Too many metrics are indicating that the protocol took a catastrophic turn these past two years. Stagnant amount staked, paper-thin liquidity, the (as mentioned) fact that most people immediately get rid of their GMX apr fees (we weren’t doing that when it was ETH), and the complete collapse of the token price. Two years ago $GMX was at $65, and now it’s at $8.

Your proposal should have included some accountability clauses, since some of the “contributors” were the ones that got us in this situation, and it DEFINITELY should have included the details of this “pivot proposal” you alluded to. Otherwise its bonkers to vote in favor of funding the exact same people when the results have been overwhelmingly disastrous.

“Give us money and then we’ll tell you our plan to fix things.” I shouldn’t be the only one that has a problem with this. Not with so many of the market fundamentals clearly broken since the previous funding proposal vote. The current version of the proposal is a No for me, as it should be for everyone else. C’mon people - you deserve transparency and to know what you’re actually voting for. None of us want to fund two more years of decline.

Hey OP, table this and put forward the “plan” first. You all are doing this backwards.