GMX Labs Funding Proposal (2026-2027)

Proposals
23

A new chain wouldn’t have a chart of two years of “down only” declining value that people can see and decide they don’t want this coin. We’ve seen it for the entire history of Buy Back & Distribute, so there’s no reason to not expect the same outcome is payout being a GMX GM token.

Yeah, I’ve said it a billion times. Reverse all of Q’s tokenomic-changing proposals: Incentivize buying and staking GMX via MP’s, pay out GMX apr fees in ETH, and eliminate the GMX GM token (letting people short the GMX token on the GMX platform is like selling poison that only harms us).

We need ~425,000 GMX votes in the DAO for this to happen. That’s to overcome the votes of the two holders that have explicitly stated they’d rather the token go to $0 than go back to the way things had worked successfully. Do you have 425k votes, brawlaphant? I don’t.

24

The proposals you reference were part of an effort to stop an ongoing token downtrend. They failed, but were not the cause of said downtrend.

Any analysis that fails to recognize this, is not going to offer the right solution for GMX, I fear.

More importantly, this funding proposal is not a referendum on Q’s contributions or GMX-Solana’s success. There are 25-30 people contributing to GMX right now, after significantly scaling up the capacity of the dev and product team this year. We’re all working hard to make GMX an even better product, with even more users.

A lot has been done. A lot more is on the roadmap.

3 Likes
25

This proposal for GMX Labs funding, is very clear in its direction, to propel the Labs and ensure the protocol’s viability within the perps landscape. The ceiling mechanism, coupled with the alignment of operators, is great way in maintaining retention. It ensures members of the Labs are incentivised in preserving security and continued growth of the ecosystem.

With the abundance of competition from CLOB based DEXes as, its very easy to lose sight on goals around GMX, best to focus on GMX’s improvement in infrastructure, operations, and sourcing more talent to bring more traders and liquidity (closing the gap for small and large traders).

It’s significant to note there’s been many strategic initiatives within the past year, the broadening of multichain, the developments on MegaEth seek to deliver this, and growth of gm liquidity hubs on lending platforms like Dolomite, Venus, Radiant, or Morpho.

In a future proposal, it would be great to clarify how Labs is seeking to deliver on other parts of the vision including diversfying revenues and shedding light on long-term development plans.

All in all, I am a firm proponent for GMX, it remains the cornerstone of DeFi, and will be supporting this proposal.

2 Likes
26

最好不要增发，在大家通缩经济学的情况下增发只会损害信任。

1 Like
27

Annual protocol fees will drop from 65M to 22M, sigh… very bad trend.
Can devs do something revolutionary instead of regular fix and small improvement please.

28

Thanks for the proposal. Is ongoing token dilution still the right tool to use in years 5-6? Operations are fully self sustaining from fees. Why dilute your holders when the token is down 90%?

1 Like
29

Dont think they are minting any token? Sounds like they be buying it to give contri as gmx or using existing gmx in treasury.

30

Thank you for this important proposal and such a detailed description of it. This is probably the most detailed proposal we have seen so far. :slight_smile:

The proposal is entirely justified and fair. It is encouraging that even in the face of a deteriorating situation for the GMX protocol, the team is not giving up and is determined to continue expanding, developing, and maintaining this excellent product.

In my opinion, all the calculations are quite reasonable. I really hope that the rather conservative $22 million annual protocol revenue target will be significantly exceeded and that no additional funds from other sources will be needed.

The only thing I strongly disagree with and would not like to see is the continuation of the bond programme. According to my calculations, 405k GMX tokens have been sold through the bonds so far (~150k during the 2024-2025 period). All of these tokens are generated out of thin air and immediately sold on the market through arbitrage. And if 2-3 years ago, when the token was strong, this did not cause much damage, selling them in the current market would be catastrophically harmful. Because in order to collect at least some tangible income with bonds at such a token price, you would have to throw a lot of them onto the market. So, in short, I am strongly against bonds and, if necessary, I recommend covering the shortfall from treasury. Having 21.5M accumulated in treasury certainly allows us to do that.

1 Like
31

The proposal does not require diluting holders. There are GMX tokens in the Treasury that can be used for contributor compensation, and the compensation payments are primarily in stablecoins.

2 Likes
32

Ok, i think that needs to be made more clear and broken out. It sounds like you are minting 250k tokens and selling them to fund 2 years of operations. The more GMX goes down, i’d bet people will lose interest in trading and proving liquidity. So not selling and using stable coins from treasury and revenue from operations would be the optimal route for the longevity of the protocol.

33

250k GMX tokens will not be sold on the market, but distributed to contributors as compensation for their work. As far as I can tell, most of them are not selling GMX but holding/staking onto their portfolios. Of the 500k GMX distributed over the past 4 years, only about 20% have been sold on the market. This is the biggest difference from bonds, which I fear the most, because absolutely all GMX tokens released thru bonds are immediately sold on the market.

1 Like
34

I trust your data on that. In that case, it may be wise to reevaluate the bond program’s effectiveness.

35

Is there a review mechanism in place to examine why we were completely left behind by the entire market in 2025,

and who should be held responsible for this?

And how we can change the current situation.

And the new Funding plan should also be centered around this revival plan.

36

Before we discuss hiring a CEO and potentially expanding to 40 contributors, shouldn’t we be asking whether 30 is already too many for a protocol with less than $100M in open interest? The most capital-efficient protocols in DeFi are running circles around us with half the headcount. A strong CEO’s first job might not be hiring, it might be right-sizing.