GMX Multiplier Points

Proposals
21

MP is an ingenious design that needs no change.

1 Like
22

Multiplier points is one of the great tokenomic innovations done by GMX. However it is correct time to reconsider them, as they have big impact on new entrants. GMX APR is directly correlated to number of MPs in circulation, and it is also one if the most attractive characteristics of our token.

I believe it is absolutely necessary to limit them by imposing a cap (Proposal 2), as many people that want to participate in GMX feel discouraged that their tokens will be 2x more expensive in terms of governance power and fee share. Great suggestion is to allow for accumulating of MPs if user decides to grow their stack further.

Proposal 1 has less effect, or better it doesn’t change the relationship. But combined with MP cap it could serve as additional layer of protection of holders with large amount of MPs.

In general this will be another big test for GMX holders, especially OG holders with +150% boosts will be required to sacrifice part of their future rewards for this to go through. To them I would like to plead to take into consideration that this project will depend on new users and new investors.
If we decide that priority is bigger part of the pie instead of bigger pie, we might all lose at the end.

2 Likes
23

What matters is MP APR of esGMX not GMX. For GMX, users can just create new wallet (after MP CAP is hit) and earn exactly the same on a combined basis.

Hence I think just impose 50% make much more sense and simplify the stuff.

1 Like
24

Thanks for the post! We’ve talked about this a lot in the tg groups in the past.

Proposal one doesn’t make sense imo because it pushes the problem down the road.

Proposal two is preferable but I’m not certain it totally solves the problem + you’re likely penalizing existing holders who have staked above whatever cap is decided upon.

Here are a couple of other potential options:

  1. This is a re-hashing of P2 - Institute a cap on MP, but allow existing holders over the cap to be reimbursed through the ARB airdrop the DAO was given or allow the holders to buy them back in the form of esGMX at some rate.

  2. Allow MPs to be introduced back into circulation through esGMX buybacks (or just vesting) that are vested over 6 months, and only able to be converted if the holder has accrued those MPs for greater than x months. This would increase the total supply of esGMX (and GMX). With this method you’d also introduce either a cap or a rate of decay on the accrual of MPs.

A byproduct of the second proposal might make it so that cross-chain GMX liquidity could be easier, though I’m not sure that really matters as more bridging capabilities are built. We’ll see

25

Thanks for these points - I have some thoughts:

  1. agree, although the bigger issue is economics not governance
  2. no, there’s plenty of free float left - easy enough to buy GMX on CEX/DEX with plenty of order book depth
  3. MP points is effectively another form of GMX issuance. GMX fees are distributed amongst all staked GMX, esGMX and MP - so more MP means less APR %.
  4. Yes, although this is 1x in nature (and vests over 12mths) vs this MP issue is currently an indefinite problem.
  5. GMX doesn’t want to ruin its goodwill by unduly punishing early supporters / stakers like yourself (myself and basically everyone participating in this convo), so this is a halfway point vs abolishing completely.
  6. Gameplans pivot. The most important thing is that the team is open and transparent with partners about future plans, but we’ve got to do what’s best for GMX. These other projects will figure it out. I actually think the “Convex-like” vaults are bad for GMX’s ecosystem health (annuls the benefits of staking), even if they are good for marketing/branding.

I’m still firmly in favor of Proposal 2, and could go either way on Proposal 1 (helps but it’s not a long-term solution).

1 Like
26

I like your “bold idea”- it is fair to everyone and easy to understand/implement. The idea is not new and very similar proposition was given by lead dev in one of his posts about protocol updates: X4: Protocol-Controlled Exchange - GMX News But somehow it was “lost in translation” and now even not considered as one of options to put on voting :frowning:

2 Likes
28

Would consider myself a GMX Maxi. I have no problem sacrificing some of my MP’s for the benefit of the community.

1 Like
29

Yeah a cap on the boost but allowing you to continue earning MPs for future GMX buys is definitely the way, consistent dilution of GMX yield for newcomers is probably harming the price in the meantime as it makes other perp projects more attractive at their APY even if relative fee accrual is similar

1 Like
30

Based on the collective feedback a snapshot vote has been put up (Snapshot)

This proposed vote is based on rank choice voting for caps on fee multiplier using multiplier points. The proposed model does not burn multipliers but does result in fee active and inactive MPs based on the amount of esGMX/GMX in the wallet.

Further separate snapshot votes will be put up for emission rate of MPs and any impact on governance rights.

1 Like
31

To expound on this and clarify the consequences:

  • Any earned MP’s beyond the cap percentage would remain but be ‘inactive’, not boosting your fee rewards.

  • You could buy additional GMX with that wallet, stake them, and those existing MPs would directly become ‘active’: boosting your fee rewards (up to the cap percentage).

An example:

The new cap voted for by the DAO is 100%.

Your wallet has 1000 staked GMX tokens and earned 1200 Multiplier Points (120% boost percentage)

Your 200 MPs above the cap, for now, become inactive.

However, if you buy 200 GMX tokens and stake them, your 200 inactive MPs directly become active and apply to the new staked tokens. So your increased GMX position directly receives the full boost percentage of 100%.

1 Like
32

I am for 150% . It’s good

33

Please note: the vote has now concluded, with the option 200% active MP cap on boost winning the highest percentage of votes (55.26%).

For details of the vote, see:

https://snapshot.org/#/gmx.eth/proposal/0x89ddca6114ec5732b0e5c6b83e4278d82b1d7eba5839ec2a58bad903945edd11

34

when will this proposal actually be implemented, there are 100k MPs already over the 200% cap

1 Like
35

Hi, One of the mods mentioned that the 200% cap boost that was voted on 2 months ago has not been implemented via code. This is during a time that 100k+ MPs have reached the threshold of 200%.

When will the cap be implemented.

4 Likes