totally agree - this will be a net negative for GMX in the long run. we don’t need CEX’s. FTX will ruin us, we’re their competition not their friend
3 Likes
15% ? - I’ll go with 7,
Why - because I’m the darn The Double-Oh !
15% is a parting ways with what-is and what-time horizons /and so’eth the needle shifts. Sure there is crust at the table at what percentage-estimate ? as-is ?
What’s important is their Occupancy, Not-numbers.
- Their-skin, Their Blood. - Bone.
Whatever % …is …manipulate.
What They or We spec. is irrelevant. All things are time.
So as-is-much-as-their’s, An equal - blood-offering - & at foremost-
hope, vision, The mixture of well. Yaa-yaa
The High-Calibre we’re from.
The sealed deal, has got to equally clean benefit, An Equal-walk-away.
One that parties to a unity-direction, - co-co-ordinating *Separate-Fronts- Non-Intangible / Regardless of resources, Nor by echelon Favors. That-is what 15% would-Ultimately be-for.
*Individual; yet mutually supportive / non-competitive *grouping
- independent from - the Exterior
: Counter-party intuitive;
Unity - over - Prosperity
Or…squander dead space for us/them, /
- *Ordinarily, - Instinct don’t-like it.
Reverse bias/ definitive-logic/deductive-logic ( Skin,… = blood )
The above can’t be stressed with any higher importance.
Don’t… yak’n act-on gains - like ya’ll don’t-know -
Ya 2 sense aint got no F’n beef. Yah I will cut gains & ego to the bone.
Why because it’s cow / Graize iT. We are the new frontier
I’m just as likely to treat protocol - as Dr’s tricks. We don’t need votes deciding upon new blood consensus. The larger vote-majority see’s, premise, tooo-culture.
Moving on.
What is their bone like ? Their-reputation. What-do-we-share not-to-gain network development-wise; And-then, at cross-board - Market opinion ?
Is-there - Communicable extenuative *Innovation-corridor ?
There is no such thing as the big collab but there is the common opposing front. What-is Their Reception. How & what-be *ever-inclusion.
Could we spread 15-25% across (3x) *New-new Tiers (to-their) benefit New-Innovation(s) < That’s, the circle of Time.
What have they been Tasking/Asking / them-selves.
Through as a cross-space with Others. - Are they parasitic -self-interest or… evolving …aligned.
What-is, has, - was, “time” too them ?
I am not opinionated of them. What could be done with 15%.
I’m sorry fam but I’m out for blood. Making some rich-kids further up the block aint-going-to-cut-it. With the heat on / what good are both parties tokennomics external-exterior growth ? We either amalgamate / by-distance! - Or die. This-is, After-all, How, …We-die.
I Trust Coinflip & Management. But if we’re community gauging nilly-willy / In-front of Management - Seeing-seeing risk perverse/ Over community in-decision, - I trust Management - Or in otherwise - Give Team a well-earned break.
I’d rather Time than Risk. Standing with the latter (Trust), Human/Protocol-first. -
We respectfully stand with management regardless.
What-is fresh-capital now ? I think its still-still fiat right ? I was buying in MT Gox - when most of you’s were me dreaming of this (GMX). If we’re voting/details - can we …take a double oh seven vote / that-self-destructs …after ?/? 60) This is Mercy by trust. - 15% ? …too large ? / While alternatively, we have plenty of idling esggmx 
- That’s how-late we should… *treat. - or otherwise - innovative-form, takes precipice.
We’re at 85% staked. What happens @ 70 / 50 yada yada yada /blah-blah-blah - rant may be as such, but silly-willy bashing questions.
- Hence, Culture ? : no, …Precision.
We’re in-keeping our innovation reputation/capital retainment *Unrivaled.
Proposals have been good thus-far. But this step by weigh of *natural-concern (a Big-Step;) …so I’ve gotta weigh in the whole kitchen sink-corporate vibe, because, it get(s) the dishes -dumb. can’t be helped, - …obviously. (Sigh)
Seems we’re the Big Field - Why are we helping them for ? / What’s on every parties back ?
So let Every-one sweat - while - needle shifts ?
- What is our Resolute.
Competition(s) hot / and we-looking, but do we need a pre-nupt.
We are Tactical. Who has the pre-emptitive. Do-we. Would-be that we’d-be-naive, […Too-think] / Their opposing-focus ? The main-stay-course is to stay focused but we have to ask reservations - What took the’me/ narrative ? (tsk tsk) …All soo-long ? /
That-is gmX.
We like others - Are The Jungle Book - In the Wide-Open. Crypto delivers, Dog coins to the top 20. What is a blood-exchange now ?
(could)… strengthen both parties right-arm ? - by-way of 2 parties - equaling 2-community’s
- broadening - Setting-Example.
Stage-is (always) Set.
We can Stage. Cutting in-roads & deal by-in /exiting *consequence,
weight-regardless.
And If by - blood, be for-blood;
the Good (Ftx) outcome/ by demon-strable; *means
- gifting/supporting / olive-branching /
- Blueberries Avalanche Arbitrum.
\ FTX , carry’s responsibility.
So-long as both-parties/ failsafe / relay, …for-future - moderations-in
/ & /…too-accord,
/ *calibre’s-aside,
^ This is the Greatest-Test. / One, (focal) Time !
And then I think we can hunt kill & share many-a-many GMFTX Breakfasts / Together / Detail(s), prevailing.
The Key Middle-ground is-what - Occupancy
- or in any case is-it Trial by example not-history led.
Shouldn’t be so trivial (- Shouldn’t be so Trivial).
Protocol’s have to Lead - unequivocally. Like a child’s Respects come later - with due diligence / from squints and s’quarrels / - Communities
If we can’t co-exist, give-to & present any protocol “change” - Then what are our efforts.
Their ya go - everyone’s-happy - Everyone likes Gmx - as it is - We don’t - knee’d - We build
I’ll go and have a Ftx look - noneth by scope. I respect them - but my 2 cents is written on a Btc red-day flipping a months accumulation. Investfully-Invite-FTX ?? Lest be Green, Lest be Green, Or Red, I’m color-blind anyway.
[This message will self destruct in 60 2nd questioned second’s]
As always- Thank-you, kindly,
Mods Admins Dev-Team X Community
Regards,
007 BOND
Good news for GMX.
Support.
The proposal lacks technical details. How much protocol-controlled liquidity will be transferred to FTX specifically? 15% say little and mislead the community a bit. As far as I understand, we will take liquidity only from Arbitrum, because it is already very thin on Avax, and Bybit remains too. I find that we currently have ~4328 ETH and 292k GMX in the v3 uniswap liquidity pools on arbi. Another ~990 ETH and 91k GMX are accumulated in fees, but they probably belong to the floor price fund and we can’t use them? So I conclude that ~1000 ETH + 50k GMX liquidity will be moved to FTX, which would be ~15% of total liquidity under current management?
Another question- will the liquidity transferred to FTX continue to be under our control and generate fees for us, or will we simply transfer it to FTX for an agreed price and return the earned funds back to the protocol treasure?
We need to seriously consider this offer as it could have a significant impact on GMX price in the future. In addition we will add risk for price manipulation and/or regulatory compliance. My original thinking is that we need to stay as decentralized as possible and we don’t need to partner the competing CEX because GMX can grow organically on its own. For now, I would vote against this proposal.
5 Likes
blueberryboy appreciate the questions
What is in it for FTX? They have a venue for people to trade, and having the tokens people want to trade is positive as their business and market share increase.
The FTX team has been respectful of our concerns related to certain types of listings. We did not seek a hard guarantee nor is there clarity on the best way to do so in a clear enforceable manner with a decentralized organization like GMX. So instead a system that aligns everyones goals maybe best. GMX will support liquidity on markets that governence views as in the the protocols immediate and long term goals.
Futures markets will develop for most assets of a certain size, we don’t think the GMX token is a good fit today and thus won’t support creating liquid markets. At some stage we fully expect futures and/or perpetuals trading will happen for the GMX token and it may happen on FTX, GMX or another platform who hasn’t shown the same deference to our governance process.
Finally regarding your comment on a ‘real DEX’, I would welcome the day FTX or other CEXs move in this direction. It would be a huge boon for the crypto space and GMX to have other leading players validate the importance of using an on-chain settlement for trading, bring transparency in business models and allowing users to custody their own funds. Either way until then we focus on building the best possible product, for an inevitable future.
2 Likes
Fair enough on your first point. I personally doubt it’s just that, but possible.
Regarding your second point can you please elaborate a bit more on the details? Specifically the questions @Saulius asked in the post above regarding control of liquidity, fees etc.
Regarding your last point. I didn’t imply FTX going the DEX route with that competitor comment, what I meant is:
- DEX market growing will eat away from CEX market share. DEX and CEX already are competing.
- From a business perspective it makes perfect sense for FTX to try and garner as much influence over GMX as possible to either take as much of the revenue as possible or even kill it.
Have you considered this?
I also wonder If you have considered any regulatory risks involved in being listed on FTX? As we know regulators keep a close eye on FTX.
2 Likes
dude ur a chad poet!
1 Like
I really like the skeptical responses. I definitely do not want to see GMX on FTX futures (at least for a long time) since there are rumours of too much market manipulation through that platform (mostly SOL related projects).
Lets Stay Skeptically Optimistic
SBF (owner of FTX and Alameda Research) has a very bad reputation for being a shark. I think it is very wise to remain cautious here. FTX could provide lots of great new exposure but I think we must balance that, and work together to enumerate all the possible risks to our beloved project long term before rejoicing about the short-term benefit of this exposure. We are growing well without CEX exposure so we are in a position of power where we don’t need FTX, they (want) need us.
My Napkin Math
From looking at arbiscan, I see 375,000 GMX in the uniswap contract. This is ~4.7% of circulating supply or ~2.8% of max supply.
15% to FTX liquidity would mean ~56,000 GMX, or ~0.7% of circulating supply. This seems reasonable from a voting perspective.
At current prices, this is ~$2M of liquidity.
Question: is this much really needed?
According to CMC, it looks like daily volume range is ~$1M-10M (avg ~3.5M). From this, it seems like $2M of liquidity makes sense.
Question: how will a $4M ($2M GMX + $2M ETH) reduction in the liquidity pool affect volatility on Uniswap?
Possible Restrictions
@coinflipcanda and team, do you think it is possible to impose any or all of the following restrictions?
Possible staking restrictions:
- FTX wallets cannot stake GMX
- FTX wallets cannot earn esGMX
- FTX wallets cannot earn MP (I see this as the most important restriction for long-term protocol benefit)
- FTX wallets can only stake on behalf of users (users get most/all APR, not FTX)
Limiting the ability of FTX to stake GMX seems like a positive to me. This would mean APR increases for real DeFi users and stakers, while still allowing total investors to expand.
Possible voting restrictions:
- FTX cannot participate in Snapshot votes
- FTX voting power is reduced 50% for Snapshot votes
Limiting FTX voting power seems like a reasonable safeguard against unforeseen future risks. The tokens in the Uniswap pool don’t currently get to vote, so protocol-owned liquidity should continue to function like this.
Outstanding Questions
- How does this liquidity transfer work?
- Does the protocol still own the GMX we are giving to FTX? If not, is FTX just asking for an OTC trade to kickstart liquidity?
- Can we withdraw liquidity in the future when price increases or more users have added GMX to FTX?
- How can we guarantee FTX doesn’t add perp trading without permission?
9 Likes
Great transparent proposal!Let’s get it! First Arbitrum token getting listed on FTX!
For the listing 
1 Like
Few clarifications, looking at uniswap v3 you are over estimating our liquidity as there are also others who are LPing on uniswap beyond our own protocol controlled liquidity. Depending on the prevailing price of ETH/AVAX/USD the current proposal would be for between $1.0 - 1.2m of USD plus a similar but not necessarily identical amount of GMX.
The tokens will be in a GMX controlled account on FTX, and our market maker will execute bids on the platform to ensure a stable liquid market. We are not transferring ownership of the tokens to FTX or the market maker.
2 Likes
Staking
- Protocol controlled liquidity will not be staked.
- There are a few ways different models GMX could work with CEXs to offer GMX staking to users (not the exchange), but this is not something that is being looked at currently with FTX or any other CEX.
Voting
- There is no intention for voting rights to be extended on the exchange held tokens
- Will reconfirm with FTX directly but to the best of my knowledge they have not used governance rights for tokens held: comparable examples being Uniswap, Sushi and AAVE.
Outstanding Questions
- How does this liquidity transfer work?
Balances are kept in a protocol controlled account on FTX, that is managed by our market maker with a goal of maintaining liquid markets
- Does the protocol still own the GMX we are giving to FTX? If not, is FTX just asking for an OTC trade to kickstart liquidity?
Yes the protocol continues to own the GMX (well except any that gets bought by traders). We are not giving FTX or the mm ownership of any tokens, there is no OTC etc…
- Can we withdraw liquidity in the future when price increases or more users have added GMX to FTX?
There is no restriction and If in time the GMX market becomes self sufficiently liquid there is a possibility market making could be reduced or eliminated.
- How can we guarantee FTX doesn’t add perp trading without permission?
Provided a more full answer above to blueberryboy, but to keep it short there are no guarantees but the incentive structure doesn’t favour them expanding trading like this without consulting governance, as it could result in the community deciding to pull liquidity support for the spot market
4 Likes
Thank you, Coinflip for this clarification!
I think this proposal might indeed need a snapshot to see how to community thinks of it?
1 Like
Definitely need more clarification on futures listing else it’s a deal breaker. Too much trust in ftx without verification.
Currently don’t see the marginal benefit of listing on ftx (incentives too short term), would rather protect long term incentives rather than expose ourselves to ftx. Hence would be voting against.
1 Like
It has been made clear multiple times that FTX will consult us for a governance vote if they ever want to do that.
Also, they’ll need liquidity for these as well, which our MM will not be providing as he will only be providing for spot markets.
2 Likes
We understand/have understood multiple times they will consult us for a governance vote if they ever want to do that. But words are cheap and ftx/alamoeba’s reputation ain’t that great isn’t it? Won’t take their word for it.
MM has nothing to do with futures market at all…i dont ever want to spend protocol money on MM on futures.
If empty promises are all we’re getting outta this interaction with ftx w.r.t. potential futures listing, why would we vote yes to such a low bar…??
2 Likes
Would a futures listing really be that bad? Everyone seems opposed due to the ‘down-only’ FTX perp listing meme, but that only applies to scam high fdv low float IDO’d dog solana coins with no utility or revenue other than triple digit APR. GMX is the opposite of all of those things, and has enough protection (esGMX) to stop the value extractoooors hedging, farming, dumping. imo it would actually be quite nice to trade GMX on a futures market.
Or am I missing some reason why people don’t want GMX futures?
1 Like
problem with futures is that you can open a short position with USD instead of having to obtain the gmx you require to sell it on chian.
what is the cost of obtaining/borrowing that GMX on chain…20%? what is the cost of shorting GMX on ftx perps…unsure…issit easier? hell yes.
point being : the potential of financial fukery increases exponentially. and it’s simple to say oh yeah they promised they’ll consult us. yeah, they will consult and then do whatever they want is not mutually exclusive right? so that’s my take. i think net net the ones who benefit from this arrangement is skewed towards ftx. i dont think we need them with this current deal at this point.
dovey wan mentioned bybit’s a team that’s comfortable with anon devs and what not. isn’t ftx touting how compliant and regulatory they are? i am unsure i want to give them a surface vector to say oh, please de-psedononymise xdev_10 or else…and then we dont comply/say no. and then they say, okay we have to agree to disagree and end our partnership. btw we’re opening gmx futs.
main point: i don’t trust a single word ftx says unless it’s in black and white. this deal is too easy on them.
3 Likes
Markets are not always efficient in the short run but it is unrealistic to believe if and when a futures market developed for the GMX token even if on GMX itself, that market participants wouldn’t factor in the ‘carry’ hedge cost of GMX staking.
While i respect the concern regarding the opening of futures markets, i’m not sure how X being unwilling to dox would encourage FTX to open more markets and trading of the GMX token. If you had said that there is a risk that any CEX sought to delist GMX because the key contributors are anon and intend to remain so, that is a long term risk and a reason for the bulk of our liquidity to be on multiple venues and broadly on DEXs.
1 Like
ohh man, amazing thoughts!
+1 to these.
1 Like