@coinflipcanda thank you for these insights and clear answers.
Just as little idea - can you attach the link to this message into your initial message in this thread?, so every newcomer can read through that very important nuances immediately after reading original proposal… I think its important to understand all of that to take more balanced decision instead of simple YES I AM IN! or NO NO I AM AGAINST.
Guys I come across with legit plan:
we agree to list on FTX.
they list
GMX PUMP. we dump our beloved GMX . dump.
then we vote to delist.
we delist.
DUMP more on GMX delist news.
we buy our beloved GMX back with discount.
and govern our train further in bright decentralised future.
based.
To your firsy point. So for e.g., perp funding rate is now roughly 13% annualised for crv on ftx. That is not close to cvxcrv yields. By creating a synthetic product, markets bypass the difficulty of the process of shorting an asset. Especially one like gmx where we lock up 87% of the supply and we proudly and rightfully tout. Just ak any gmx-er how much would u need to lend out your gmx to a short seller? Then ask a trador wad makes the cost of short a perp? Very different answers for very different products.
To your second point. Given that the current proposal asks us to basically trust ftx/sbf/trabs, I think the character and incentives of the counter party you’re asking the community to trust is of paramount importance. While it may not be relevant now, it will become relevant whether we have partners who will stand by our values.
Thirdly, why do we only have ftx as our only option at the moment? Kraken binance and okx seem perfectly good operations.
Highly second everything listed here
Could a part of the governance vote be a contigency to remove liquidity in the event of a futures listing rather than assuming they wont provide that listing bc they might get the liquidity pulled? Rather than play chicken just come out with our terms?
Happy and agree we should make the language more explicit that if FTX were to expand trading to include FTX.US or FTX Futures with out approval from GMX this would trigger a removal of protocol controlled liquidity that is supporting their spot market.
I agree markets can have inefficiency and direct vs synthetic products can also trade very differently for various reasons. This again affirms why we would like to wait and see futures markets happen at a point where the GMX token has more fully developed in terms of its utility, trading history and range of venues that support trading it.
Don’t agree with the premise that we are being asked to trust FTX. We are ensuring that our MM maintains a liquid market just as we do currently on Bybit, Arbitrum Uniswap v3 and Trader Joe. If at any time FTX is acting in a manner inconsistent with their commitments, governance has the power to pull back supporting this market.
In terms of listing on CEXs, locating venues that help draw attention to the GMX platform has been a big part of the thought process, specifically exchanges that have a large base of futures traders. FTX is the second largest crypto futures market after Binance with ~$10b in daily volume and this listing increases our visibility to the traders on that platform. If this listing moves forward the GMX token will be in spot markets on 2 of the 5 biggest exchanges for futures traders.
I totally agree with this point by arielo regarding futures: the tail wags the dog too easily (it´s like an increased attack vector).
(former hedgie/ derivatives specialist here btw)
I also agree with the practice of avoiding regulatory exposure/ capture in any way by any self-declared sovereign authority. If a compliant (to whichever regime) company wants to make money from GMX by offering trading to their clients, let them market buy GMX tokens to bootstrap it lol 
Ultimately, I defer to the dev team on this. (Even though many of us in the community have significant experience in such matters, we must admit that the team has been spot on in the past, honorably and effectively.) Thank you for all your hard work sorting out these critical issues to guide GMX in its growth 
Get it! Let’s have SBF buy our bags.
Same thinking, I would think the Dev team to make the better choice, there’s a reason why we never listed on a big CEX and I believe this is what make GMX different, rather have a nice steady upwards momentum, than boom as burst from CEX manipulations.
And if they do want to list it anyway, let them buy from the market…
totally agree, too much of a giveaway. we need to consider 2nd order effects.
2 Yes we are being asked to trust FTX that they will act in an honourable manner. I, personally, do not trust their incentives and based on the performance of projects that list on ftx. trabs and sbf have a shit reputation imo.
3A) disagree with CEX listings to raise attention for the GMX platform as a futures trading venue.
3B ) also i disagree that FTX is the 2nd largest crypto futures market after binance, where is the evidence for this. FTX
3C) Why are we so desperate to list on FTX to raise awareness of GMX as a futures trading platform? AND using our own treasury to provide liquidity. AND exposing ourselves to more value extraction. We can hold ourselves to a higher standard and demand more. FTX can pound sand and jog on if the deal isn’t sweetened.
First of all great work @coinflipcanda & team. Secondly very glad to see so much discussion in the proposal, the more the better.
In short I believe its a big move forward that is net positive for the protocol and as such my vote will be yes. There are risks as always, but imo just the awareness its going to raise makes it worth it.
My two cents:
I see this listing more like a growth catalyst than a quick pump, and better to have SBF and their boys on our team IMO. The same goes for CZ when the time comes, best on our corner.
Like it or not, these are the guys running the show right now and as said, I believe this is a win-win situation
Will be adding an addendum to the original proposal to make more clear the connection that continued support in the form of providing liquidity to FTX spot markets is linked to FTX engaging (directly or through contributors) and getting approval from governance before adding additional markets including futures for the GMX token.
Hello,
After giving it some thought. Here’s my hot take.
SUMMARY:
This is an amazing opportunity and appreciate FTX coming forward with this. We should: (1) collaborate with them in a deal that is mutually beneficial; (2) have a contractual agreement, reviewed by a lawyer between FTX and the DAO; (3) encourage FTX to increase it’s participation level by providing liquidity and market-making expertise in addition to their currently proposed marketing campaign.
PROS:
CONS/RISKS
They were ready to drop 25m on Voyager. They could help can help the #1 DeFi protocol more than that, especially now that Alabama is moving his business on-chain…
IMO, FTX needs more skin in the game.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Perps:
I honestly think listing perps would not be that bad. The VST vault for GMX collateral is almost empty so there is no one to liquidate on-chain. Also, people hold GMX for the fees and the multiplier points. Lower GMX price = higher %APR for the week. Hard to make diamond hand community dump their coins.
However, if it really is a concern, contract should stipulate that PERP addition is contingent on gov.gmx proposal and snapshot vote with given terms and conditions.
Eventually, GMX derivatives will exist whether permissioned or not. I personally think the token is ready for it.
Sharks:
Crypto is full of sharks. Sam isn’t the first shark to lurk around GMX and he won’t be the last. Nothing wrong with this in itself, but we just have to make sure we are getting a good deal on our end and the community’s interest are pushed forward in a secure way.
Lawyer:
DAO should pay for protection. Have a formal deal, in paper.
Binance/other exchanges in the future:
Other organizations will come and ask for similar deals now that the doors has been opened to sharing the protocol’s liquidity. Perhaps 10% would be better?
CONCLUSION
There is a way to make this relationship more mutually benificial than what it is in it’s current state. I thank the core team for their hard work and the rest of the GMX community for their inputs.
EP
This is a great proposal and I don’t understand the issue with perps / manipulation at all.
Listing on FTX will bring 1000’s of new eyes and open a big market for none avax / arb users.
Shorts have to close and if listing helps to increase volume, bring new users, we will always have a price floor based on APR. It’s not like stakers will sell and burn mps, in fact they might buy more GMX with ETH profits over time and really it’s volume that will impact price long term.
I would also like to hear more about this from the team. Is there a precedent for how a non-contractual agreement like this has played out before? Any instances where a CEX has gone against the protocol’s wishes during consultation on a comparable matter?
On the whole though, supportive of the listing
love this assessment