Yes, it’s a win-win situation
Absolutely agree! Hopefully in near future there will be proposals to incentivize holding of PLS tokens.
All i got from point one was i should believe in this because other more intelligent people believe in it. Thats not exactly critical thinking.
Point 2 and 3 sounds like a big liquidity mining ponzi sandwhich.
Is it a good idea for GMX to intentionally incentivise users to provide liquidity through other platforms? If plutus controls a large about of GLP liquidity then we have another liability on our hands which is out of our control. New Defi products are inherently risky when they’re new, we dont wanna compound this risk.
Besides, shouldn’t we let the market decide which is best and let GMX partners find product market fit?
Do you even understand APs? If you do, try to break the ponzi (u cant) but my guess is you don’t and have no idea what you’re talking about lol.
Please explain how a protocol that currently caps the amount of GLP it can boost yield for creates liability for GMX.
Plutus has already found PMF, it has filled 90% of its plsGLP vault and owns over 50% of veDPX.
TBH $200k GMX is not that deep, if it’s not passed Plutus will still build products that users want and attract liquidity with or without this $200k. I support the proposal because of my reasoning above but also yes, because people a lot smarter than you support this. All you have argued is ‘much risk and its a ponzi’ with what seems to be very little understanding of how all these protocols work and how they account for tail end risks.
I agree with this take as well. There’s already so many projects building on top of GLP and/or GMX and all of them are very similar. Everyone wanting to partner up now and from their POV i get it, but agree that at this point, gmx brings much more value to the table than a one to one swap and building one of many projects on top of GLP.
A well-thought-out and aligned collaboration that will galvanise the Arbitrum community further. Both tokens provide yield-bearing assets that will compliment each protocol’s earnings/fee-sharing mechanisms.
any project/protocol which helps GMX maintain deep liquidity sounds like a win to me
no reason to make the journey to Deep Liquidity alone, and this Plutus collab seems intuitive to attaining that goal
2 Likes
Hey everyone, Mesky from Plutus here!
We’ve been following the discussion over the past couple of days and wanted to clear some things up. We appreciate everyone taking the time to offer up your thoughts. We’ve seen a fair share of takes that are misguided, and we want to clarify things for maximum transparency.
- Plutus is an established Arbitrum protocol with a proven track record of shipping. We’ve released plsDPX, plsJones and now plvGLP in a relatively short amount of time. We’re Arbitrum native and driven to advance the ecosystem.
- Using GLP as a part of our plvGLP product is beneficial to GMX. We’re already in talks with several protocols that are looking to use plvGLP for lending, looping and more. Perpetual products are likely to gain market share in the future, and the more products and use-cases GMX can cement its position in, the better.
- The above point is also exciting for users - taking out a loan against your plvGLP or GMX, earning higher yield and minting stables against the position are real benefits that partnering with Plutus will soon materialize.
- The esGMX that Plutus would receive from the swap will never be vested - it’s effectively burned. We also have significant skin in the game through directing our own emissions towards the plvGLP vault.
- The success of plvGLP directly deepens GLP liquidity since more users are enticed to deposit in the plvGLP vault, which ends up depositing into GLP.
- The yield from the esGMX received from the token swap will be directly used to incentivize Plutus’ GMX-related products
- The risk for GMX is minimal, $200k USD worth of esGMX is miniscule when assessing it against GMX’s total treasury value
- With the Dopex x GMX partnership and the impending implementation of Atlantics on the GMX platform, Dopex governance power is something GMX should be interested in. Plutus provides that, currently owning over 53% of DPX governance power. A 200k Plutus token swap at current valuations is excellent value.
- The GMX team has shown clear interest and initiative in developing a mutually beneficial partnership with Plutus - the GMX DAO should be interested in this too.
If you have any other questions, we’d love to hear them. We’ll be monitoring the governance forum closely until the close of the vote, and will be replying to any and all questions shortly.
4 Likes
I think you are taking a shortsighted and naive view in regards to collaborations and partnerships. Close partnerships, often cemented using token swaps, allow for significantly stronger coordination between protocols, leading to better outcomes for the communities, users and the protocols.
In this case, you have misunderstood the core plvGLP product and I would recommend you read further into the docs. The plvGLP is always in users’ control, they are able to withdraw at any time their wish - plvGLP is merely a wrapper that autocompounds yields and allows GLP to be easily used as a DeFi lego, significantly reducing the barrier of entry for other protocols to integrate GLP.
The product has clearly found PMF, with the vault very quickly filling up. Picking and working with key partners is one of the best ways to innovate, and not doing so risks losing innovation and advantages to competitors. The GMX team is clearly in support of this proposal - to not take that into account makes no sense.
I think you are taking a shortsighted and naive view in regards to collaborations and partnerships. Close partnerships, often cemented using token swaps, allow for significantly stronger coordination between protocols, leading to better outcomes for the communities, users and the protocols.
I understand the upside of the partnerships. I wouldn’t say that concerns over future exploits in the partners contracts and their control over our liquidity is short sighted. These are problems which can take years to reveal themselves.
In this case, you have misunderstood the core plvGLP product and I would recommend you read further into the docs. The plvGLP is always in users’ control, they are able to withdraw at any time their wish - plvGLP is merely a wrapper that autocompounds yields and allows GLP to be easily used as a DeFi lego, significantly reducing the barrier of entry for other protocols to integrate GLP.
This is false
Specifically “plvGLP is always in users’ control, they are able to withdraw at any time”
the withdraw function on plvGLP
requires that vaultParams.canWithdraw is set to true
(if (!vaultParams.canWithdraw) revert NOT_ENABLED())
function withdraw(
uint256 assets,
address receiver,
address owner
) public override returns (uint256) {
if (!vaultParams.canWithdraw) revert NOT_ENABLED();
if (msg.sender != operator) revert UNAUTHORIZED();
return super.redeem(assets, receiver, owner);
}
This can be set to false by the owner of the contract
(canWithdraw: _canWithdraw)
function setParams(
bool _canMint,
bool _canWithdraw,
bool _canRedeem,
bool _canDeposit
) external onlyOwner {
vaultParams = VaultParameters({
canMint: _canMint,
canWithdraw: _canWithdraw,
canRedeem: _canRedeem,
canDeposit: _canDeposit
});
emit VaultParametersUpdated(_canMint, _canWithdraw, _canRedeem, _canDeposit);
}
So no, users do not always have control and it is not that case that they can always withdraw.
The argument most commonly made in defence of these owner controls is ‘training wheels’ to protect users. I agree that its important to have that but we can’t have our cake and eat it. Claiming the owner doesn’t control GMX’s liquidity in Plutos is false.
Also even if these owner controls aren’t utilised, theres STILL additional smart contract risk here.
The product has clearly found PMF, with the vault very quickly filling up.
This is doesn’t mean they have PMF, Ponzi farms fill up quickly too.
The GMX team is clearly in support of this proposal - to not take that into account makes no sense.
I support the GMX team and think they are great at designing products, they’re one of the better teams out there. But I wont blindly agree with every proposal otherwise whats the point in the DAO.
1 Like
I will keep this fairly short and sweet.
This is a yes vote from me.
Since inception the GMX DAO and contributors have been very conservative in using any of the GMX budget allocated to marketing or treasury, instead focusing on organic growth and allowing the community to share the word throughout the crypto space. This method has been highly successful to date and GMX has seen unprecedented growth. However, new competition is rising, there are now multiple forks of the GMX protocol and other platforms joining Arbitrum and AVAX who will be actively trying to syphon the liquidity and users that GMX platform now has.
This swap with Plutus is a gesture of good will to a partner to help further ingrain the GMX brand and utility into the Arbitrum and AVAX ecosystems. The risk/reward for the swap is a net positive for GMX holders. Right now, we are a leader in this space but we should not get comfortable in thinking that this will always be the case, without strong partners like Plutus we could get passed over by another project who is more aggressive in cultivating relationships and more willing to provide incentives to use their platform. I think downside is limited and upside is nearly unlimited.
I believe that this will be a net positive for the protocol and community.
4 Likes
Massive YES from me.
Aside from all the points mentioned by @Mesky above, the Plutus team is committed to creating sticky GLP liquidity as well as a new product for the GMX token itself (coming soon 
).
I believe this is a great use of esGMX that will reap rewards down the line as more competitors try to encroach on the recent success that GMX has had.
@PSY it seems your mind is made up which is totally fine, this is what DAOs are all about. I do think it’s a bit disingenuous to act like anyone is “blindly” making you accept this. To me these discussions have clearly shown quite the opposite.
No matter what the outcome is; Plutus will continue to strive towards a fruitful long term partnership with GMX.
1 Like
Omg… sooo hot discussion.
Great thank you for all participants for deep explanatory thoughts… especially @olof1 @Mesky @fiatphobia @PSY
I was close to vote against… really… but finally decide to vote FOR it.
haha… This is most hottest discussion so far… previous was FTX listing… now that…
I like how it goes in GMX DAO. 
1 Like
Large portion of my port is PLS but this proposal IMO favors my current and future GMX positions more so than my PLS bags.
What does PLS holders stand to gain besides gaining some governance voting power with GMX? Why would PLS holders be willing to incentivize dilution?
Most of the value being created is for GMX/GLP holders by offering them an alternative vault with boosted yield if they so choose. This will be done regardless of this proposal passing, but if it does, the swapped esGMX is used almost entirely to earn more yield for depositers. It really cannot be stated enough the majority of the value here is for GMX users imo. I’d personally like more yield on my GMX and GLP going through Plutus and have my positions have flexibility to with lending markets if needed.
1 Like