No tribalism here, and I apologise if i came off very strong.
GMX’oors would love to expand to every chain possible, we do know that dev time is limited and that there is some pressing issues with synths and X4,
if Polygon team is willing to help, im sure the community would be excited to also have it launched on Polygon in the end of the day those with the final say aside from the community will be @xdev_10 and the rest of the team, lets see what they say.
Thanks for the support z-dev .
Hi @AsifKhan would love to chat with you also as we have deployed subgraphs and contracts and I can verify all those contracts and send the ownership address to @xdev_10 or I can redeploy it with multisig support as it will only take 5 minutes on my side with the scripts.
Hey @z-dev appreciate the response. Understand dev resources may be limited.
In this case our Polygon community would be more than happy to assist core team. Lot of builders here are looking forward to the deployment.
@z-dev Polygon Ecosystem has an abundance of Dev resources that i’m sure they would love to put towards deployment of GMX . Both sides win
Im not part of the team, so let the team and the wider community decide and please allow for more responses to come through, appreciate the feedback
Thank you Hamzah for detailed proposal, we appreciate the effort and thought which was put into this. Polygon has been an active contender for GMX chain expansion in our internal community discussions. We are thoroughly impressed by the growth and BD outreach by polygon. It has been a great chain for entry into crypto. Also impressed by your future roadmap.
Saying that however this proposal might be ill-timed in terms of current GMX roadmap and internal priorities we have set. We are currently in a very critical stage of getting ready to deploy a major upgrade and expansion to our current very popular GMX/GLP solution. This is our Uni V2 to V3 moment. All our team focus and energy is needed for and we will not comprise our efforts on this. Once synthetics is successfully launched and stabilized we will definitely be looking into expansion into different chains and polygon is on top of that list.
I appreciate the enthusiasm by someone like Bruce in forking GMX and getting it all ready for our team to take over and saying that it will be minimal effort to launch on polygon. However this is not how we do things. We are very serious about our customers, product experience and quality. Lots of effort goes into launching our products, thorough research needs to be done to ensure product quality, launching, reviewing, testing and also marketing and support staff setup etc. We won’t make quick decisions like that to earn few extra bucks.
Saying all that as GMX community and polygon we can continue to have active discussions so we can properly do justice to this partnership in future with all the attention and care it needs.
On Personal note by using polygon extensively and we have some members of community who also used Perp protocols like GNS, MVX etc have raised some concerns around polygon reliability during heavy traffic and congestion periods. We would love to hear what improvements are you guys planning to make to scale the network to match the expansion you are seeing. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Cheers,
KalCrypto
Here are the addresses I deployed on polygon already.
Vault: “0xadEBC08a8EBB7eD3c576cA7fF00de82065cd0D12”,
Router: “0x9724AFD598bE6E273C65e4844D1Cd72659FC9411”,
VaultReader: “0x572aE7E7D56f2b0e79886Ae89051AF75d8479Bf5”,
Reader: “0x8F496A312B54e91BDfa9808099218628d02d22A2”,
GlpManager: “0x9F889D5Ae34571187Bb3e20D531Ff9c2cfCfb5D1”,
RewardRouter: “0x024e1363d892CCE16b312f35E799f66bFF32F0c0”,
RewardReader: “0x20CcCE742Ca80F108A18E910092808f36a116eCf”,
^^^ above are some of the contracts.
Definitely there shouldn’t be any possibility of any exploit at contract level as GMX is one of the most trusted protocol.
@Kalcrypto1 is it possible that the dev team only add supports for just updating price feed with same value on polygon testnet that they do on arbi, avax. so We can run community testing program or even launch bug bounty on testnet and if everything works as intended then GMX team will just need to create a multisig where we will transfer the control. and for the frontend also I will create the PR ready just. Again what you guys have done is amazing and excited for X4.
@AsifKhan
I agree that it could be a good fit to GMX to launch on Polygon don’t get me wrong, but there is too much overhead to launch NOW on Polygon as the devs are extremely busy with synthetics and such. It’s just not deploying code and that’s it.
There has to be partnerships, liquidity, managing GLP weights, etc etc.
I think this can go to governance whenever synthetics are released and they’re battle-tested.
Ser I really appreciate your enthusiasm and feel terrible to be kind of throwing water on your fire. However this is simply not the way to go for GMX officially and it would be considered as an unauthorized fork.
I would wait for our BD head Coin and any core team member to respond to your specific request but highly doubt there would be official support for this. Sorry buddy. 
We will just have to wait for the right time and be patient for this glorious partnership and do it the right way.
exciting to see this proposal from Polygon team! But…
atm, don’t think user growth is bigger problem for GMX than keeping up with new product innovation from competitors is - shipping Synths before GNS (competitor) moves into Aribtrum, and getting new x4 DEX off the ground both build deeper moat and are probs better long term investments that prioritizing Polygon deployment.
Also don’t think Polygon brings new cohort of users atm (like BSC might) in short term, long term they probs do as their BD partnerships materialize. But those aren’t on-chain at scale yet.
As I see it, risk of doing polygon later - e.g. in q1 / q2 timeframe - is basically zero, but risk of pushing off core product work to do this polygon stuff first is not zero. Thus, better long term investment decision to schedule polygon after synths (which is almost done) and x4 dex ship.
Polygon also needs to show that MATIC is liquid enough or augment proposal not to include it in GLP basket for this to be safe - otherwise this starts to look like rushed job with lotta risk.
Would like clarity on zkevm product as well - roadmaps etc.
I think this does a couple of things. By launching post Synths upgrade Poly will see the most value our of the protocal and so will the users.
Hamzah thank you for coming to the community with this proposal. I think working with Polygon would be great after the next version of GMX comes out as it would add the most value to the ecosystem and users.
Assuming this is a fake profile.
I am asking for the community to vote no without prejudice on this proposal.
GMX should remain focused on the roadmap delivery of its new product Synthetics. This is a critical piece of the roadmap that will allow GMX to capture new market share, revenue, and user base.
Investing in other ecosystems takes away resources from GMX’s core markets with Arbitrum and Avalanche. Additionally, GMX has experienced recent manipulation of its Avalanche markets. It is important the team has the necessary time to review all edge cases before expanding.
It has been proven that users are willing to bridge when necessary to reach new products and markets. GMX’s user growth continues to be exponential and does not require Polygon for adoption. The way GMX reaches the next 100K users is not through ecosystem expansion but through core feature development and product market fit.
No brainer!! Yes, deploy GMX on Polygon PoS.
I think it simply depends on the level of difficulty it will take to launch on Polygon. The reality is that anyone who uses Polygon already knows how to use ETH L2 so there isn’t much of a moat for them to use Polygon.
I do also think that the reality is both synthetics and X4 are much more important growth vectors for GMX anyway. I think we should certainly launch on Polygon at some point, but to echo many others around here, its easy to chase something like this but the reality is that @xdev_10 could deploy the existing products on many chains if he wanted to, but has stated that synthetics and X4 are the earlier part of the roadmap.
We already have Avalanche rush happening right now to drive more user traffic and user acquisition has not been an issue. I propose that we simply table this until the current roadmap is complete.
to use Arbitrum* in the first paragraph oops
Yes, of course it should be on polygon!
I’m a big fan of Matic and Polygon but I don’t think this proposal is timely. The GMX dev team is small and very focused on synth delivery. I wouldn’t want them to divert resources. I also wouldn’t approve a third party deploying contracts then handing them to GMX (as proposed in the comments). Thats just a recipe for disaster. I also think metavault MVX already has GMX deployed on Polygon so we wouldn’t be brining much to the table. Lastly I’m not opposed to including stMatic to the GLP pool today if it is technically feasible. I think that would bring an inflow of money from the Matic community and strengthen GLP.
hi @Hamzah, thank you for the post and congrats on all the successes with Polygon as well
we have been following the proposed task prioritization from Task Prioritization 2022
at the moment, we are finishing up the code for synthetics markets, i think it would be good to have that ready before re-evaluating on the task prioritization
the new code has quite a few improvements and provides a much simpler process to deploy on new chains
the contracts can be deployed by anyone and we appreciate that the current contracts have been deployed on Polygon
we did apply a business license for the new contracts, Snapshot
but as mentioned in the vote the labs entity will only assist in applying the license if there is significant objection to a particular deployment, so this should not be an issue most of the time
for the next tasks to work on and order of next chains to support, GMX labs will take the opinion of GMX DAO into consideration through a vote as always, we should be creating a proposal for this shortly after the code for synthetics is ready