Wanted to share our thoughts on user demographics here.
Size of trades and user behavior on Polygon
Using 0x Dashboard here - Polygon fairs well (similar to Arbitrum) across all metrics like Daily Avg Trade size, Daily median trade size, 6 month trading volume (more than BSC in recent months), DAU (same as ETH, 5x of Arb, 10x of Avax) among many more.
User demographics
Taking SimilarWeb data as proxy for user demographics - polygon.technology website has 17% traffic from US, 11% India, 6% Netherlands, 5% UK and so on. Digging into QuickSwap numbers we see 13.6% are US, 7% UK and Russia, 6% Azerbaijan and Vietnam and so on. So you can see user demographics is pretty diverse.
We understand the concern around MATIC in GLP - it was a suggestion from us. But a couple of respected community members raised concerns around it. Happy to bring it up on a different day.
On the zkEVM - testnet is live with over 8k wallets created. We are aiming for mainnet in Q1.
my 2 cents - GMX will reaches the next 100K users by betting heavy on an ecosystem that has clear roadmap for scaling via future proof tech i.e. zk rollups. Polygon zkEVM testnet has been live with over 20 projects testing and deployed. Plus with all web2 companies using Polygon infra to build their solutions is easy onboarding for next millions userbase.
If the community is interested in zk environments, Polygon just launched the zkEVM testnet for the dApps to experiment as well. Itâs the first live testnet within crypto, and the team has made immense advancements in the world of zero-knowledge. The combination of Polygonâs DeFi ecosystem and the suite of different blockchain architecture could result in a great opportunity for GMX and its users.
No hate on Polygon but I feel like GMX should focus on developing tech for the two chains we are already on. Maybe one day in the future but now we need to continue to develop on Arbitrum and Avalanche
I want to personally thank @Hamzah for his proposal. Polygon is doing integrations that few L1s or L2s have done before. Some of these integrations include:
Facebook
Instagram
Reddit
Disney
Mercedes Benz
Magic Eden
Most important to this proposal is the Polygon integration of Robinhood. The MATIC team have explicitly noted that dApp integration of GMX and the forthcoming Robinhood crypto wallet would be an impetus for protocol adoption and growth. In this, I believe they are correct.
Letâs look at the numbers:
There are 1.5m users who have signed up for the Robinhood crypto wallet
Robinhood has 15m active users who are potential Web3 users in the making
On the day this proposal was made, Ethereum had only 300k active users.
In this regard, Robinhood integration could be massive. Not only could it help onboard new users to the blockchain, but it can also increase both OI as well as revenue from widespread access and adoption. I firmly believe that we should look to integrate with polygon POS or zkEVM to facilitate this integration.
Now to the bad. I see three problems with the current proposal, all of which can be mitigated fairly easily.
stMATIC as collateral in GLP is a systemic risk at the moment due to our outstanding oracle issues (as demonstrated by the oracle manipulation on AVAX in September). Until this issue is fixed by the devs, to their satisfaction, MATIC or stMATIC as collateral would need to have strict limitations on trade size and actual composition of GLP (ie. 1-2% like UNI and LINK).
Latency on POS is an issue. Network congestion can result in reverted trades and delays in order execution. Polygon needs to put forth a clear plan on how to mitigate these issuesâŚ.OR, Iâd recommend consideration of GMX for zkEVM launch in Q1 2023 rather than an earlier POS launch. GMX is a lynchpin of defi which can bring deep liquidity to any chain that it launches on. Launch on zkEVM would permit for super-fast order execution and encourage defi growth by acting as a defi primitive for additional protocols to launch around its ecosystem.
The current GMX UI is terrible. Everyone knows im a GMX bull but this is the honest truth. Anyone who has ever used another perp platform knows that the UI needs stop loss orders and take profit orders at a minimum. Furthermore, we badly need synthetic integration to remain competitive with other perp platforms like GNS, Kwenta, etc.
I would propose the Polygon team and GMX community consider an addendum to the above proposal for the following:
Delay launch of GMX until the current synthetic and UI integrations are complete for launch on the existing iterations on Arbitrum/AVAX.
Plan for a Polygon POS or zkEVM launch in Q1 or Q2 after UI/synthetic integrations.
Delay integration of any meaningful quantity of MATIC or stMATIC into a polygon based GLP until the current oracle issues are fixed to the satisfaction of X and the other devs. Once the oracle issue is fixed to permit GLP users to be safu, the amount of MATIC/stMATIC allocation can be adjust to a reasonable amount consistent with other chains like AVAX (10-15% allocation).
Until launch on polygon, form a marketing partnership with Polygon in the meantime to help encourage existing GMX ecosystem projects like Umami, Plutus, Vendor, etc to ALSO support polygon integration so that deep liquidity can be assured from day 1.
Thanks @Hamzah
Iâm sure polygon will be one of the leading contenders for additional deployments⌠so in time - once internal priorities are resolved - I imagine your detailed proposal will be very helpful in shaping the communityâs opinion and decision.
Thank you for the proposal Hamzah, I think it the expansion would be mutually beneficial for both GMX and Polgyon.
For me it is a question of when not if, at the current time Synths and a BSC implementation should be prioritised but over the mid-long term a Polygon expansion makes sense. GMX is a useful protocol to have on any chain as it allows other primitives to be built on top (hedging, delta neutral yield products etc.), in this sense GMX would be additive to the Polygon DeFi ecosystem while bringing additional TVL and fees to GMX at large.
Clearly OP understands this final point and might be willing to explore how Polygon might incentivise the initial bootstrapping phase to bring in LPs/traders? This is especially pertinent at a time when GMX needs to be selective with respect to how esGMX emissions are distributed (considering other potential chain launches which are already on the horizon).
Agree with general sentiment that the timing is not right for a 3rd chain given focus on deploying synthetics.
Whilst itâs appreciated that polygon have initiated this proposal, we should evaluate all plausible possibilities before deciding on a 3rd chain. Polygon is no doubt a strong option with some very attractive characteristics that may well be the best choice, but we shouldnât just go in that direction by default.
Moving on to a new chain is not just a case of forking and deploying the code; we need to build familiarity with the chain and assets to understand the risks, environment and idiosyncrasies, and we need sufficient team depth to cover the extra ongoing business dev, operational and risk mgmt requirements. Many protocols (esp. lending) that have aggressively gone multi-chain have underestimated this and suffered the consequences.
Weâre no longer a plucky upstart with little to lose, weâre an established and significant protocol with a growing reputation (hard won but easy to lose). This next chain choice is an important one, and we need to be diligent to find the right strategic fit (which goes beyond available co-marketing, incentives etc.).
@CryptoCondom nailed it. Its going to be great when it happens. But synthetics first.
Has anyone thought of the additional value/implications of being on a chain with its own token? I love arbitrum, but wen token?
I know governance token value is quasi-meaningless unless ur super early or a whale, but alot of retail exposure comes from the ability to own/trade the token. Polygon wins bc its tradeable and gets exposure/marketing from being tradeable. People can âownâ and be a part of its success. Not the case with arbitrum
