Yes, deploy GMX on Polygon PoS
1 Like
Nothing more to say, 100% agree with you.
1 Like
Polygon is must needed for GMX⌠Thats it !
1 Like
Can the core dev contributors (aka @xdev_10 and co) comment on what amount of overhead supporting another EVM chain like Polygon would entail?
Pretty hard for anyone in the community without deep visibility into the backend of GMX to comment intelligently on whether or not this makes sense without that basic fact.
Also what is the current state of bridging between Arbi<>AVAX C-chain<>Polygon PoS? How trusted are current setups?
For example, the Polygon PoS <> Ethereum mainnet bridge is basically a multisig.
1 Like
i dont really understand this one. i think we should go with it though.
This is a great idea!! I agree with this proposal.
Would be very curious about this as well.
Would also appreciate if the Polygon team (cc @Hamzah) could provide some context or share a post-mortem on what happened in the recent deep reorg, particularly given you had released a hard fork recently that was supposed to address reorg risk, among other things.
1 Like
yeah this is extremely worrisome i would honestly say hold off until zkEVM if we launch on polygon
1 Like
[quote=âHamzah, post:1, topic:1180â]
Snapshot Vote:
- Yes, deploy GMX on Polygon PoS
- No, further discussion required
[/quote]jjj
hmmmmkknnbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
please doooo, gmx on polygon
Not a GMX backend dev but polygon is well-known for its compatibility and ease of on-boarding, any dapp can straight up move to polygon, ez pz. As for bridging, there are plenty of bridges that connect polygon to plenty of other chains simultaneously, itâs not just the PoS bridge that you have to use. Router is one of the bridges that connects polygon to avax/arbi/bsc etc
I donât think thereâs any reason for GMX not to move to polygon, in fact, thereâs a lot of reasons why GMX SHOULD move to polygon. Uniswap/GNS/Balancer/Quickswap⌠all of these names are examples of how much defi dapps stand to benefit when they simply exist and operate on the polygon ecosystem. Itâs really a no-brainer at this pointâŚ
1 Like
Would wait until thereâs clarity on the reorg issue: GMX - Polygon - #70 by randomishwalk
@Hamzah is your team actively engaged with GMX team for potential synergies on V2?
Wanted to circle back here to see the potential of launching v2 after it is out of Beta on polygon.
I believe the existing Perpetuals exchanges on Polygon have seen low volume lately. Thatâs a bit off-putting.
What would be your arguments in favour of Polygon?
It is the number 5 chain (ahead of AVAX) and the number of active users. In addition the polygon team was actively interested/engaged with GMX on this proposal. GMX now then ever is facing more competition while other protocals are themselves heading towards the next versions.
More assets, more chains to expand the net for value capture is my thought.
Tbh, after watching GNS volume explode when going to arbitrum im not sure if Polygon is the move, I think Base and BNB have to be higher up on the list of EVM chain expansion than polygon at this point.
I also have not seen the chain re-org issue addressed in a way that brings lots of of comfort. If zkEVM can start to see legitimate traction that would change my mind, but I donât really see deploying on Polygon PoS chain to be any sort of priority compared to other roadmap items.
Agree Base or Optimism should have much higher priority for a deployment. Might not even be worth deploying on Polygon at this point as dev/ops costs may be higher than benefit.
1 Like
My disagreement here is based on the fact that no other chain reached out on governance with the detailed and willingness to contribute resources. If this is still the case (I havenât seen Hamza or anyone from the Polygon team say since the original proposal). Polygon is easily one of the cheapest to transact on.
1 Like