GMX <> Rage Collab


If this proposal passes, the GMX DAO will

  1. Transfer 5000 esGMX to the Rage delta-neutral GLP vault address
  2. Receive a comparable value of RAGE tokens at the previous round’s $40M valuation

Both Rage and GMX will hold & stake the positions for at least two years.

Why are we proposing a treasury swap?

Rage will soon launch a vault that allows users to provide delta-neutral GMX liquidity. We expect that this vault will add significant value to the GMX ecosystem and would like to set a precedent for collaboration and long-term financial alignment.

What will Rage do with this esGMX?

We propose that the DAO deposit the esGMX directly into our delta-neutral vault address so 100% of the staking yield goes towards vault depositors. We plan to hold this position in the vault long-term.

How can we price the esGMX?

Given that both esGMX and RAGE tokens will be vested and locked, pricing of esGMX will be established using the 30 day average for GMX prior to approval of the governance proposal.

How can we price the RAGE tokens?

We propose giving GMX the price of Rage at the previous $40M valuation round. This round included investment from investors such as Dopex DAO, Primitive Ventures (Dovey Wan), Dialectic, Genesis Block Ventures, and BizYugo (#1 on DeBank + #2 on DegenScore).

Why should GMX holders support this proposal?

Because going delta-neutral reduces the risk required to provide liquidity, we expect the vault will enable users to deploy even more capital into the GMX platform. Supporting this product should increase GMX’s liquidity and fee generation, which directly benefits token holders who earn 30% of platform fees.

Should we expect more governance proposals from Rage?

Rage aims to provide significant value to GMX holders by building on top of GMX. We hope this Treasury Swap marks the beginning of a long term collaboration that involves engaging the community via governance.

One area we would like to explore next is the possibility of renting out or purchasing Multiplier Points from the GMX DAO. Many vaults benefit from initial rewards programs and renting out multiplier points would allow us to offer GMX-native LP rewards for depositors.

Thanks for reading and please comment your thoughts below. Stay capital efficient, anon.


Reserved for feedback from core contributors.

This proposal was made by after consultation with core contributors involved with development and partnerships on products that could be built that utilize GMX GLP.

To read more about GMX treasury partnership plans:

1 Like

I said in the last collab proposal it was a bad idea because it sets a bad precedent.

Here we are round 2 of getting asked to buy more peoples valueless governance tokens.

Is it a good idea for GMX to intentionally incentivise LPs to provide liquidity through other platforms? If Rage controls a large amount 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 don’t wanna compound this risk.

Besides, shouldn’t we let the market decide which is best and let GMX partners find product market fit?

Hard no from me


100% agree. So many unproven projects wanting to partner up but don’t bring equal value. The least you could have done is built the vault before making this proposal to show some level of commitment.


I concur with @PSY on this. GMX should not be encouraging token treasury swaps because it sets a bad precedent and potentially devalues the GMX token itself.

GMX does not need to incentivize LPs. The yield provided by GMX is sufficient to incentivize our GLP vault. In the end, RAGE is in competition for OI, whether it be bot or retail OI activity. I do not believe that the GMX platform should be incentivizing competitors thru a token swap which provides one sided value to a protocol that has yet to demonstrate its value to the GMX ecosystem.

It would be reasonable to revisit this at a later date when the RAGE token has comparable value to the GMX token AND, OR, the Rage Trade platform has demonstrated that it is able to provide a net positive value to the platform via non-GLP means of liquidity provision to GMX.

Hard no from me as well.


Hard No from me as well but I don’t even know how/where to vote

1 Like

200k worth of tokens for a 600M FDV project is not much, and also the Rage is building on top of GMX which will bring more value than 200K not supporting this proposal is - EV for GMX imo.


RAGE is an illiquid token at the moment so FDV cannot be estimated. Furthermore, FDV is not an accurate means of valuing a protocol.

Market cap and TVL are better means of assessing a fledgling product. Currently, RAGE has 1.66m of TVL and is of microcap size. This proposal can be reassessed AFTER the protocol has proven demonstrable value to the ecosystem worthy of the esGMX that they have requested.

Remember, those $200k esGMX tokens are a lot more valuable than just $200k. They are stakable for a commiserate portion of all future revenue in ETH revenue and esGMX emissions for the next two years…that is considerably MORE than just $200k.


RAGE has even more upside as gmx is getting at 40M FDV. Rage tvl is capped intentionally to increase gradually. RAGE team is competent they’re top 20 in paradigm CTF and trusted by many defi angels and large LPs.

1 Like

I understand the Rage team is competant. However, when the value of RAGE tokens is equivalent to the proposed tokens received in trade, it will be a reasonable thing to reconsider. Until then, GMX tokens would be given away for incentivizing liquidity at a much lower cost than their true worth.

As such, it is not a reasonable proposal IMO as its the equivalent of trading a Ferrari for a Ford fiesta. Maybe the Ford Fiesta will appreciate in value or maybe it wont. Best not to speculate and wait for the protocol to grow in its own right.


strongly agree , // New Defi products are inherently risky when they’re new, we don’t wanna compound this risk.//


This seems to trade a token valued primarily by fundamentals for a token valued primarily by speculation. That doesn’t make too much sense in this environment.

1 Like

As an AVAX holder who got creamed because of their token swapping with LUNA I’d have to concur with the general sentiment here. A lot of projects are building on top of GMX because it is very composable, and I don’t think it is worth the risk of setting the precedent for token swaps bc as we saw with the LUNA debacle when the project failed it hard dumped the AVAX token to try and raise the capital to survive and hurt many of the token holders. Obviously it is not apples to apples by any means here, but I think that GMX is in a very very good place and this is a risk that we do not need to take.

1 Like

Why should I, as a GMX holder, promote/subsidize LP on other platforms and share my rewards with them if we ourselves are doing very well with GLP liquidity. I better support our native LP one way or another. Although we still have to keep in mind that we have already “temporarily” increased the rewards share for the GLP from 50% to 70%.

I am against such proposals which had no real value to the protocol.


GMX contributors have been engaging with the rage team for a number of months regarding the vault strategy that they are deploying. To date there has been multiple rounds of technical discussions on the vault products launch, and they have incorporated comments from the GMX side regarding ways to constrain unnecessary risks to GMX and liquidity providers.


If the tokens that we swap will bare value long term is obviously something that can’t be answered with any assurance today, but terming the tokens valueless is no less wrong.

While GMX intends to retain a neutral stance with regards to involvement with governance of other protocols our presence as a token holder and ongoing source of yield for their treasuries (incentivizing GMX integration in their platform) provides us both immediate and long term value.

New DeFi products are inherently risky, and that is a very valid point and one of the reasons that swaps with protocols that have shown a methodological approach to designing and building products that integrate with GMX with a focused on safety, adding utility to GMX and its ecosystem encourages people building in this manner be supported.


That’s awesome but still doesn’t necessitate a token swap that makes no sense for GMX holders

I was also against the last Plutus proposal. Round 2 as you say, we are not in the business of doing handouts. I’m against it again.

1 Like

Hard no for me - lets see Rage build up more over time first

Response to Concerns

PSY’s concern - Should GMX set the precedence for treasury swap?

Treasury swaps should only be done if it strictly benefits the TVL (and subsequent revenue) of GMX

IMO the delta neutral GLP might be one of the most demanded GLP based products, and should bring tons of TVL+revenue

We appreciate GMX’s treasury incentive for UMAMI and I think its fair to remain credibly neutral across the different delta neutral GLP builders.

poopster’s concern - should we do this before the vault is live?

The swap will only occur when the vault is on mainnet. We currently have launched a tricrypto vault that filled 1.5M in a couple minutes - our team does have a track record in the industry. You can reference my historical writing to get a sense of our competency

kreitz.eth - I didnt like the AVAX<>LUNA treasury swap, is this any different?

This is less of a treasury swap and more an incentivization for our delta neutral GLP product.

We dont have the ability to sell these tokens - they are strictly compounded into the vault. Unlike LUNA, we have nothing that needs to be collateralized with this swap.

CryptoCondom’s concern

I am concerned that CryptoCondom’s position is colored by their significant UMAMI holdings.

You are willing to incentivize UMAMI’s delta neutral vault when their profile of liquidity and product success is no different than ours.

I understand wanting to support your portfolio but you should state your biases clearly.

kingwasabi + pakak

Each of your accounts was created less than 12hrs ago…