Wow. Great discussion, yet such little substance from the rage team. Was a rage supporter of Rage but witnessing this noodles entitlement and insolence is polarizing.
Don’t give them any GMX until we see this vault come to fruition, and the rage team take a less aggressive stance toward GMX community members.
1 Like
@Secrets @Danielsan Account created 17 mins ago. Who sent you?
Was a rage supporter of Rage but witnessing this noodles entitlement and insolence is polarizing.
Don’t give them any GMX until we see this vault come to fruition, and the rage team take a less aggressive stance toward GMX community members.
Read that again and tell me that isn’t gas lighting.
I feel like all large UMAMI bag holders here have a vested interest to not see this through.
2 Likes
It’s good to have more DN vaults, even from a risk minimization perspective. If there exists only umami as an option for DN strategy, it could become a threat to glp in case it gets compromised and also gives users more options to choose from if there are more alternatives. If gmx plans to grow to billions, why do you want a single point of failure?
Each of your accounts was created less than 12hrs ago…
Totally fair and understand concerns of such should be weighted appropriately. Have to start somewhere 
Saying that I do request Rage team provide much more details about the DN vaults and how they achieve this, there is not much documentation on this front. Also have they done any tests with their strategy, how effective is it so far etc. Sharing all this information would strengthen their case that they are indeed very serious about this and have made significant investment in designing and implementing this solution on top of GLP.
My thoughts really echo @Kalcrypto1. I would hope no one here is truly against building synergistic partnerships - kind of the whole point of this lego money thing - but at face value, there’s simply not enough substance provided to adequately value the arrangement, particularly with no formal spec, and it’s obvious that’s what most are put off by.
What if we do the treasury swap milestone-based?
I’d be interested in hearing more about the viability of @0xKepler’s idea. Alternatively, if the liquidity isn’t entirely necessary to bootstrap the vault and for it to ultimately be successful, then why not prove out the concept and use a swap like this as added fuel?
2 Likes
As Large GMX holder, and a delta neutral fan, Easy YES for me. esGMX is used for bootstrapping delta-neutral GLP vault. GMX need more new partnerships, and integrations in order to grow more, especially this Delta Neutral Strategy. During this bear market and uncertainty, most people that want to hedge GLP dont know how and dont have the time to manage their position.
Imagine if this delta neutral vault works, gmx will grow to billions.
I’m in favor of the proposal and want to see more details on how Rage team hedge GLP.
5 Likes
thank you to everyone for voicing their opinions and concerns on these treasury swaps
have a few thoughts
-
the motivation behind these swaps is mainly symbolic, in my view, it makes sense to have more allies where possible, so that GMX as a project can further grow. A network of aligned projects I feel is much stronger than a single project by itself, forming a moat that is complementary to technicals and fundamentals
-
I say it is symbolic because of the token lock duration of 2 years, and also that the swap is for esGMX, so the main thing being traded is yield which is around 10% of the swap value per year. Even after 2 years, the esGMX will not be converted to GMX so it will not be easily tradable
-
having said these, I appreciate the concerns being brought up, so we may need to re-think on how we can continue to build partnerships in a way that the community feels comfortable with
a few questions that we would want to answer
-
does the community feel that it is beneficial to symbolically align with multiple projects. There will also be specific considerations per project, e.g. what would the yield be used for, are they competing projects, the quality of the projects etc, it may be useful to list these
-
what format of alignment would make the most sense
-
preferably we can create some guidelines and a format for these so they can be fairly applied to multiple projects, decisions and votes should still be done on a per project basis given the considerations listed, but as much as possible we do not want to have any favouritism or bias in the process
@coinflipcanda perhaps we should create another forum post to discuss these before proceeding with more swap proposals
15 Likes
I am definitely a big fan of the proposal for a few reasons, and I believe that the model for Rage Trade to attract liquidity for its vaults is super smart.
I truly believe in the concept of collaborative competition opposed to having two really smart teams building great products that fight each other. GMX as an established player can provide support and backing for Rage Trade. Simultaneously, Rage Trade has the ability to let GMX capture upside of a new interesting project that has GMX products within its strategies.
Obviously investing in a new project is “risky” but that is where the upside is. A venture project the size of GMX has the responsibility to look for potential partners in order to further integrate their products, but also to diversify their treasury to stay ahead of other developments.
From GMX the financial effort isn’t huge while the added benefits in case Rage Trades succeeds can be much much bigger. I am not saying that GMX should take accept all new projects proposing a treasury swap or closer partnerships, yet for the case of Rage Trade DD can solve a lot of doubts.
After having done deep DD through the community channels, the team and documentation I think it is pretty clear that the team is competent and smart building an innovative product that is worth taking a shot at.
5 Likes
X’s suggestion on categorization of factors is much appreciated and would help the community better understand any proposals. I feel like only few voting members even read the actual way the plutus yield will be used before voting - misinterpreting the award as a gift - rather than a yield bootstrap for their GLP pools. Simplifying each proposals benefits / aspects based on the discussed factors will be helpful for the community to quickly discern between beneficial partnerships and more direct competition for example.
4 Likes
I would also encourage proposal supporters to disclose their investment in protocols which stand to benefit from proposals such as this. Without this , my assumption is that every single vote in favor is likely by people who hold significant rage token interests.
Happy to disclose this. I am holding a large GMX position (7-digit) while also invested in Rage Trade. I think both of the teams collaborating is based on mutual benefit.
GMX bull since very early on, and haven’t sold a single GMX.
1 Like
I think “GMX as a DeFI base layer” is one of the most fundamentally bullish possibilities that exists, but obviously there is some worry when it comes to treasury swaps. Given how scarce GMX is I think people are just worried about giving a way a sizable chunk early on. However, if the team feels that this is the best way to drive base-layer adoption than I would support
It seems to me as though a significant proportion of the disagreements have clearly been from those with Umami holdings who are acting in a nefarious self-serving manner whereas most of the true long-term GMX holders understand how interacting with innovative projects is clearly beneficial moving forward. Anyone trying to act as though this is a significant contribution or a huge decision either doesn’t understand the proposal (essentially yield trading with a token lock) or has a selfish reason for not wanting to see a collaboration with a new protocol.
As a significant long-term GMX holder (7 figs+), I would urge those pushing petty narratives in order to protect their UMAMI holdings to stop and to think of GMX becoming a true base layer for Defi moving forwards.
1 Like
I don’t believe you were suggesting it but best to state it still; no member of the GMX core contributors have an exposure to Rage or its token. In the event that there is a potential conflict of interest for any of the contributors involved in deciding to propose treasury swaps we will ensure that is disclosed to avoid any perception of impropriety.
Would also encourage you to additionally provide feedback related more broadly to how partnership proposals are presented on the Partnerships forum proposal linked below as this will assist in the long term planning for GMX.
2 Likes
Thanks @xdev_10 @0xKepler @Kalcrypto1 for offering a nuanced perspective on the matter!
I think one of the points brought up by @Kalcrypto1 is worth re-iterating: the Rage vault we plan to incentivize with this esGMX<>Rage swap is our GLP Delta Neutral Vault.
These vaults are strictly non-competitive with GMX! And regarding documentation on the DN vaults - we should publishing some more details by end of week.
Additionally to address @kreitz.eth’s concern around this swap - the actual value of this Rage<>esGMX swap is significantly smaller (5k vs 2.5M) than current esGMX incentives. As such, it is an effective to bootstrap this TVL/revenue boost with a smaller cost basis.
@Micnation I agree that broader discussion would be helpful. As @coinflipcanda mentioned no GMX core team member has a conflict of interest. Its also difficult to discern who has vested interest in other delta neutral vaults vs ours… its still great to hear all sides of the debate from those with vested interests and those without.
5 Likes
this could probably be implemented using uma’s KPI options. regardless of how it’s implemented, i really like this idea and hope it would set a precedent for future treasury swaps and/or grants. great idea ser!
1 Like
I think much of the concern about the token swap is the value. GMX is basically the OG protocol of arbitrum with the most tvl, volume, fees, etc
Many pipl including myself feel that there’s a big difference in value between 5k esGMX and " a comparable value of RAGE tokens at the previous round’s $40M valuation"
i never trust a fund raising round’s evaluation, they’re always too high.
2 Likes
Wanted to thank the community for the great dialogue and wide-ranging feedback. Hope everyone can also take some time also to share your thoughts on our wider treasury swap strategy (Partnerships) which will help us in shaping the way we communicate and structure treasury swaps going forward.
Below are some clarifications and reconfirmations regarding the Rage Trade treasury swap for everyone’s consideration when deciding how you will vote when this proposal comes up to vote.
-
Was the lack of support the reason a core contributor did not post the original swap proposal? No, we had requested Rage to post themselves (and where possible will be asking other protocols as well), this way the representatives from that protocol are clearly identified and directly engage the community. Separately to avoid confusion X and I as contributors have shared our own reasoning and confirmed this reflects our prior discussions with Rage through noodles.
-
The treasury swap is conditional on the audit and launch of Rage’s GLP delta-neutral vault on Arbitrum main-net. This is targeted for Q4 2022.
-
esGMX that Rage receives from the swap will be deposited in this delta neutral strategy and 100% of the yield is going towards vault depositors. This bootstraps the vault with boosted yields while also creating a long-term incentive for Rage to iterate and build (given the baked-in incentive). GMX as a long-term staker of rage tokens has similar incentives to support the vault.
-
The 5k esGMX deployment is targeted and has the potential to deliver greater value against the 1.0m esGMX that has been directed at the Arbitrum GLP to date and the 100k being directed from September - December 2022.
-
The vault is additive to GLP’s liquidity as it opens us to depositors seeking delta-neutral yield and the broader Rage community. Rage will enable end users to deposit multiple assets (USD, ETH, GLP etc) which will broaden the potential growth of GLP. through increased utility and overall depth of liquidity; reinforcing the largest non-stable liquidity pool in DeFi but also as a base layer for other protocols.
-
In the view of the contributors handling partnerships, this swap creates much better alignment than short-term liquidity incentives. While both help to bootstrap initial liquidity, incentives lack the alignment created for long-term support of the vault or the gained alignment between two protocols building on Arbitrum.
Without getting too philosophical, as GMX has built from the strength of our community and the ideas we collectively created, we now need to expand our thinking of community to include a wider range of protocols, partners and collaborations. Our token emissions weren’t designated simply for marketing but for marketing, partnerships and community developers; a reflection of the way that GMX can grow, not by having a large team but by collaborating and having more people build on and with GMX.
1 Like
Thanks for stating these clarifications @coinflipcanda !
A lot of these points are scattered over discussions in this forum + conversations I have had directly with you and @xdev_10 .
We had consulted with members of the GMX marketing/partnerships team before we decided to roll out this proposal. Throughout our discussions, we wanted to make sure that all basis were covered… from team members to community stakeholders.
To reiterate a couple points:
- The GMX GLP delta neutral vault is strictly additive to GLPs TVL/revenue
- Delta neutral vault has the potential to bring in a lot more TVL, from those seeking stablecoin yield
- 5k esGMX is intended purely as a bootstrapping mechanism (and is much cheaper than current emissions)
As always, I do appreciate the comments/concerns people have brought up and I hope we have done a decent job at trying to address most concerns.
The next phase for us will be posting up a snapshot towards the end of this week!
3 Likes
Expanding GLP liquidity and working closely with projects building on top of GLP should always be top priority of GMX in my opinion. After all these clarifications, I’m in total favor of this proposal.
Thanks @coinflipcanda & @noodles and all other community members!
2 Likes