GMX <> STFX Proposal

Thanks. What is your opinion on the economic alignment point?

I still think an outright token swap is unnecessary for product alignment (which is really what matters here) and I think this is not what our treasury ought to be used for. This isn’t really “operational” or “capital-raising” in nature, which in my mind are the two roles of treasury tokens.

That said, I am somewhat sympathetic to some of the points @STFX has made here and appreciate some of the additional detail / transparency provided.

After looking at the platform I do see its potential but I do think the valuation of 30m needs to be adjusted before its given the green flag

Love the analysis here.

These token swap funds would come out of GMX’s marketing fund, technically. The
“1 million GMX tokens reserved for marketing, partnerships and community developers”, as the Gitbook describes them. So I feel this expenditure would be in line with what the funds are earmarked for.

I’m sympathetic to the idea that the protocol’s capital should be allocated conservatively, that said. And some of your mentioned alternative ideas for achieving further GMX-STFX community alignment are excellent, and should be taken to heart…

A joint mobile app, an STFX-features integrated front-end; I would love to see those realized. Because they would exemplify the synergistic value-add relationship between the two protocols.

But that type of deep, longterm collaboration is expensive and time consuming - unlikely to materialise without first cultivating mutual faith, close contact, an aligned vision. Personally, this proposal feels to me like it helps lay the foundations for just that.

1 Like

Please note: The STFX proposal has been posted on snapshot, for voting.

Noted, thank you for sharing your thoughts here

This is a very good proposal, which will significantly improve the trading volume of GMX and be beneficial to the development of GMX

Jonezee this could be a silly question but where is Snapshot to vote?

1 Like

No silly question at all, here:

1 Like

This is a Proposal, - Voting, takes place after the proposal

I support this proposal, a different interface for volume adding is a huge catalyst

In current market scenario, I think FDV of 30M of STFX is just too high. It should be around 10-12M, not more than that. They only have alpha version at this moment, and given that such copy to trade platforms have already failed in the pasts, the risk is too high.

I think GMX team also need to have a look at it and have their say on this, 30M FDV is just too high.

thank you so much I appreciate you sharing.

how to i participate in the proposal

The discussion takes place here, the voting takes place on Snapshot

GMX very goood lets goy

@Jonezee @Tano @coinflipcanda - we should spin up a public-facing tracker for these passed proposals sooner rather than later

1 Like

Definitely on the agenda!

1 Like

I actually like STFX and what they are achiving. However i don’t think 30M FDV is realistic and this OTC swap should be considered with muc ower FDV. I’m not sure even 10M$ is realistic rn.

The claim about STFX brings volume to GMX is also might be a bit misleading. We don’t know if new traders and new capitals are coming with STFX rn but i’m sure it would effect at the bull run scenario.

Let’s consider FDV again. Maybe swap should be done after STFX TGE to be safe.

One question; what STFX tokens brings to GMX? Does that generate yields? I know STFX has a cut from traders pnls. Could u elobrate tokenomics a bit?

Side note; this kind of protocols have front-running problems. I know u have some mechanicism for that but still i couldn’t convince many traders to built up a position on

1 Like

That’s an excellent point on frontrunning (and MEV more holistically).

Ideally, you would want to pair this with some form of encrypted mempool / transaction privacy mechanism that is natively integrated with STFX + GMX.

Also agreed on valuation being rich given market and stage of this project.

1 Like