GMX Update 2

[xdev_10]

It has been a while since our last update GMX Update 1. It has been an exciting week since… | by GMX | Medium. A large portion of our time has been spent on implementing and launching advanced orders, and it is now time to plan for the next steps for GMX.

There have been a lot of ideas shared through Telegram, Discord and this post aims to put them altogether to prioritise tasks. This post will later be turned into a medium post after taking any comments and feedback into account.

GMX Marketing

For GMX to gain market share, a few components need to come together:

1. There has to be sufficient liquidity for traders from GLP
2. Open interest has to increase from new or existing traders

Based on https://stats.gmx.io/, while the number of unique users per day has remained roughly the same, open interest has increased.

We have also gathered preliminary data that ~100+ new users open a position on GMX each week.

More data analysis is needed but an explanation for these two data points are that users are opening and leaving the position open across multiple days or that larger trades are being executed on GMX.

While the stats are encouraging there is definitely more that can be done to acquire more liquidity and users.

For liquidity:
1a. The explanation of GLP can be improved
1b. More users can be made aware of GLP
1c. The performance of GLP can be improved

For traders:
2a. The trading interface can be improved
2b. Traders can be incentivised to try out the platform
2c. Users can be incentivised to share about the platform

1a. Explanation of GLP

GLP can appeal to more users by explaining the mechanics more simply and through the use of more graphics. The chart of GLP can also be linked and the historical performance of GLP could be presented both without taking esGMX into account and with taking it into account including the vesting schedule.

1b. More users can be made aware of GLP

This can be done through more articles, some community members have reached out and we will be working with them on it. The articles can be published on more platforms to increase awareness and for GMX to be mentioned more in conversations about derivative exchanges. We can also look into more avenues for advertising GMX.

1c. The performance of GLP can be improved

GLP’s performance can be improved by incentivising the hedging GLP, for example, if there are more longs than shorts, there can be a positive funding rate for shorts.

2a. The trading interface can be improved

The orders feature can be made more obvious and managing orders can be made simpler, we are currently working with a frontend team to improve each page.

2b. Traders can be incentivised to try out the platform

This can be done through a trading incentives program. Users can be given esGMX as a rebate when trading on GMX. Some possible formats for this:
i. Users earn esGMX each second when they have an open position, the amount of esGMX received would be (emission rate) * (user’s position size) / (total open interest), we could also have separate calculations for long and short positions
ii. Users earn esGMX based on their trading volume for the week, the amount of esGMX received would be (total esGMX rewards for the week) * (users’s margin trading volume for the week) / (total margin trading volume for the week)

For (i), an issue might be that users who are only interested in the rewards and not actually using the platform could farm the rewards and reserve liquidity which could block actual users from opening positions. The funding rate and fees will be high in this case, so it may not be a very large issue, but something to consider. (i) will probably also take a longer time to implement.

For (ii), this could be preferrable as it is simpler to implement and does reward users for trying out the platform. A possible drawback would be that users could wash-trade to farm rewards, although since the tokens have to be vested this would probably not be very profitable when taking the opening and closing fees into account.

2c. Users can be incentivised to share about the platform

This can be done through a referral program and can be done in combination with the trading incentives program.
A user could get a 25% bonus on their weekly esGMX rewards if they join through a referral link, referrers could receive an amount matching the 25% bonus.

For example, Alice joins the platform through Bob’s referral link, Alice does some trading and receives 100 esGMX rewards for the week, because she joined through the referral link, Alice would receive a bonus of 25 esGMX and Bob would also receive 25 esGMX.

The program can be partially gamed by users referring themselves, but that is usually the case with referral programs and should not be too much of an issue.

GMX Core Improvements

To continue to grow the platform, the core features of GMX can be improved, some ways that it can be improved:

3a. Allowing for cross-margin
3b. Restructuring GLP to be based on pairs
3c. Holding yield-bearing tokens within the pool
3d. Reducing or removing the 1.5% min price movement requirement
3e. Launching GMX on a third blockchain

3a. Allowing for cross-margin

Cross-margin would allow users to use ETH, WBTC, USDC, etc as collateral, liquidations would happen only if (USD value of collateral - losses across all user’s positions + profits across all user’s positions) is equal to or below zero, if this happens the positions with the highest losses would be force closed.

A possible drawback by changing to this format is that it would be more cumbersome to manage if a user prefers isolated risks for each position. Currently, a user can open a 30x BTC long and a 5x ETH long, with cross-margin the leverage amount would be per account instead.

3b. Restructuring GLP to be based on pairs

GLP can be restructured to be based on pairs, this would allow more flexibility in the tokens that can be supported.
In order to not fragment liquidity for tokens, the pairs could be structured as follows:

i. There will be ETH-USD, WBTC-USD, etc. pairs
ii. Users can deposit into a pair using either the non-stable token or any supported stablecoin

For example, if there are two pools ETH-USD, WBTC-USD and the pools have the following amounts:
ETH-USD: $1 million worth of ETH, $1 million worth of USD
WBTC-USD: $1 million worth of WBTC, $1 million worth of USD
Internal USD pool: $1.5 million USDC, $0.5 million USDT

Internally, the USD portion will be backed by a pool of supported stablecoins, e.g. USDC, USDT

If a user wants to join the ETH pool, they can deposit either ETH or any supported stablecoin into ETH-USD, if $100,000 of ETH is deposited, the pools would now be:
ETH-USD: $1.1 million worth of ETH, $1 million worth of USD
WBTC-USD: $1 million worth of WBTC, $1 million worth of USD
Internal USD pool: $1.5 million USDC, $0.5 million USDT

If $100,000 USDC is deposited:
ETH-USD: $1.1 million worth of ETH, $1.1 million worth of USD
WBTC-USD: $1 million worth of WBTC, $1 million worth of USD
Internal USD pool: $1.6 million USDC, $0.5 million USDT

The existing GLP would then be built on top of these pairs, and this gives a lot of flexibility, because there can be some preset weights to choose from and a user can also customise their own exposure.

For example, if a user would like to hold a portfolio of 90% ETH-USD and 10% BTC-USD they would be able to specify these amounts on the interface then mint tokens which represent these portions.

Internally, the contract would split the user’s deposit into each of the pairs in the proportions specified.

Another advantage would be that new pools can be created permissionlessly, as long as the pool creator specifies a price feed to use. This would allow the platform to support a large number of tokens while allowing users the flexibility to choose which tokens they want exposure to.

3c. Holding yield-bearing tokens within the pool

More research would need to be done on whether this would be feasible, but potentially each pair can have a wrap/unwrap intermediate contract which would handle converting tokens as they enter and exit the pool.

For example, if there is a ybUSDC (yield-bearing USDC) token, when USDC is deposited into the pool the intermediate contract would be called to convert USDC to ybUSDC, the pool would then hold ybUSDC. When USDC is withdrawn from the pool through swaps or otherwise, the intermediate contract would again be called to convert ybUSDC back to USDC.

3d. Reducing or removing the 1.5% min price movement requirement

The 1.5% minimum price movement before a position can be closed in profit is frequently mentioned as an issue for high frequency traders.

While we would like to remove this requirement, careful consideration should be taken on it.

Even with faster price feeds and ignoring front-running possibilities, without this minimum price movement requirement, it is possible that a large amount of toxic order flows could get routed to GMX.

Strategies and bots that would enter a position and close with small profits could be created and could be consistently profitable on average.

This is something that should be looked into so that a better decision can be made on the parameters including the percentage amount and duration of the requirement.

We can create possible strategies and backtest this against past price movements to determine the parameters that would be safe to use.

3e. Launching GMX on a third blockchain

After some or all of the above improvements we can launch GMX on a third blockchain to view the effect of the changes. Most likely we would launch on a blockchain that supports the Ethereum Virtual Machine, e.g. Avalanche.

[Akado]

1b. One idea is to sponsor DeFi podcasts or newsletters like bankless and similar ones.

1c. Funding rates are essential so people can arbitrage between GMX and other exchanges, bringing in more fees and so traders can farm them (ie. hold 1 bitcoin, short 1 btc 1x leverage, get the funding)

2b. This is a great idea to bring more people in. Just as long as rewards are vested for a decent amount of time as not to hurt tokenholders. Pretty much liquidity mining. Or, another route would be to announce an airdrop to users under certain requirements (did X trades, provided X volume or had position open X amount of time). Maybe both: liquidity mining like usual and throw in those extra objectives for an extra boost, gamifying the experience.

Note: ii wouldn’t case wash trading since they pay for fees. Means they can’t do it indefinitely. They’ll eventually run out of money while making GMX a lot of money.

2c. Referrals are also great. Every exchange uses them. We want people to use it and shill it everywhere. Reach becomes bigger.

3a. This is interesting from the pov that in the future the community could vote in to pick collaterals. In the future, if GMX is profitable, DAOs will eventually acquire it to diversify their income. It’s pretty much a matter of time. Once they do, they’ll be competing to list their assets as collateral. Imagine SPELL or OHM, for example. Bidding wars to have voting power in GMX. Kinda like what is happening with CVX.

This could even be swayed so profits could be split between GMX token holders and a specific DAO. Example: DAO acquires Y amount of GMX, supporting it and locking it. Then gets entitled to an extra 5% or whatever % of fees for their comitment. Then let DAOs compete between themselves, trading on GMX and buying GMX token Let’s make GMX attractive to DAOs!

3d. I don’t believe short term bots could take advantage of this. The more trades they make, also the more the risk they’re taking so it’s only fair. It isn’t like they always make a small profit. They also make small losses. Or if they wait until a small profit they can get underwater and liquidated. This limit, if possible, should be removed imo. It can go both ways. Not to mention GLP users take the risk. If the limit is lifted, even if they took on more risk, they would also earn more fees because it would bring more activity. Risk and reward right. tldr: limit seems illogical and should be removed if possible. If you want to be extra careful, reduce it each month/week. So like, next month, limit is only 1%, month after only 0.5%, etc. But imo giving what was mentioned above, think GMX could just remove it all together (again, if possible).

3e. Criteria here should imo, be:

• is EVM compatible?
• has a wide variety of Chainlink feeds?
  if so, pick the one with most tarding volume and TVL, which should be AVAX

[coinflipcanda]

3a. This will definitely make us an interesting platform, where you can effectively portfolio manage, including having ofsetting longs and shorts in different pairs at the same time.

3b. This means we have the main GLP which gets rebalanced based on governance votes and which pairs we will incentize can similar to gauge votes on Curve. What’s good though is that while GLP will hold many pairs anyone who wants to be a market maker for just that pair can easily do it.

3e. multi chain definitely will let us expose the protocol to more traders.

[Micnation]

Fully supportive on all of the proposals, shows comprehensive approach of the team and acknowledges community suggestions/debate in TG / Discord. Thanks X!
First priority should be to improve UX/UI / explanations / graphics for traders and GLPers. Converting to stable-pairs in GLP is the way to go - love the flexibility it offers LP’s if they want more pairs down the road and would let the market decide what’s hot enough to LP for. has to be balanced somehow though. Most people will want stable / blue chip exposure in a down turn and more nonstable/volatility in an uptrend and may change their GLP positions accordingly which may cause liquidity to fluctuate relatively unpredictably.

Once UX and Core improvements have been made marketing efforts should intensify, not before. Fee and volume growth / open positions has been sustained and in line with GLP growth which is all that is needed at this stage. UX is key to attract and RETAIN more users, along with incentive program, which we may not have been that good at so far.
Suggestion: why not incentivize traders with a fee discount similar to the proposed referral rewards, or pay fees per user volume/trades redirected out of a small percentage of fee revenue allocated to FPF (maybe half). better than esGMX imo, and does not disincentivize GMX/GLP holders. FPF growth continues, and it’s been established by now that it served its original purpose and won’t realistically grow to keep up up with GMX valuation. So, reallocating a portion of the revenue seems a win win.

3d. Definitely keep the min price movement / delay requirement but make gradual adjustments down to reduce impact on human traders. We have data from Gambit/BSC where bots drained pools and it’s a very valid concern. If that data is insufficient, I think the best way to learn is not to try to write your own strategies, but to gradually reduce limitations to see impact. Unless we have a bot-trader competition to test it that may be a waste of time. I suspect it’s not the team specialty and someone willing to put in more time can always come up with a new strategy given enough time. The only way to stop it is to constrain high frequency traders.

3e. Fully support any other EVM, but decision should be based on volume/tvl - regarding Avalanche - earlier launch may be advantageous as competition is stiff - Arrow DFM Markets launching options and I’ve also seen a perp exchange Hubble - which has been working on launching for a few months. I suspect there is others. Very interested in also keeping up with DOT - Acala or Moonbeam for potential launch down the road - may follow Avalanche - but shared liquidity / substrate layer on DOT is interesting - maybe!
Keep up the great work. Sustainable growth takes time. Thanks Team

[inko]

IMO this is the correct way forward and I give it full support.

I agree with @Micnation that the first priority needs to be improvements to how the protocol explains how things fits together, improvements to the UI and Docs. As well as infographics/animations explaining the tokenomics, relation between GMX, GLP, MP, esGMX.

Obviously, the “trader experience” also needs attention, but I think that part is being evolving nicely atm.

[iamnaok]

Will there be a voting on a 3d block chain? I personally would vote for Fantom

[russiamanbit]

Great ideas. as usual!

just a few cents from me on GLP topic…

@xdev_10

3b. Restructuring GLP to be based on pairs

GLP can be restructured to be based on pairs, this would allow more flexibility in the tokens that can be supported.

Many my friends whom I talk to about defi stuff - they are pretty newbie in this kitchen. And most of the defi services looks scary to them because if all their complexity…
So, if we introduce all these separated GLP pools - this drive such peoples crazy ))
But, personally ofc, I like this more flexible approach.
Would be awesome if we can somehow introduce layered complexity in UX\UI.
kind of two modes: “simple” and “advanced”. Simple is default.
When newcomer see GMX platform, especially EARN tab - it looks very easy to understand. But if he switch “advanced” mode on somehow (it can be swticher or different page… nevermind) - then all the true richness of the platform is opened up to his eyes.

Another idea… which, generally, related to previous thoughts - what do you think, guys, is there a way to introduce stable rates for GLP stakers ?
I am sure there is many investors who prefer stability to flexibility via price of potential perfomance.
So if we can introduce pools with stable APR - that can be nice feature too.

[DeFiMan]

Thanks for the proposal, I believe it is very good and tackles the most important things for the next wave.

Some suggestions in case it helps:

1b.

Raising awareness about $GMX could redirect a lot of users to the protocol, some of them will be interested in GLP, thats why being integrated in main apps should be one of the top priorities as far as marketing action is concerned (Zapper, Zerion, Blockfolio, Delta etc)

Also, some partnerships with yield managers like Yearn Finance could be seek (they might want the kind of exposition and ROI that GLP provides and they have billions under management)

2a.

In the group has been suggested several times and I believe it is a good idea to separate the swap feature and the margin trading in two tabs to make it easier for people that just want to swap

CT traders influencers could be approached and asked about their feedback on the trading interface and features (that way we could improve the product and boost the reach of GMX - Flood, HsakaTrades etc come to mind)

2c.

It could be interesting to dedicate a small percentage of the fees during the next 2-3 months (5-10%) that instead of going to the FPF, went to paying in ETH a percentage of the fees that have been collected through that account referrals. Some people might pass on if they see they are only receiving an asset with at least 1 year vesting, but very attracted if they receive a token like ETH with instant liquidity (that way we would also avoid creating sell pressure on GMX). Another way is to buy back GMX with that 5-10% and distributing in GMX to the people that have brought volume, is another way to add holders and in the worse case scenario, the sell pressure would be compensated with the buy backs

3a.

Would be great if the user can decide whether to use isolated margin or cross-margin like in some CEXes (not sure how difficult this would be to implement though)

3d.

I fully agree that while it would be nice to reduce or remove the limit, baby steps is most certainly the best way to do it, there is so much at stake and past events have taught us how clever some exploiters can be

3e.

As some other members have stated, I also believe that the decision should be taken based on:

1. Current activity on that chain (TVL / Activity of bridges / …)
2. Competitors based on that chain
3. Future perspectives of the chain

Right now, looks like Avalanche should be the play based on these metrics (biggest TVL behind ETH and BSC of EVM chains and huge backers like 3AC) and no established competitors at the moment

I also strongly believe that revamping the BSC protocol and adapting it to the GMX format could be a huge lever of growth that we are greatly underestimating, because:

• BSC TVL is 10x bigger than Arbitrum and 2x bigger than AVAX
• Second biggest activity in Synapse Bridge after AVAX → https://twitter.com/AureliusBTC/status/1459664053761105920?s=20
• No competitors there
• 1 Billion dollar fund to be deployed by Binance in the Binance Smart Chain ecosystem, the protocol could even get some financing or help to gather funds for GLP there
• Lots of yield farmers in BSC

Also, if GMX is not planned to be deployed in the following chains, a CEX listing could be useful to allow people support the project without the need to be bridge funds to Arbitrum. That could help also greatly in the marketing efforts

[x555]

We can be bigger than Uniswap and DyDx and here is my line of thinking as posted in TG group.

I think GLP should be positioned to have 3 selling points to amass billions in TVL.

1. GLP as a Crypto ETF Index Fund like SPDR S&P 500 ETF in Stock World. With this selling point GLP can amass a billions TVL. The proof is that in crypto DeFiPulse Index has over 200M TVL with no yield on default. People buy it to diversify risk and have exposure to the crypto market as a whole.

   DeFi is about asset gathering war. From the stock market experience, ETF Index Funds like SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust got the biggest TVL (over $400B).

2. GLP as a Liquidity Pool that supports Margin Trading. We are doing well on this. But if we only focus on this selling point, then the TVL that GLP can grow will not be as big as a Crypto Index Fund. Because to get a higher APY from margin trading than the TVL of GLP will be capped at some point.

3. As a Liquidity Pool that supports Swapping. I think we are going to do better on this. On UX/UI, I support separate Trade and Swap pages. And as we add more tokens to GLP, the number of pairs in our pool will greatly increase and make swapping a lot more efficient than Uniswap Pool 2.

   • e.g I have AAVE token and want to swap to LINK token. With Uniswap we have to swap from AAVE to ETH (Fee 0.3%) and then from ETH to LINK(Fee 0.3%). Total fee 0.6%.
   • With GLP, Swapper can swap DIRECTLY from AAVE to LINK with 1 time fee like 0.3%
   • Pool 2 has 2 routes for swapping DIRECTLY.
   • Pool 3 has 6 routes for swapping DIRECTLY.
   • If GLP has 30 Tokens then, GLP can have 870 routes for swapping DIRECTLY.
   • If GLP has 500 Tokens then, GLP can have 249,500 routes for swapping DIRECTLY.

   => This economy of scale is a very important moat.

[x555]

And to grow GLP, here are my few cents:

1. Before marketing GLP, I think we should change its name to better reflect 3 selling points. I suggest changing the name to something like GLP 500. Similar to S&P 500. GLP 500 means top 500 protocols with the biggest market cap in crypto.

2. We can have a Referral program to grow GLP. e.g A advises B to buy GLP. When B bought GLP, he can enter A address as a referral code. Money for this Referral program can come from Mint GLP Fee.

3. For GLP Education, “what is the risk of putting money into GLP” is a common question I think should be put into FAQ ?

4. When possible, I think we should buy insurance for GLP as default opt in. If somebody doesn’t want insurance, he/she can opt out.

5. Restructuring GLP to be based on pairs ⇒ I find this feature is very complicated for normies to do.

[xdev_10]

might depend more on which chains we can work out a partnership with

[xdev_10]

that makes sense, i think GLP can be the main one and we will have advanced options for more savvy users

stable rates is an interesting idea, could definitely split GLP yield into that, or even split GLP into a stablecoin + non-stable portion

[xdev_10]

good points, thank you for the detailed feedback and ideas

1b. working with yield platforms would definitely help

2a. yup have forwarded that feedback

2c. possible, seems a lot of people are sensitive about redirecting that ETH, so probably would try with esGMX to start

3a. makes sense as well

3e. interesting point about BSC, will think about that more, main thing is that re-deploying would take up considerable time, also would take some time for 1inch to re-integrate the new contracts, and would need to prioritise this with working on referrals etc

[xdev_10]

great ideas, replied in the telegram, we will work on these

[x555]

I am writing this SaleKit for GLP. Hope to get feedback from team and community. (Sorry English is not my native language)

GLP100 Salekit

1.Why should I put money into GLP100 ?

• GLP100 holders can diversify risk and get exposure to the whole crypto market. Because GLP100 acts like a crypto index fund that includes the top 100 tokens in the Crypto market.
• GLP100 holders got high yield: 90.88% as of 15/11/2021 (39% in ETH + 51.8% in esGMX).

2.How can GLP100 get high yield for token holders ?
GLP100 is used as a Liquidity Pool for Margin Trading and Swapping. 70% fee from Margin Trading and Swapping is paid to GLP100 holders.

3.What are the risks when putting money into GLP100 ?
- Market Risk . The whole crypto market can be volatile. The price of GLP100 can go down when the crypto market goes down. On the other hand, the price of GLP100 can go up when the crypto market goes up. Moreover, GLP100 has around 20% in stablecoin so the volatility is less than the crypto market.

- Trading Risk . GLP100 is used as a liquidity pool for Margin Trading. So when Trader wins, GLP100 holders lose and vice versa. This risk is mitigated by creating the incentive to balance the Long/Short position.

- Smart Contract Risk . The GMX protocol could get hacked. To protect investor, trader, and GLP100 holders, the GMX contracts have been audited by ABDK Consulting. ABDK is the firm that audited Uniswap V3. Moreover, by default GLP100 holders are covered from the smart contract risk with insurance from …

- Asset Risk . One and more assets in the GLP100 can lose value quickly and become worthless. Since GLP100 can be used to swap, swappers can keep swapping worthless tokens for valuable tokens, leaving GLP100 holders with only worthless tokens. This risk is mitigated by…

[x555]

GLP100 Saleskit v2.0
1.Why should I put money into GLP100?

• A Crypto Index Fund. GLP100 holders can diversify risk and get exposure to the whole crypto market. Because GLP100 acts like a crypto index fund that includes the top 100 tokens in the Crypto market.
• High Interest paid out every second. GLP100 holders got high yield: 90.88% as of 15/11/2021 (39% in ETH + 51.8% in esGMX).
• No lockup. GLP100 holders can withdraw money anytime.

2.How can GLP100 get high yield for token holders ?

• Trading Fees: GLP100 is used as a Liquidity Pool for Margin Trading and Swapping. 70% fee from Margin Trading and Swapping is paid to GLP100 holders.
• Platform Rewards: in addition to trading fees, 100K esGMX is distributed to GLP100 holders every month until x 2022.

3.What are the risks when putting money into GLP100 ?

• Market Risk. The whole crypto market can be volatile. The price of GLP100 can go down when the crypto market goes down. On the other hand, the price of GLP100 can go up when the crypto market goes up. Moreover, GLP100 has around 20% in stablecoin so the volatility is less than the crypto market.
• Trading Risk. GLP100 is used as a liquidity pool for Margin Trading. So when Trader wins, GLP100 holders lose and vice versa. This risk is mitigated by creating the incentive to balance the Long/Short position.
• Smart Contract Risk. The GMX protocol could get hacked. To protect investor, trader, and GLP100 holders, the GMX contracts have been audited by ABDK Consulting. ABDK is the firm that audited Uniswap V3. Moreover, by default GLP100 holders are covered from the smart contract risk with insurance from …
• Asset Risk. One and more assets in the GLP100 can lose value quickly and become worthless. Since GLP100 can be used to swap, swappers can keep swapping worthless tokens for valuable tokens, leaving GLP100 holders with only worthless tokens.

e.g stablecoin like MIM or USDT can lose its peg and on the way to zero. People keep swapping MIM for ETH or BTC all the way down. At the end, GLP pool only left with MIM that is going to ZERO.

This risk is mitigated by…

[xdev_10]

Thank you for this, it very well-written

For the asset risk, we gave an answer in Telegram about having max capacities for tokens, but let me know if it does not answer it

[bluechipdefi]

1. Increase GLP liquidity

As I mentioned on discord, I think that reaching out to respectable youtube crypto reviewers like Jason Bram, Finematics, etc. could help on both the awareness and education fronts for GLP.

On top of this, the community can (continue to) help out spinning up twitter threads breaking down the new GLP and referencing these videos for further impact.

On the performance front, I think positive funding rates to balance shorts/longs seems like a no brainer since it functions as hedging for GLP holders.

2. Increase open interest

Rergarding UI/UX improvements, additional to simpler order management I would add the following:

• pesonal dashboard for performance and trade history, consolidated open positions, etc.
• add orders set up with trigger function on open orders or on personal dashboard ^^
• governance tab with notifications for proposals up to vote to increase collaboration

Regarding the referral program, we must be VERY careful to avoid/limit sybil attacks. Naturally, the vesting period on esGMX helps but adding other constraints like twitter verification, a cap on the # of references per address, filter out brand new addresses, etc. could mitigate it fully.

3a. Allow cross margin

Recently tried out DYDX which I believe does cross-margin. I personaly prefer having isolated risks for each position (size, asset, leverage). It be great if is possible to leave the option to the user, but don´t know if that is feasible on the dev side.

3b. Isolate GLP to crypto-stable pairs

I love this proposal since it allows for faster asset integration and gives flexibility for the liquidity provider to choose asset exposure. The only drawback I see is that I fear this dynamic can lead to the GLP being composed of risky assets, which goes against the ethos of the aforementioned change to the “safe” GLP100.

3c. yield-bearing tokens @GLP

AAVE´s deployment on arbitrum is imminent, I would look into adding aave stables since with the launch of V3 I believe it will have additional yield thank to bridging utility. Also Yearn is about to launch, their yUSD o yDai could be good options too.

3d. launching on a 3rd chain

I say we put do a rank voting system to pin point the road map priority for next chain deployments; I would consider the following.
Optimism
zksync
Starknet
Avalanche
Fantom
Polygon

[xdev_10]

Thank you for the feedback!

I think reaching out to YouTube crypto reviewers makes sense, our marketing team is currently working on it.

Good ideas for having a personal dashboard, our frontend team is currently working on improving the interface, so there should be some updates rolling out soon.

Makes sense about the cross-margin, we will look into how both options could be done.

[xdev_10]

Thank you to everyone for the feedback, we’re considering the following order to prioritise things:

Launch on Avalanche

While there are a lot of improvements that we would like to make, the base product does work from what we have observed, and launching on a third chain can help with reaching out to more users.

We think Avalanche would be a good choice as they have a growing amount of liquidity and usage.

If users are on Avalanche, they are likely to prefer using DEXes that are on the chain itself, there is also an opportunity to facilitate more swap volume.

We can start work on this next week and provide more details of how the cross-chain would work as we develop it. Most likely we will allow bridging of GMX to avalanche and have a separate GLP pool.

Trading Incentives, Referrals, Fee Tiers

This can be implemented after launching on Avalanche, we would start by tracking volume amounts per trader and rewards can be setup using that.

A few community members have suggested having Fee Tiers, where the more GMX a user has the larger a fee discount or fee rebate they get.

Potentially the fee rebate could be distributed as GMX tokens, as this would help keep ETH rewards high.

Core Contract Improvements

The core contract improvements would definitely be useful especially in allowing trading of newer assets, however, ETH, BTC and other main tokens still take up most of the market share in terms of trading volume, which is why we believe launching on a third blockchain and improving tokenomics should be done first.

We will write a more detailed Medium post about this and post it soon, it would serve as our updated roadmap.