Interesting proposal, and I appreciate the effort. However, I don’t believe the risk/reward profile justifies implementing it. Here’s why:
Fees aren’t the main issue deterring users from GMX. For traders, cross-margin collateral is more significant. Familiarity (order book model) and convenience (mobile app) also matter.
Lowering fees increases vulnerability to arbitrage. This will always be a risk due to the nature of blockchain technology which can’t compete with the speed of CEX servers.
Considering the differences between OB vs. LP & central servers vs. blocks, let’s look at the ‘bigger picture’ :
We should stop comparing GMX to CEX or unregulated CEX on private chains. Though both offer leveraged products, their structures, strengths, and weaknesses differ significantly. They target different market segments, and positioning GMX as a CEX competitor is unwise.
It’s better to view GMX as a competitor to Uniswap or ‘Uni on Leverage,’ focusing on permissionless listings and customizable pools and push in that direction.
Other priorities, as listed by KR in this gov forum post, are more impactful and worthy of core team dev hours (These may already be underway; I’m not privy to GMX’s core contributor’s activities.) Along with the GLV proposal which will require follow-up and patches once live.
Implementing the proposal here might be quicker than other projects, but ‘coding’ people’s money requires thorough review, audits, and testing. So in the end it never is that simple.
I also believe GMSOL could significantly impact the GMX ecosystem and will demand full-time efforts from you and other key players. In the future, this proposal could be reassessed, implemented, and tested on GMSOL, as higher OI limits does offer value. OI hard caps was a bottleneck for GMX V1 but isn’t currently for V2 pools.