If you are holding/staking GMX, how low does the price need to drop for you to reconsider your position on the various changes that have been implemented this past year?

[Btcfever]

If you respond, please state the price.

I’m asking this question because of the trajectory that GMX’s price in USD has been on in the past year. A year ago we were at $60.99, and we are now within a few pennies away from the all-time-low since coingecko began aggregating data ($11.53). When zoomed out, the chart is beginning to resemble that of most meme coins.

If your response is $0, at least be honest with the community about it. That is to say, if you are dead-set against rolling back any of the changes in an effort to course-correct, then let us know your perspective. I’m asking this on the forum rather than the chats because it allows for more long-form discussion and to better understand everyone’s point of view.

In the past year, the platform has implemented a number of major changes to its fees system, most notably the elimination of Multiplier Points (MPs) and more recently the buy-back-and-distribute (BBD) model for stakers.

In this same period of time:

• The price has sunk like a rock
• The % of esgmx vested had doubled, from 12% to as high as 24% of total esgmx (canary in the coal mine)
• Whales capitulating and moving on to greener pastures
• Massive, MASSIVE loss of fees (in $USD) for gmx holders, especially if you had MPs and were letting your fees accrue as eth/avax for long periods of time.
• If “the benefit” of abolishing MPs is decoupling from eth, then it’s happened in the worst way. Eth has maintained a relatively stable crab behavior between $1800USD to $2200USD in the past month. GMX has lost 50% of its value in the same time period.

And all of this while OI has been relatively consistent, and even with a few extra high outliers. Other projects now reference GMX as a cautionary tale regarding “the right kind” of incentivizing features.

Here are my two big fears:

1. Our volume is similar to the 2022 bear year, and in that year we had MP’s to serve as an incentive for large holders to not sell. Under new bear conditions this incentive is no longer there to hold back the sell offs. Who know’s how far we will continue to drop with this demonstrably critical element no longer in play. In the 2023 bear market conditions, GMX didn’t go below $30.

2. Many holders are incentivized to keep their tokens and not seek out better gains while their esgmx is being vested. In mid-July, many large-quantity gmx/esgmx holders will have completed the vesting of their trove of esgmx (recall the bullet about the % of esgmx going into vesting vaults literally doubling). This yields two problems: our year-long “faster than usual” token supply inflation, and even more importantly, that starting in mid-July there will likely be a catastrophic “race to the bottom” sell-off by those that had started vesting their esgmx the moment they had received them as part of the “MP abolition settlement”. These same parties didn’t view the APR % of fees as sufficient incentive to leave their esgmx staked rather than vested, so they are unlikely to view their newly-vested gmx that way either.

To summarize, we all come from a diverse set of backgrounds, with very different views on the markets, financial psychology, price-goals, etc. But one thing that we can all agree on, that every single person reading this sentence has in common, is that we all want the value of the GMX token to go up. So I’m not asking for us to re-introduce MPs or modify BB&D. Rather, in keeping with the theme of “incentives”, how low does the GMX price have to get before you feel there is sufficient incentive to reverse or modify some of the changes that have been made in the past year. It’s not unusual for companies to reverse course if plans don’t go as hoped. In fact it’s common, especially in retail. We all supported certain changes or were against them based on how we interpret data.

Now we have nearly a year of new data regarding how effective MPs were at incentivizing new holders and disincentivizing selling by whales. Likewise we have many months of data on the actual effectiveness of BBD with regards to price action. But I’m not asking us to go over any of this data. *The question I’m asking is: *

How low does the price of GMX have to go before you would be open to possibly change your mind regarding some of the implementations that have taken place in the past year?

[Jonezee]

You’re not asking for GMX to re-introduce MPs or modify BB&D, but you are asking how low GMX has to go for people to re-evaluate these implementations?

Everybody is disappointed by the effect the introduced tokenomics and revenue-sharing changes managed to have. Setting aside other factors - like the context of an unpredictable altcoin market, disappointing Arbitrum sentiment, and severe ETH underperformance - it’s clear these changes didn’t achieve their goal.

People have generally already reconsidered their position on these changes, as a result.

A forward-looking approach that analyses what needs to happen now to achieve better results, feels much more valuable to me.

[FallingSands]

1. I agree with Jonezee that this handwringing is not productive.

2. I agree with you that GMX price performance has been terrible.

I was an advocate for the removal of GMX MPs, despite being a large MP holder at the time. I don’t believe that this caused harm to the price, it simply failed to correct what was already happening.

We were already seeing a price decline, which I attributed to the collapsing base APR as MPs eat up all of the revenue share. My hope was that a significantly increased base “real yield” would attract attention/investment, as there are not many protocols who can compete with our rev share fundamentals.

Unfortunately, attention was never gained, despite high APRs being available to new investors, V2s design success and the development/launch of GMXSOLANA. Crypto continues to be an attention economy, fundamentals be damned.

We can see this here:

• GMX’s all time high was April 2023. In July 2023, Base launches and Arbitrum begins to loose mindshare. GMX, the largest project on Arbitrum sees its price begin to slip, despite revenue being strong.

• GMX continues to see quality usage metrics and protocol improvements, but the decline accelerates, precisely correlated to the launch of Hyperliquid in December 2024.

Attention is everything. Our tokenomic changes did not caused our price performance, but they failed to draw attention, which at the end of the day effects crypto prices more than any fundamental.

While the team continues to produce competitive, useful technology, we also need to renew our efforts on making GMX part of the conversation once more. Personally, my interests are on mechanics, but we need to embrace the truth that narrative cultivation will provide the highest ROI moving forward. When cross chain launches, we need to find a way to get the greater crypto community interested in what we are building.

Potential narratives that we could build towards (backed by real fundamentals):

1. RWAs - everyone is talking about this, how can we be first out of the gate? lets list everything chain link offers in this category, even if trading volumes are low.
2. Cross Chain - already in the works, assuming our model is a success, how can we be a big part of the conversation towards solving fragmentation?
3. FOREX - honestly not something that I am familiar with, but its a huge market in tradfi and we could build a narrative focusing on “Serious” markets so as to separate ourselves from the casino narrative. While it may not be a huge revenue driver right away, building lindy in this space before tradfi is here in mass could be a reputational boon.

[Btcfever]

Thank you for your reply FallingSands – I do appreciate the forward-thinking portion with regard to new features like forex et al.

However, I would caution you that these would be improvements to the protocol, rather than added-value to the GMX token, which is the primary concern of the top post of this thread. (More on this in my follow-up post after this).

I had thought that my question of “At what price does GMX need to drop to before you’ll consider reversing some of the changes that were made in the past year?” would have garnered more diverse, explanatory responses here than in the price chat telegram group. But I did end up getting a pretty large data-set of feedback from the telegram community.

Here are the results:

• A small minority indicated they were open to discussing reversal measures at the present price of $12 bucks
• An even smaller minority indicated they were open and had been willing to reverse some of these changes all the way back in the $30-$40 range
• The overwhelming majority, at present, would rather the price go to zero than discuss a changing back any features of the GMX token.

Most people would not explain why $0 was preferable to reversing their position on the 2024 changes. But given our very real predicament we need to be honest here…We can chalk some of that up to people coming from “saving face” cultures/backgrounds, or perhaps just other perspectives that they were unwilling to share. That’s me making extrapolations with the only data that we have to work with.

But then we get other people like SniperMonke who outright describes MP abolition as a “shortsighted mistake”, yet still indicates he’d prefer the token go to $0 than consider re-introducing a points incentive program. I don’t have the necessary anthropology or psychology background to make sense of that. I wish they would take the extra step of explaining their perspective, because in the western world people & companies change their plans or reverse their business strategies ALL THE TIME. Seriously, it happens every day, even among large companies. Pivoting from one position to it’s polar-opposite position is routine and considered a normal function in seeking growth (financial and otherwise). Heck, my own president changes his plans on import taxes EVERY COUPLE OF HOURS. This is where I’m coming from, where strategy reversals in light of new data is routine and not considered a social taboo. So I am disappointed that we couldn’t get more “explanatory” responses. But most everyone did make their preference very clear.

Ultimately, the feedback I received in the telegram group, and I suppose from FallingSands and Jonzee, means that I was wrong. Seriously, I was wrong (my culture allows me to declare this because it’s considered a fundamental part of growing, via learning from one’s mistakes).

• In my original post in this thread I stated that “But one thing that we can all agree on, that every single person reading this sentence has in common, is that we all want the value of the GMX token to go up.” I got that wrong. Some members of the GMX community have expressed that they do not want the value of the GMX token to go up if it requires having a conversation on the results yielded by all of the feature-changes made since last year.
• Introspection is a wall. On the one hand you get people like Seraph, Jun Wei, or TCC types that are willing to climb over it (growth is on the other side), and then you have the people like Tano or Protocolin that will not set one foot towards that wall. Approaching ATL isn’t getting most people open to discussing course-correction.

But maybe $GMX hitting single-digits will. When the token enters single-digit territory a massive psychological barrier is overcome, and with it perhaps a realignment of what people are willing to do (ie, vote to re-introduce points, change fee currency, etc) in order to get back to course-correct. (Price-point psychological barriers are a very real and heavily-studied aspect of finance – I mean just look at public perception when bitcoin would hit certain milestones).

So I would like to circle back to this topic at $9 and hopefully there’s still time to avert the late-July bloodbath by the exiting of the large-quantity holders that have completed the esgmx vesting they began last year.

[Btcfever]

So I’m done asking the annoying question on what price is required for you to reverse some 2024 changes – and I will heed the advice of FallingSands and Seraph and simply make my pitch on what the community could do to improve the price action of the GMX token. (To be a little more forward-thinking on this subject as Jonzee suggested.)

First let’s define the problem:

Circling back to the facts:

• As I write this, the GMX token is only 5% above it’s all-time low since charting information became available (so all-time-low of $11.53 not counting obviously the token generation event).
• The token price of $12.08 is a complete wipeout of all gains since June 2022.
• The token had certain features and functionalities when it survived and actually thrived during 2022 and 2023 bear market conditions.
• The token had those features/functionalities removed in 2024, coinciding with a clear chartable decline in price during 2024 bull-market conditions that continues to this moment.
• If you zoom out and look at the GMX chart for the entirety of its existence, it now resembles every “shitcoin/memecoin” chart, where 99% of coins go to the “altcoin graveyard”.

So for this topic, I’m defining the problem as: The price action has been on a year-long downward trajectory, with no end in sight.

And that’s not to mention the late-summer “bank run” that we’re likely to experience, which would trigger & eat away at the floor price fund (if that’s even still a thing).

So that’s the problem. We’re holding/staking a coin that is 90% down from it’s all-time-high and sinking, and if you are a long-time holder it means you’ve experienced a massive opportunity cost that can be described as “exponential” as you would need almost a 10x to get back to what you’ve lost.

In short, the catastrophe has already occurred, and the best analogy I can think of is that the house is already on fire.

TCC in the chat & FallingSands above both tossed out some forward thinking ideas. While I appreciate them (and Seraph) recognizing what a grave situation the token is in, the suggestions are geared more to protocol-growth rather than reviving an upward trend for the GMX token. In the “house is already on fire” scenario, we have our options that are analogous to:

• using a fire extinguisher and putting it out right now
• indirect solutions like repaving the street, putting air in the fire-truck tires, and putting together a city ordinance that adds more fire hydrants….and then “hoping” for professional fire-fighters to show up and put out the fire.

Sorry but it is my nature to fall back onto analogies, and I’m basically trying to highlight that their suggestions are indirect “infrastructure” focused rather than a direct “specific plan for a specific problem” solution as represented by the fire extinguisher. (Edit: I just realized in this analogy we have some community members that are the “This is fine” dog).

And again, at this point guys we need to be real and engage in honesty, no matter how ugly that honest assessment of the situation may be: The GMX protocol is just like every other DeFi project, bridge platform, or liquidity/index provider. It suffers from the three worst words in crypto: “Token. Not. Needed.” Just like jupiter or hop bridge work fine without $JUP and $HOP, or Uniswap works perfectly well at its core function in the absence of $UNI, or pointless $OP for optimism network, there is little to no inherently-necessary purpose for $GMX in relation to the GMX platforms function of being a spot & perpetual exchange. If all of the $GMX tokens digitally evaporated tomorrow, everyone would still be able to make their longs and shorts on the trading dashboard at GMX.

BUT THAT’S OKAY. I get that there’s some niche exceptions to the above, but generally unless it’s bitcoin or a gas token like eth or avax, then the intrinsic value of the token isn’t built in. Rather, it falls on the platform & the community to “create” a token’s value. And you can do it either “organically” or “inorganically”.

Organic value: Features and functionality given to the token that increases it’s desirability to be purchased or held long-term by actual people. Econ 101 says that “price” is the description assigned to an asset’s organic value.

Inorganic value: Basically indirect methods of boosting a token price that don’t involve adding purchasing/holding desirability by actual users.

The zoomed-out GMX token chart resembles a traditional shitcoin chart because we’ve stripped away much of its organic value in terms of MPs and fees payed out in more desirable coins. Many people in the community recite the mantra “the token is undervalued”. Unfortunately, the market price DOES reflect its value. It’s a tough sell on social media to cite GMX giving “real yield” when that real yield is in a token that loses 50% of its value in a month. The Bitcoin Standard book specifies that an actual working “currency” must have lower volatility, and potential buyers of GMX likely foist the same prerequisite to fee-generating tokens. Likewise, it’s a tough sell to get people to stop selling their GMX tokens (price go down) when there’s no points program or other incentive to not move their wealth to potentially greener pastures.

So what are we left with? Almost everyone is pitching inorganic ideas. Changing the GMX protocol infrastructure, changing liquidity provider fees, buy-back-and-distribute or even buy-back-and-hold functions. Absolutely none of these addresses the problem of crypto users NOT WANTING to buy & hold this token. We have the specified problem, let’s look at specified solutions. I mean, crypto twitter has recently done a pretty good job on explaining the ineffectiveness of buy back programs.

So I ask FallingSands, and TCC, and any other people that WANT the token price to go up, to focus their ideas on ways to improve organic growth, because we’re seeing that the end-result of all of these indirect inorganic infrastructure changes aren’t improving the price. That means I have a new question: What features and functionality can be added to the GMX token that makes real-life crypto users want to buy it?

We have to appeal to buyers. Making the protocol itself buy tokens won’t do it. And we now have enough price action information to know that multiplier points were keeping people holding (as is esgmx vesting, which come July/August………)

As Seraph asked me yesterday what my proposals are for changing our downward trajectory, they are two-fold:

1. Institute some kind of points system directly tied to the GMX token. We know from many projects now that points are an effective marketing tool and boost short-term usage when the point system kicks off, plus from our own experience we know they serve as a deterrent to selling. The idea is to get us to start a momentum upward as well as prevent the summer post-vesting bank-run.
2. Explore changing the token’s fees payment to provide real-yield as stable coins like USDC and USDC.e (for avax chain), or failing that reverting to the ETH & AVAX fees. Buyers are clearly rejecting holding a fee-bearing token that pays its fees in $GMX. But holding and staking a $GMX token that provides real-yield in USDC is a much, much, MUCH easier sell to buyers and holders, and it’s far more organic than just telling people to convert their fees everyday to usdc or eth or whatever. I recall Tano saying that half of the GMX in BBD is staying as GMX and getting staked. That means the selling pressure is effectively canceling out the buying pressure, with a net positive of virtually nada. The token price has dropped more than 75% from when bb&d was implemented. Listen to our “customers” (potential gmx token buyers/holders). They don’t want it. They’ll look at the chart and think “They’re paying me fees in this? It’s radioactive!”

So these are my two proposals for stopping the rapid decline in price of the GMX token and putting us back on an upward trajectory like we had in 2022 and 2023. Maybe Jonzee is right, and I didn’t present all of this in the most diplomatic fashion. But at the very least, my earnest appeal to the community is coming as someone who REALLY, TRULY wants the price action to improve. And apparently that does separate me from some of the frequent posters in this community. My passionate appeals fell on deaf ears when our coin was at $61 at the start of the MP abolishment discussion. Will you not hear me out now at $12?

[Tano]

Your focus is and has always been wrong. Changing the tokenomics hasn’t caused the price’s downfall; lack of users, Arbitrum losing mindshare, revenue, and volume have and GMX being one of the only perp dexes at that moment. This has been confirmed multiple times when we compare GMX to ETH price action. So, your comments on GMX went down since MP was removed. They are false, have been proven false, and have nothing to do with it.

It seems you get very defensive when people point out that you’re not telling the truth or when people don’t share your ideas.

Our primary focus of should and always has been, focusing on bringing in more traders with:

• Use GMX staking together with trading discount to lower fees for power users lowering fees close to CEX/Hyperliquid levels
• Express trading, allowing users to trade without signing messages, less rpc issues as it’s broadcasted via APIs instead of RPCs giving a CEX like experience.
• Multichain, allowing every user to trade on GMX from every EVM chain possible introducing us to newer chains and hopefully a lot of newer users.
• Listings of RWA / Forex / stock markets options

I don’t see how your ‘recommendations’ help GMX as a platform or a token. As you powerfully show in your post by referencing my comment, more than half of GMX is still staked, which you can see here: https://dune.com/saulius/gmx-analytics. Nor have I heard anyone say they don’t want to receive GMX when staking; the majority voted for it, do you remember?

What would you do with the ‘point’ system? Clearly saying I want them back, but not providing any comments on how they should work, seems very stale to me.

[Btcfever]

Your focus is and has always been wrong.

I told you what would occur if we burn MPs, you scoffed at my prediction, and now this is the result. Behold your “focus”:

Multichain is nice. It would be great if we could get a points program to coincide with it. Hopefully the members of the community that want the value of the GMX token to increase will go along with something along those lines and help make the ecosystem attractive to buyers rather than inorganic ponzi change, ponzi change, ponzi change just over and over.

Each of these ponzi tokenomic changes just results in the ONE gmx flywheel that’s actually materialized:

1. The majority proclaim “the new thing” will surely boost the price
2. Shout down anyone claiming otherwise
3. “New thing” is introduced
4. Token continues downward trajectory
5. “New thing” is never mentioned again by its loudest champions
6. Return to step 1

At this point how many “new things” have we cycled through? Like ten or twelve? Tano how many “new things” are added to your “never mention again” list?

So now we have mutichain as Step 1 of our only functioning flywheel. The members of the GMX community don’t need your permission to ponder & consider ways to reverse the current trajectory, so please don’t “thread-jack” this discussion just because you’re in the “let it keep dropping” camp. Apparently there’s not many of us, but some of us do want the token price to go up and we wish to return to that topic here.

Tano I will admit that I don’t appreciate being told my focus is wrong when I’ve stuck to my principles, and my predictions from last year came true. In the past month, you, Snipe, and Jonezee straight up misrepresented wash-trade point-farming as actual trade volume on social media. Now that’s what I call “wrong focus”. You hurt the GMX brand by making it look like a scam to anyone literate enough to compare OI with the advertised volume. Or anyone that compares your tweets to the full volume activity change during gmx-solana’s first week (speaking of 90% drops…) So don’t tell me my focus is wrong - my focus is on protecting this protocol from people with compromised principles and deceitful judgement.

My problem is no one will listen. Maybe they will at $9? We’ll see.

[Tano]

Show me concrete proof this had to do with MP points, and nothing to do with Arbitrum losing mindshare, extreme competition and so on. protip: You can’t.

Also you forgot to reference the price in ETH (which is what the token is paired with), and also starting from the wrong point, December isn’t when MPs got removed so you’re arguments are considered false imo.

Again, you are wrong, I want the price to go up, as a GMX holder and GMX contributor getting paid in GMX this is in my best benefit. I can thread-jack as much as I want as I am focused on building out the future of GMX. That said, I care more about volumes, fees and OI than the price.

So posting about a great launch on GMX Solana which incentives trading with the GT program is a bad focus? Cmon brother, it has direct impact on GMX buybacks and thus token price, what is bad about it? Everyone knew it was washtrading, nor did I ever deny it wasn’t.

Again you are referencing all updates to the GMX contracts as ponzinomics, multichain isn’t another ponzi tokenomic change as you’ve been mentioning in your post, nor are any of the other updates. But it is focused on building out the groundwork GMX started on, which will increase users, volume and fees and remove the connection we have with being an Arbitrum focused trading platform, but grow as the go-to place with massives amounts of liquidity being able to be used for trading.

Please, give more effort to your so said fixes, and come up with some proposals on how to change things to the better, and I might listen if you stop the constant attacks on people in the community who are not agreeing with you by countering you with facts.

[Snipermonke01]

@Btcfever

In the past month, you, Snipe, and Jonezee straight up misrepresented wash-trade point-farming as actual trade volume on social media.

I did no such thing. I posted about the initial success and was asked if this was likely farming to GT to which I said yes very probably.

There is no need to call me (or anyone else out) due to insecurities in your own argument.

[ReverseTango]

Hi Btcfever and everyone in the community,

I thought I’d share some thoughts regarding the topic brought up. I think it’s good for Btcfever to speak his mind on a topic he cares about. I personally would like to see the token price shoot up as well, and I am in the camp that basically needs a 10x just to get back to my entry in 2022, if measured against BTC—I don’t know where that lands me in the hierarchy of GMX holders, but I am down several BTC on this, and I’m not enjoying this seemingly never-ending puke either.

That said, I’m not sure I can get fully behind the reasoning that Btcfever gives for the GMX price action. I think there are quite a few reasons beyond the seemingly universal ‘you’ve changed the tokenomics and now look at it’ narrative. I actually think it’s one of the lesser problems, or a non-issue altogether; it just happened to coincide with many small bumps on the way, which landed us here at $12 at the end of the day.

We were the darlings of a portion of the bear market when the real yield narrative and Arbitrum were the hot ones on the scene, and we frankly don’t know how much of it was due to the tokenomics at the time, but if you step back and look at the late 2022/early 2023 ecosystems, then you see Arbitrum projects were all the rage, and many were doing multiples their token regardless of their tokenomics.

This also coincided with peak interest in ETH itself with the switch to PoS in the same period, and to add to that, Arbitrum announced the airdrop. We simply had numerous things going for us at the time—

• real yield is the general narrative

• L2s are the talk of town, and we happen to be built on top of one

• ETH as the underlying token is performing extremely well due to the anticipated PoS switch

• Arbitrum announces airdrop at the exact same time

These are just a couple points off the top of my head about what the wider picture was as we went from $40 to $90+ in a couple months. We are referring to tokenomics of these and the times after as if it was the end of be all of the GMX price action, but we clearly had very favourable conditions going for us as well as the whole of ETH/L2 ecosystem.

Fast forward to late 2023 and early 2024, and circumstances have changed; narrative has shifted to AI, Solana ecosystem, and meme mania starts. KOLs start dumping us, and we have some big names, the likes of Arthur Hayes, pretty much publicly exit and go chase another thing. Hype becomes a huge narrative and directly takes a significant portion of our OI, and ETH is in turmoil whilst ARB is not even in the convo anymore. It’s a slow grind down ever after.

How exactly we quantify what impact changes to our tokenomics had here, I can’t really tell you, but if you take a step back and see how times changed, I don’t think the changes you are blaming were a major contributor—sure, you can pull out a graph and show where we removed MPs and say ‘see, this is it,’ but I think you also need to look at the bigger picture, which I tried to outline here in context.

If we want our token price to go higher—and obviously who doesn’t, and again saying this as someone who needs a 10x just to get to break even—it has to come from having a great product, which the devs, to my understanding, are 100% on. Weak areas have been identified, and changes are coming as well as major ecosystem expansions with multichain, which must’ve been one hell of a project to code up whilst the community is in turmoil about token price.

Again, Btcfever, this is not to bash your critique, and I appreciate you taking your time to come to Governance to gauge interest as opposed to just venting on one of the telegram groups, but I think a sober look at the bigger picture of where we were when we were riding high and what happened after is what you could be missing out on in your critique, which I think is very narrowly focused on a specific change in token distribution whilst ignoring pretty much everything else.

[brawlaphant]

This is an interesting read. At $11.11 per GMX, I’m no longer in the Telegram price chat—but I’ll share what I’ve learned as an investor: short ascent, long descent regardless of fundamentals per token. I got lucky with XVIX here and there—there was no reason for that to have died based on its tokenomics. It was deeply gamified around ETH. I’m not a sophisticated player, lol—but I pay attention.

As a holder, I’m expecting “administration of PoL”—specifically the transition from Uniswap to gm-GMX/USDC, GLV, and market making on CEXes—to create a speculative dynamic for both the GMX token and the platform. Multichain is a gas question—and making gasless txs more concrete could allow GMX to capture value from any new chain narrative. That’s a real strategic opportunity.

The fact is, GMX operates in a real trading environment, and attention matters. Just recently, Bankless and Chopping Block made snide comments about GMX’s UX compared to Hyperliquid. I found that distasteful—not just because I hold GMX, but because shitting on apps is common in crypto, and yeah, even we’ve done it. This is where shitposts shine, I guess? lol.

Price can go as low as it goes, but a narrative to buy GMX is missing. There’s no way to spin this without getting some heat—we could either boast decentralization or lean into centralizing certain points. I don’t have the answer, but I do know an aggressive push will always be met with controversy.

Our perp DEX is a simple swap-style interface, which may not be preferred when traders are chasing asymmetric risk-reward around new launches. That’s not a flaw—it’s a tradeoff.

All that said, the contributors are responsible, thorough, and neutral—and I’m thankful for that. I’m still here, watching, hoping for smart plays that take this protocol forward—not just functionally, but narratively.

[russiamanbit]

I am 100% confident the proce of gmx have NOTHING to do with MP cancelling thing. I am not happy btw with this decision either.. I was voted against it. But our tokenomic indeed become simplier and I always liked this part of that proposal.
So get back to my statement on “NOTHING to do …” - recently I just checked all my investments in crypto and found that about 90% of it (I speak about 10-15 tokens) have nearly IDENTICAL price dynamic in last 8-10 months.. they all down 70-90%.. !
So none of them have camcelled MP mechanics . Its just a MARKET. Thats it. It have nothing to do with your project tokenomics and fudamentals.
I totally appreciate @FallingSands message with his “Crypto continues to be an attention economy, fundamentals be damned.” statement. 100% agree.
We need to bring somehow more attention.
And what I can see - GMX team worrking in this direction.

Again, if you propose some clever ideas how to bring back interesting points-oriented mechanics that would be awesome either.. lets discuss it . Just do it in more constructive way.. dont mix things up in complex soup of wrong assumptions.. this defocus energy of readers and attention.
If you have interesting points-related ideas -just make separate thread and try to push it.
If community like it - see no reason it should be ignored by devs.

[Alik1975]

Meaningless post. Besides being out of GMX scope makes no sence.