hi @zeroflaw, thank you for the thoughts on this
So how can you effectively deploy the strategic fee reserve?
When it runs out are we back to $260 trade fees for everyone
you are right that this change will not guarantee that all fees will be subsidized in times of volatility, if the subsidy pool runs out then fees will not be subsidized
a possible logic could be to reduce the network fee discount as the subsidy pool decreases in size, so that there will continue to be some discount
Should Deposit, Withdrawal, Setting Funding-Fees, Claims be exempt from the strategic fee reserve levy?
for this proposal, the above actions would not have a fee discount, it may be possible that someone needs to withdraw from GM to get collateral for a position, but i believe this should be rare
I go out of my way to place trades during times of low network fees. To save on costs. If I deemed a trade so important during a higher network fee, I would pay the fee. If I can wait I will wait.
Fee smoothing by charging 95% of transactions more, so a lucky few can have reduced fees is not the solution.
I get it not being able to close a trade sucks, by I’ve used hyperliquid to hedge this situation before. Getting liquidated on GMX because you can’t add more capital… also sucks
in my view, we should try to balance the needs of all users as much as possible, with the aim to make the trading experience good for majority of users
there are a few considerations for this case:
- user experience should be as simple as possible, so it would be preferable for a user to not have to go out of their way to place trades during times of lower network fees, or have to use another platform to hedge their position, since this also requires additional capital
- it would be preferable to not have an increase in the network fee in times or regular operation
- it would be preferable to not have to pay very high fees during times of volatility
the aim of this proposal is to continue to find a balance between these needs
If this is to be implemented I would really hope there is a way to out-opt. I just see it as something that will be abused. What stops someone from placing lots of small, unimportant trades during the congested time? Is it one per-trader? Or do we bank our own fees on the platform? Trade size isn’t that useful because the volume could be hedged elsewhere just to attack GMX resources.
As for abuse, why does anyone abuse anything? because they can. If a process is open for abuse, it will be abused. If it can be used for an unfair advantage, someone will find it and use it.
the subsidy would be applied by reducing the keeper cost that is charged to users, this is a global variable so it can’t be configured per user
i agree that the main reason for abuse is if someone is able to gain some benefit from it
so the values of the subsidies should be configured such that e.g. the cost of draining the subsidy pool by creating a lot of small orders during times of volatility is still high for the user attempting to do this
i wonder if we can find some middle ground here, because an L3 does come with trade offs as well, e.g. being less composable with other applications on Arbitrum / Avalanche, there may be additional complexities and the need for additional liquidity provider capital for bridging in and out, the other tasks we currently have in progress, e.g. multichain, cross-margin would take up dev resources for the next 6 months or more, it would be quite a while before we have the capacity to work on a solution such as an L3
so if we can find a solution that doesn’t work perfectly in the meantime but leads to a better experience overall for majority of users (in terms of simplifying using GMX, and not having to change behaviours too much due to network fees) i feel it is worth trying to fully evaluate the benefits / drawbacks / effectiveness, and the change is not too difficult to reverse, so we can still revert to not having subsidies if this solution is found to not be effective
it could also be considered that with subsidies this would encourage more trades during times of volatility, which could lead to the subsidy pool being used at a faster rate than expected, the exact change in demand would be difficult to predict, and is something we may only fully know after trying it
perhaps we can also agree on restricting some parameters, e.g. only transactions of 0.00007 ETH (~ 0.25 USD) 0.001 ETH (~3-4 USD) will see an increase in cost to 0.00014 ETH (~ 0.5 USD) 0.002 ETH (~6-8 USD), and beyond 0.002 ETH subsidies would start applying. this restriction would help prevent regular users from being affected too much by this proposal.
these are just my thoughts, and it would still be the community to decide on whether this proposal should be trialed