Omnibus Proposal from a Dedicated Member

Hi all,

I’ve been following GMX since Gambit/GMT, and love all that the team has accomplished. I think there is a lot of potential in GMX despite how much growth and development has already been covered. In short, the future looks bright. I’m not at all attached to these suggestions as I trust X, and part of that is the willingness to listen and engage. So please be vocal, be contributive, be critical if you have any thought/suggestions/etc.

These suggestions are focused on accomplishing a few things (in no particular order): 1) additional tooling for GLP to provide further functionality to attract deposits and help the protocol increase it’s capacity to handle volume, 2) increase revenue, 3) cultivate game-theoretic scenarios which sustainably reward long term holders, 4) propose a more efficient use of the Floor Price Fund (FPF), 5) validate long term value (LTV) of GMX

The following are summary but in-depth descriptions of the proposals (labeled as OBPx so people can easily reference). The following are ordered in what I believe to level of importance:

OMBP1: Develop additional GLP Functionality Regarding Revenue Rewards

  • OMBP1.1: Auto-compounding GLP
    Compounding revenue rewards for GLP can only be done manually at the present moment. This is a transaction heavy process, and I suspect it is partly responsible for the ETH-heavy bias of the GLP Basket (most straightforward thing to do is claim wETH rewards from “Total Rewards” Tab and Buy GLP with said wETH). I think it would be attractive to risk-averse investors and more institutional investors like DAOs/Treasuries etc to have a GLP account/funciton which simply compounded its rewards and accumulated more GLP; instead of seeing ETH/AVAX(soon) rewards distribute at a steady rate, your cost-effectively-diversified GLP is going up instead. an Auto-Compounding GLP would make GLP an attractive, capital-efficient asset.

  • OMBP1.2 Batch De-Risking I think it would be interesting if we let users also decide during the claiming of revenue rewards to give the option to purchase a balanced batch of the over-weighted assets, essentially allowing users to diversify their rewards at-the-point-of-claim and bolster the price resilience of GLP. Further decentralization of the fund-management of the GLP Basket would be achieved, and give another functionality to GLP attractive to institutional investors.

I’m not sure if this can be accomplished by simply updating existing functionality, or if this calls for something like a wrapped GLP (wGLP). The idea of a wGLP is attractive to me also though because other protocols can incorporate it, as opposed to single-use wrappers which are protocol specific. There are further functions the protocol can handle with wGLP I’ve been messing with but will leave for later.

OMBP2: Allow traders to delegate an amount of staked GMX to discount or entirely cover fees

This is pretty straight forward: on either a flat number basis with pre-determined discount tiers, or on a volume-ratio basis, allow users to delegate a portion of their staked GMX to cover their fees for perpetuals (maybe even swaps?). This will exert continuous buy pressure on GMX and is another long-term holding incentive.

OMBP3: Assuming Auto-Compounding GLP were possible

  • OMBP3.1: Deposit 80% of FPF (on Arbitrum only? Maybe some ratio split between Arb and Avalanche?) into GLP, auto-compound GLP; 20% of FPF into regular GLP, with Batch De-Risk claim function enabled every 30 days;

  • OMBP3.2: these can go to a GLP Basket reserve, and can be on-hand assets to provide additional liquidity in the event of bottle-necking, or in the event of more quick, gas-efficient rebalancing.

The above two I think are the most proposals I had in mind, and are the ones I think the community can find some general consensus around. The following are more degen/controversial, and I don’t feel particularly strong about them, but ultimately I think would create sustainable demand for GMX/GLP and are just fun to think about.

OMBP4: Alternative to FPF and protocol-enabled backing of GMX

The FPF was originally a boot-strapped reserve during the early days of GMX when it launched at $2; superior fundamentals were validated (and have continued to be validated), and GMX price appreciation has far outstripped the rate at which the FPF grows, even when the FPF began receiving GLP as deposits. Additionally, some users are unaware of the full functionality of esGMX - this is not necessarily a problem (time usually solves this) but certain users like mid-term investors are left with the “subscription I didn’t sign up for”. Perhaps these two problems present the opportunity for an interesting and dynamic solution

Off-Shore Mining
Give the options to users to select a 25% or 50% shorter vesting period at a 25% or 50% tax of their esGMX; esGMX which has been taxed due to expedited vesting will be held accumulated from Jan 01 FY to Dec 31 FY and withheld from circulation or “shored up”; on Jan 01 of the following Fiscal Year, the esGMX collected the year prior will be distributed to staked GMX as esGMX. The FPF is currently an inefficient use of capital and will not even reach a $2 backing of GMX within a meaningful timeframe. By constantly off-setting esGMX for a year, buy pressure from expedited vestning is mitigated in the long term, and allows longer term holders to mine the taxed-offset esGMX.

OMBP5: Further Gamify Multiplier Points with "Subscription function"

Multiplier Points are ingenious in that they have neat functionality, and endless potential for further functionality. To further encourage long-term holding, what if we allowed users to “Subscribe” their MPs within the first 30 days of their first GMX stake. “Subscribing” would note to the blockchain the total number of expected MPs you are to make within a year after within the Subscription timeframe. If by a year’s end, you have the expected number of MPs (meaning you did not unstake any GMX for the year), you can user your MPs to mint a MP Plaque NFT, which represents the number of MPs contained within it. This would burn the MPs of the person who minted them, and give them an NFT representation instead. The user can then sell this NFT to other users who want MPs because they intermittently unstaked and lost MPs to release their full amount of esGMX. This would double reward long term holders, bring further attention to the protocol, and provide a solution for mid-term traders who might want to vest the full amount of their esGMX.

This also creates a scenario which incentivizes long-term holding, through Subscription NFT mining scenario. Every year with a new subscription period, even a low stack of GMX can commit to multi-year holding with the expectation that they can mint a high-demand NFT.

GMX can host an in-house marketplace for the MP Plaque NFTs and generate fees on transactions.

OMBP6: Extend InsurAce Partnership Further

Both GLP and GMX earn fees. Perhaps InsurAce could accept these assets as deposits to offer premium or deductible rebates; additonally, they could also be used to help InsurAce extend coverage capacity for the GMX platform. This is something to be considered with other coverage/insurace protocols that decide to partner with GMX in the future.

OMBP7: Assuming wGLP: Allow new/upcoming protocols to bootstrap liquidity with wGLP

This is less a proposal and more a question: would it be possible for GMX to host a Copper Launch-eqsue function using wGLP? It could be a means to vent excess ETH/AVAX or stable weightages and help new projects accelerate their bootstrap.

Thoughts, suggestions, modifications, further considerations are appreciated!


Hi there!

Congrats for the outline proposals, hard work seems to have been put to think them through and there are very interesting proposals

OMBP1: Both proposals make a lot of sense IMO and I believe they could be beneficial for the protocol. Even in the 1.2 it could be done through opt-out (if you dont click the bucket that says dont do it, it is done by default)

OMBP2: I am not sure about this one. I am probably missing something but looks like it could already be covered with the incoming fee discounts for volume described in the last medium article. The fact that is discounted from their staked GMX I dont think it will have any effect on the buy pressure as if GMX collect fees in GMX, to distribute rewards it has to sell for ETH/AVAX, so unless I am missing something the net effect would be 0

OMBP3: Both proposals look good and make sense to grow the protocol owned liquidity organically, my only doubt is whether at least part of that liquidity is going to be trapped into the liquidity pools of Uniswap /TraderJoe and cannot be removed. Right now I consider very important to maintain a high level of liquidity so new investors can acquire GMX without high slippages, specially taking into account that there are not any CEX listings atm

OMBP4: I am in favor of these kind of measures that allows investors to shorten their vesting process in exchange for a part of their tokens. We discussed similar measures in the discord last week. I might give a bit worse terms to early vesters like only 10% for inmediate vesting, 20% for 3 months, 40% 6 months, 60% nine months or something similar. Also another idea instead of distributing all the tokens to stakers, I believe a part of that tokens could be burned and another used to pay the team marketing etc so sell pressure does not increase in the long term. Burning has the same effect than airdropping tokens (giving a bigger share of the pie to each investor) but is kind of more show off and that excites future investors

OMBP5: This is a great idea and very well thought. Generates a secondary market for MPs and allows investors to gain liquidity without the need to dump GMX. It has some risks like few whales controlling lot of MP supply and thus a bigger share of the fees, but that shouldnt be too bad IMO

OMBP6: Agree 100% if it is feasible. Specially the extend coverage issue. Certain type of investors could be very well interested in this aspect

OMBP7: Not sure projects would want to raise funds this way due to the risks it could present, but yeah, if there is demand for it could be another interesting use case for GMX!

Great work!


Hi Fred *(or Cred :slight_smile: - EthereumLawyer here. Thanks for writing this up. Love the ideas, all of which are well-thought out and appear to support your goals 1-5 as stated. One suggestion I have is for the ones that find support in the community to be added to a longer term roadmap, maybe through 2023, and that the priorities are hashed out sooner than later which should help X and the team to plan ahead, and maybe consider resources which could be added to the team. Maybe a survey to determine ranking of these individual proposals (and others) could help with this. Especially in light of multi-chain expansion (which takes time) and potential referral programs and other contract and potential UI/UX updates, we should realize that despite hard-nosed dev work, these will take time to implement. Having said that, below are my thoughts on urgency of these features/proposals. (HIGH priority 2-4 months, MEDIUM 4-10 months, LOW 10 - 16 months)

OMBP1.1 auto-compound - HIGH priority - low hanging fruit, and requested more than any other feature IMO, (except referral program)
OMBP1.2 batch-de-risk - LOW priority - harder to implement - would this not incur higher tx costs than what is currently done to balance GLP? Agree this would be a nice to have and further reduce maintenance, but perhaps there is other ways to achieve this (dynamic fee balancing)?

OMBP2: Brilliant idea- MEDIUM priority- although complicating UX by adding additional pools - it is already quite challenging to understand vesting and my fear is that adding pools would cause further confusion with the current way the UI is set up to handle it. Perhaps such discount programs would need to be described on the trade page with a small dashboard of “delegated for discount”. Maybe an explainer/flowchart - “how to put your GMX to work” on a FAQ page would be REALLY helpful.

OMB3.1 and 3.2 - X likely has the best sense of solving/automating the rebalancing, and once we are on a couple of chains, having more complex restrictions may curtail needed flexibility, so much so that I consider it a relatively LOW priority until X has sufficient data in a multi-chain environment.

OMBP4: also brilliant idea, but definitely non-trivial changes to existing contracts make this MEDIUM to LOW (Would these not require additional code audits?). There is (I think) a ton of consensus around that FPF basically is (in its current form) not the most efficient way to allocate the capital. Maybe if a referral system was implemented allocating a percentage of it for this use would be a lower hanging fruit, while building a treasury and protocol owned liquidity over time. Love the off-shore mining idea, and in particular (esGMX conversion/payout) to hodlers which would keep rewards going beyond the initially planned distribution without diluting circulating supply. Agree with @DeFiMan that terms should be a bit more aggressive.

OMBP5: Subscription and NFT plaque minting - MEDIUM- if this was implemented, GMX would be the most innovative DEX in crypto overnight, bar none. The MP functionality is already there. MAYBE this could be doable in the medium term and - if done right - it could be one of the sexiest NFT utility implementation in 2022.

OMBP6 I don’t claim to know enough about crypto insurance but the custody issue is potentially problematic, and their program is currently for GLP deposits/smart contract risk only. This may depend on their level of innovation but I doubt they’ll go for that. Crypto or not, would you trust your insurance company to hang on to your Lambo in exchange for insuring your Ferrari.

OMBP7 LOW - assuming wGLP, this could be an option, but we may start to compete outside of our niche and I don’t see the clear value proposition for new projects to use GMX, or for GMX itself. In the grand scheme of liquidity I don’t think it would make any meaningful dent re “venting excess ETH/AVAX” and if it did I would almost find it to be problematic.

Thanks for the initiative! Hopefully X & team can integrate some of these into a roadmap or comment on them and put them to a vote to the extent it makes sense. Cheers.

1 Like

I was very much wondering about OMBP6 which is why I posed it more as a question.

Still not sure about it, but I will say this: when last did a ferrari or lambo yield passive gains :wink:

but yeah , probably not as practical

1 Like

Thank you for your thoughts. Funnily enough with things like C*P.Finance recently and some others, there is beginning to be a more critical turn within the discourse towards protocol owned liquidity. Perhaps it is best to wait and see what the overall community ends up settling on as they contend with the issue

Thank you!

Edit: Also highly agree about the copper launch thingy; that was probably one of my more degen ideas, as the main thrust of it would be, for the duration that wGLP is used for funding, that is basically capital deposits GMX doesn’t have to pay for lmfao, so more probably marginal but more revenue to holders (in exchange for a new project to be able to then stake the wGLP and accelerate bootstrapping)

1 Like

Thank you very much for the detailed thoughts, took a bit of time to think about the proposals.

Some thoughts I had:

OMBP1.1: Auto-compounding GLP

Auto-compounding does make sense, I think it is a lower priority than referral links and adjusting the parameters like the funding rate and minimum price movement as those have an effect on APR, trader experience and liquidity protection.

Not saying it was suggested to be a higher priority, but just wanted to give context on when we might work on auto-compounding.

If the current tasks are cleared up I think we can relook at this task.

OMBP1.2 Batch De-Risking

I think it is an interesting idea to allow for the option to purchase over-weight assets, I’m not sure how beneficial it will be to users or how many would choose this option though.

OMBP2: Allow traders to delegate an amount of staked GMX to discount or entirely cover fees

I believe this is similar to the proposal in the roadmap unless I misunderstood, it makes sense, main thing we want to balance would be the reduction in fees received vs the buy pressure that GMX will have.

I think being able to stake GMX for a fee discount would be great.

OMBP3: Assuming Auto-Compounding GLP were possible

The protocol does hold around $800k worth of GLP, I think it would be alright to increase it, we just have not setup an automated flow for it, and might not be a very large priority in my view. I think finding ways to ensure asset balance aside from this might be more important, mainly because of the size of the FPF vs the size of the GLP pool, it will help a bit but not a lot.

OMBP4: Alternative to FPF and protocol-enabled backing of GMX

Allowing for more options on the vesting duration could be good, maybe the parameters need to be adjusted, cos users can already vest for a 25% shorter duration and pause vesting to keep the remaining 25%, so if those are the same there won’t be an incentive to send the esGMX to the floor price fund. I do like the idea of being able to recycle the distributed esGMX rewards in some way, very cool thought.

OMBP5: Further Gamify Multiplier Points with “Subscription function”

Interesting idea, it would be nice to give more utility to MPs

OMBP6: Extend InsurAce Partnership Further

Good idea, having a one click option to be covered would be great

OMBP7: Assuming wGLP: Allow new/upcoming protocols to bootstrap liquidity with wGLP

It should be possible, it would be great if we could have projects do that, main barrier I think would be getting AMMs like Uniswap / SushiSwap to check GLP for routing, otherwise it would be like the GMT-USDG pool we had last time, people couldn’t get the pair just by accessing the swap interface, they had to click the link from our Telegram group or our website, which adds some friction

Thank you for all the ideas and suggestions, will continue to consider them!


Thanks for taking the time to check these out X, always a privilege to hear your input on the community’s input.

I don’t have much else to add on, except for OMBP4, which I agree with; perhaps the general idea can be something along the lines of: if you discount the vesting period by 25%, you’re taxed 50%, and if you discount your vesting period 50%, you’re taxed 75% on your esGMX.

I’m just thinking of ways to help make GMX a leading project when people think of next-gen DeFi

Oh I did want to mention; the Batch De-Risking function is something that would be tailored to attract institutional-level crypto investors like DAOs/Treasuries/etc - it gives them one click “fund management” functionality to continuously diversify their treasury if they don’t want to particularly want to be biased towards the rewards-asset


Love to see the level of thinking being applied here.

OMBP1.1 Much needed iteration especially as we have more pure passive investors looking at GLP, it also is helpful from a tax standpoint in many countries including most of the G7 since ‘dividends’ are taxable as income but increasing capital value in a wrapped asset is treated as ‘capital gains’. Having the currently ETH/AVAX rewards autocompound into an appreciating asset would achieve both goals. We could even consider only giving esGMX rewards to those in the autocompounding vault, since it has the added benefit of helping to keep assets in the ecosystem.

OMBP1.2 Ithink this adds a level of complexity but doesn’t add much benefit to indiviudal users. In many ways implementing OMBP1.1 which effectively results in people having more GLP, allows all users to pull their ‘dividends’ in whatever currency they want when they want by selling some GLP.

OMBP2 the idea of staking GMX for lower fees is possible but should those discounts come from 100% of revenue (GLP + GMX) or is this a discount that GMX Dao is giving from its 30% revenue share. The DAO adding a utility (discount on fees) but reducing some of its own income makes sense. In terms of paying fees in GMX, i think that’s a bit more complicated since it effectively requires GLP to also hold GMX (which are received as payment) and currently I don’t think adding GMX to the GLP has been discussed.

OMB3: no real comment other than as a DAO we need to spend more time thinking of how we want the treasury assets in FPF to be utilized, as they are currently not contributing as productively as we might want.

OMB4: The question i’ve been asking myself even as i struggle with options of accelerated vesting or liquidity for esGMX, is am i spending time on a problem that isn’t actually a problem and doesn’t require a solution. The system is working as intended, the capital coming to GMX (token and GLP) has been longer term patient capital. In a world where wealth moves from the inpatient to the patient, maybe having our investor base only be the patient types is to our benefit.

OMB5: Multiplier points at least as originally conceived were a bootstrapping exercise rewarding patient capital and aren’t intended to continue infinitum, generally have a great reluctance to creating new assets (NFTs) that people feel need to be rewarded constantly with value. Even GBC is designed to ensure that while there are grants, long term they don’t effect the developing tokenomics of the project. As much as possible we should keep the long term economics of the project split between less not more pockets. In an ideal world in 2-3 years we have only GMX & GLPs and everything else has over time been rolled back in.

OMBP6: Great idea, insurance is such a key component especially for more conservative investors and those that have a fudiciary duty becuase they are deploying other people’s money. Any opportunity to increase our available coverage makes sense.

OMB7: Love this idea, allowing wGLP to be utilized as a fundraising asset (do we all remember what the ICO boom of 2017 did to ETH demand) makes lots of sense. Unless we want to get into the launching business, maybe we can tie up with launchpads like Avalaunch and others to help them see the utility for a project to use GLP as their treasury and thus a good ‘currency’ to utilize for fundraising.


Really well thought out suggestions Credegar, appreciate the read.

Re-read this omnibus thread today. And as a lot of good thought was put into it by our man Fredegar half a year ago, allow me to bring it back to the top today. Some of these interesting ideas are worth revisiting.

1 Like

Since this has been brought back up, it’s worth mentioning that other protocols can build on top of GMX.

Stabilize Finance has a wrapped GLP that works as an auto compounder that somewhat addressed OMBP 1.1