Value accrual to GMX stakers: “earning 27% of fees” (GMX docs).
Implementation detail: on V2 the 27% of fees is used to reacquire GMX and then distributed to stakers; on V1 it was 30%. On V2, 10% of fees goes to the treasury and 63% goes to GM liquidity providers.
Recent fee run-rate (DefiLlama): Fees 30d ~ $2.6M and “Holders revenue 30d” ~ $702k (consistent with ~27%).
Treasury ~ $35M: explicitly referenced in a governance discussion.
Benchmark GNS/Gains: BB&D was introduced to reward stakers with ~55% of revenue and today that allocation is used for buyback & burn.
[PROPOSAL] GMX: “Buyback & Burn Accelerator” (6-month pilot) + Partial burn of the staker fee bucket
TL;DR
Without changing the total allocation to stakers (27% on V2 / 30% on V1), we propose to burn a portion of the GMX already reacquired with fees, instead of distributing 100% of it.
Launch a pilot using up to $3.5M from the treasury for a DCA buyback & burn over 180 days (with guardrails).
Goal: reduce selling pressure, create a measurable scarcity narrative, and improve competitiveness versus “burn-heavy” token models (e.g., GNS).
1) Problem
Over recent months, the GMX token has experienced a sharp decline in price/valuation even though the protocol continues to generate fees. This risks creating a vicious cycle:
perception of “a token that pays yield but keeps dropping” →
stakers selling rewards (reacquired GMX) →
constant pressure on the order book / AMM →
negative narrative and weaker marginal demand.
GMX already routes value to the token via buyback and distribution to stakers (27% of fees, documented).
The key issue is how that value is monetized: if most of it becomes “immediately sellable cashflow,” the tokenomics can turn into persistent sell pressure.
2) Current state (numbers)
Metric
Value
Market cap
~ $73.3M
Fees (30 days)
~ $2.6M
Value to “token holders/stakers” (30d)
~ $702k
Stakers allocation on V2
27% fees via buyback→distribution
Treasury
~ $35M
3) Benchmark: why the market “understands” GNS
Gains has pushed an extremely simple narrative: a large share of revenue goes into buyback & burn (documented as ~55% across official descriptions).
This doesn’t guarantee price appreciation, but it helps: it creates an easy-to-read story (“increasing scarcity”) and reduces net supply over time.
4) Proposal (two levers)
Lever A — Partial burn of the buyback already allocated to stakers (without touching the LP share)
In practice: we are not removing value from the token; we’re converting part of “immediately sellable cashflow” into irreversible scarcity, while keeping a meaningful reward for stakers.
Note: 18% + 9% = 27%, so the overall staker bucket does not change on V2; only the final destination changes.
For V1 (if still relevant): same logic applied to the 30% bucket (e.g., 20% distribution + 10% burn).
Estimated impact (order of magnitude, using 30d data):
If “holders revenue 30d” is ~ $702k, and we burn ~1/3, monthly burn is ~ $234k.
With GMX at ~ $7.06, that’s ~ 33k GMX/month ≈ ~398k GMX/year (price-dependent).
First of all, please follow the correct rules for posting a proposal, your proposal will be denied nonetheless.
I am also wondering why you’re taking GNS as an example as it definitely shows it didn’t help burning tokens either and just create virtual exit liquidity for the whales and founders of the project.
Their token dropped 30% in the span of 3 months, WITH INCREASING BURNS, compared to months before.
so not in a favor of burning tokens, even if you would’ve followed the correct proposal guidelines.
what is the sense to give token to stakers that after 2 second sell all the tokens? if we implent burning we can give a sense to this token. and treasury? what is the sense to have a treasury of 35 milion dollars with the market cap of token of 70 milions? with only 2-3 milion dollars burning we can give a sense to deflactive token and rare!
You’re right, if there’s a token that burns and that goes up in straight line we should do that, but that’s not the case.
Another example besides the GNS post I made above.
UNI implemented burn, at the end of December, burning 100M UNI instantly after the proposal executed, creating a small pump for all founders, tokenholders which were underwater to exit.
After that their fees get used to buyback UNI and burn UNI token, checking since then price has gone down only in a straight line, and the initial pump lasted less then a few days.
I in general think, burning is waste of time for devs to again change of tokenomics, and will not improve the GMX price, the only thing that will improve the GMX price is improving fee generation and volume on the platform, nothing more.
And that’s the same why UNI has been going down, cause they’re losing marketshare as well compared to other AMMs
There are community members who do not speak English, you know. They too should feel welcome to share their opinion on proposals. A translation tool is only one or two clicks away nowadays. Let’s reserve the term disrespect for messages that are actually disrespectful.
lolll!! reduce fee for GMX HOLDERS?? so the price of the token every day continue to go in the HELL …and the proposal is REDUCE THE FEET for holders of GMX?? is the team crazy??? do you want a DEAD TOKEN???
He means reduce the platform fees for GMX holders. As in the fees you pay to trade. GMX holders would get a discount when using the protocol, incentivizing traders to hold GMX.
We shouldn’t use stable coins bc that takes away liquidity from our stable coin pools which we kinda need lol. Also not too concerned but USDC is tied to gov risk and GMX could one day go from grey area to the cross airs of the GOV and they could pause/ freeze all usdc. I know not too big of a risk, but still there.
Yes, but ETH yield is something many people would value so it’s a bigger reason to buy GMX for the privilege. While we’re at multiplier points were good too to incentivize long term holding. The easiest would be actually getting back to the original implementation which was great.
I don’t think lack of burning or auto-buy pressure is a problem, as long as supply is fixed. Burning may also go out of fashion and GMX would have to change again
