Reduce APR of Multiplier Points

GMX Multiplier Points

Following the Snapshot vote result for 200% cap on MP, on 1st Feb 2024, the max Boost on GMX earn rate has been capped on 200%

The snapshot voting was done last year [GMX Proposal: Updating Multiple Point System

The gov proposal and discussion can be found here:- GMX Multiplier Points - Proposals - GMX

To continue the discussion above by CoinFlipCanada:-
MPs have been an integral part of the GMX bootstrap process, rewarding loyal long-term staking in the protocol with increased power in governance and fee earning. Over the last 2 years, as a protocol, GMX has continued to evolve the economic aspects and tokenomics of the protocol with emissions for esGMX, fee splits between GMX-GLP staking, and the introduction of referral/trader incentives.

During this time, MPs have continued to emit at a rate of 100% APR for GMX (and esGMX) staking and have been burned pro-rata to the amount of GMX unstaked from the platform.

MPs act as an incentive for long-term staking but also have the effect of diminishing the governance power and fee reward share of new stakers that have yet to accumulate MPs. It is essential to balance these incentives in a way that reflects the contribution of long-term stakers in guiding the protocol to this stage while ensuring that the protocol welcomes new voices and token holders into the flywheel of the GMX ecosystem.

Now that GMX is mature, perhaps it is time to adjust the APR of the growth of MP.

Benefits of reducing APR of MP

  1. Better BASE yields, and
  2. Devs can work on new activities for MP

1) Improvement of Base Yield APR
Overall inflation of MP and staked tokens would decrease, which in turn would slow down the reduction in base yield (assuming base yield remains constant).

Reducing emissions of MP Will improve base yield APR% and be more attractive for new investors to buy and stake GMX.
This is important as the community has feedback that the low base yield APR is not attractive.
Concurrently with efforts by contributors to increase number of tradable assets on V2, the base yield will be more attractive and attract more long term investors.

2) Addition of Activities to earn MPs in the future after APR rate is reduced

  • Trading
  • Providing Liquidity
  • Traders Referrals / Front End Integrations
  • Maybe contributors of different sorts, like dune dashboard, telegram bots.
    This will encourage referrals or builders with MPs that can buy GMX tokens with instantly good yields.

Currently APR at 100%

  1. Proposal One to reduce to 75% APR
  2. Proposal Two to reduce to 50% APR
  3. Proposal Three to stick to current 100% APR.

Proposals – MPs @ 75%, 50% or 100% APR

Adjust APR for accrual of MPs from 100% to 75%, 50% or 100%, lowering the dilution of governance power and protocol fee participation that would result from future MP distribution.
The community can vote on the specific percentage in the three votes above.

This proposal would not result in any change to the MPs already accrued before the proposal’s passing. This proposal can be permanent, or until governance can make longer-term modifications to the MP program.

Next Steps
The above are simply ideas so that as a community we can evaluate if updating the MP system makes sense, and then identify proposals that can be voted on, the specific proposals above are provided as examples.


I agree that this is a crucial issue, which deserves a solution that carefully balances the interests of the various protocol stakeholders and fits GMX’s long-term vision.

Here are my initial thoughts:

  • MPs earn around 50% of all fee distributions. This is quite high.

  • MPs inflating forever would be a clearly negative dynamic.

  • the 200% Cap on MP’s earning power has set an important hard limit on the monopolization of fee distributions by long-term holders

  • However, it hasn’t yet addressed MP inflation and its growing share of protocol fee distributions

  • A cap of 50% APR on MP growth would meaningfully change this rate of inflation for the better

  • However, that cap would also mean new GMX holders accrue MPs at half the rate that old holders did. So it doesn’t yet address how to make staking GMX more attractive for new entrants.

Furthermore, I like the idea of building out the Multiplier Points to a comprehensive points system that rewards all user activities that benefit the protocol. This fits GMX’s democratic, community-centric ethos.

But I’m, for now, struggling to imagine how this can be done while simultaneously containing MP inflation.

Three questions I have:

  • What % of all issued MPs has been burnt due to holders unstaking their GMX/esGMX? This is a crucial thing to know, in order to weigh how bad the MP inflation issue actually is!

  • How would a decaying mechanism to reduce the APR of MPs from 100% to 50% over a say 1 or 2 years time frame affect this proposal?

  • How would limiting new daily MP distribution to the amount of MPs burned that day affect the situation?


This is the biggest issue in the protocol that needs immediate changing.

Competitors like Jupiter and hyperliquid (pre market )are trading 20x and 10x our fdv.

Gmx is leading in many stats but the token has faded to irrelevance since new entrants need to stake for 2 years just to receive non dilutive apr, there no spot volume, this is why the coin is dead.

Many of the proposed ideas of changing the emission rates and designing new use cases for mps are interesting although I have yet to see one that benefits both old and new stakers equally.

I am suggesting one that will immediately benefit both new entrants and old.

My proposal is to completely remove the mp system. Those at around the 123% mp avg or less(per saulius’ dashboard) will either have no change to yield or benefit.

Then for holders over 123% mp, a one time esgmx airdrop (amount undetermined) , will be granted. Older stakers are incentivized to vest and not sell gmx in order to realize their new esgmx gains



it was proposed before to allow new stakers to receive the max boost by agreeing to lock their tokens for 2 years. Alternatively lock the tokens for less time for whatever boost percentage desired. This at least would provide a way for those committed to the project longterm to benefit from day 1.

As for suggestions to eliminate the mp system altogether - not sure this would get a majority vote…


I think whales that voted for 200% boost are regretting their decision now lol. This coin has gone from top 50 to 160 in a bull market lol

I propose we propose a 100% MP max and remove MP governance.

Tough ask, I understand but this will drive spot volume for gmx on chain.

Base apr drives swing trades. Proof in the volatility.

why not think about cost a litte per to buy back will Increase profits in the long time.

Very rational suggestion, I will vote for this. Please raise it.

I strongly support this proposal and it is long delayed. We promised this one to put to vote at the time when we were also setting up a max boost. So it is important we do this so it doesn’t feel like we tricked the folks who vote on the cap thinking this will vote will come in future.

Yes MP system has been a great innovation and has been wildly successful and it did serve its purpose in bootstrapping and rewarding long term support from investors. Saying that the inflation caused by MP has been too great and we should have reduced its supply a long time ago. MP inflation ideally should go hand in hand with the growth of the fees in the protocol. It cannot expand faster than the Fee growth otherwise we are simply diluting the yield and impacting base APR which makes the asset not attractive.

Imo there has to be a balance between how liquid and attractive an asset in terms of its price, base yield as well as benefiting long term staking and loyalty. The scales can’t be tipped too far on one side and ignoring other side.

So I say this is a necessary immediate step we need to take to see what DAO thinks in reducing MP dilution by reducing MP APR. At the same time also start evaluating how we want to evolve MP system for future where it is much more effective and fits the new place where we are in our growth journey as protocol.


Hey Jonezee. Anybody looking at getting stats to answer your three questions? I think this would be interesting information to know.

@Saulius I know you’ve done a lot of analysis around the relevant data in the past. If you’re able to, would you mind sharing your take on the questions to these answers?

1 Like

I am strongly opposed to reducing the APR of Multiplier Points.

This change would strictly benefit those that have accumulated lot of MPs as it would ensure that their advantage is kept longer. Someone that holds 200% boost will benefit more from it, as the dilution through MPs would get essentially cut in half. New entrants would have to stake GMX for 4 years only to catch up to yield that someone already has achieved. Do you think this will make it attractive for anyone to buy GMX and stake it?

Strictly speaking if the goal is to make GMX more attractive for new entrants it will just have the opposite effect.

The MPs are great mechanism for incentivising long-term holders but I do believe we have missed the opportunity on last snapshot. Setting the limit max to 100% Boost would have been the correct choice. But alas, we vote with tokens and it was clearly in self-interest of majority.

Please reconsider the effects these changes would bring. I do agree that changes might be necessary for adjusting MPs, but this one is not correct.


Agree with the above. I think slowing the MP % actually makes it less attractive for new buyers as it will take longer to catch up with older holders.


Bumping this because it’s the only viable solution so far for such a complicated situation.

1 Like

MP inflation is reducing base yields and the attractiveness of GMX staking to new participants.

While the 200% MP cap was a first step in addressing this important issue, I believe that this new proposal is misguided and does nothing to increase the attractiveness of GMX staking to new entrants.

  • It does not reduce the current proportion of MPs
  • It does not enhance the ability for new entrants to increase their staking APY.
  • The proposal claims to improve base yields, but would only slow the inevitable shift in distributions from base yield to MPs.

Furthermore, it is my belief that this proposal reduces the attractiveness of entering the GMX staking pool.

  • It requires new entrants to stake longer to reach max APR as did preexisting stakers, who will be unaffected by this proposal.
  • This will be broadly recognized as an unfair advantage to early stakers and again, offers no tangible economic incentive to enter the GMX staking pool as a new staker.

Of all the proposed ideas, tbudd23’s proposal to completely remove MPs is the most effective in bolstering base APRs, driving up GMX price, and has the best long-term outcomes for the protocol. This pains me to admit as a long term staker who has been earning MPs for years, but its important to recognize that the reduction in yield for long term stakers will be far less than many realize; the base yield will more than double. This will be a driving force to increase spot volumes and GMX price, further distributing value to holders.

When the base APR floats around the “risk free” ETH stake rate, GMX staking is perceived as not worth the risk. When GMX immediately and regularly returns multiples on the ETH stake rate, it becomes irresistible.

What tbudd23’s proposal does not address is the protection MPs were providing from mercenary capital that would enter the pool to earn above-average APRs after high performing weeks, then exit. My recommendation would be to simply add a 7-14 day cooldown after depositing GMX before you start earning distributions.

I believe the root motivation of this discussion is not actually about the wellbeing of potential new entrants, its about the dissatisfaction towards GMX price performance. More than doubling the base yield helps, but we can further increase this positive effect.

I would tie this discussion into the proposal about adding new GM pairs. Adding a GMX/USD GM pool would create another supply sink for GMX tokens, reducing the liquidity in the market, and will incentivize some participants to leave the staking pool to LP, all of which further increases base yield.

Increased base yield → Increased spot volume, volatility, and price → increased demand for GMX token derivatives → increased yield to GMX GM pool LPs → more GMX holders leaving the staking pool to LP → increased base yield.

And thus a flywheel is born.

MPs were a great bootstrapping tool, but now that GMX has matured, the steady revenue passed to stakers is more then enough to incentivize a deep staking pool and a distributed governance body. Removing MPs and creating a GMX GM pool would not only provide significant upward pressure on the valuation of GMX, it would unlock the optionality of long term stakers to remove their stake to participate in that GM pool, or simply use their highly valued GMX in other markets as they see fit.

As other have requested, I would greatly value some high-quality data analysis on some of the assertions I present here, specifically how much the base yield would increase with the removal of MPs. As far as I can discern, more than half of the revenue distribution is currently going to MPs, therefore the base APR would more then double. Please correct me if required.


I could not agree more. Simply reducing the MP APR is a disincentive to enter the staking pool.

At the end of the day, if we completely removed MPs, long term (200%) stakers would see a yield reduction of less than one third, and the resulting upward pressure on GMX price would more than offset any perceived loss.

I think this is a great idea. Do the simple thing and rip off the band-aid of MPs all at once, with some time barrier to discourage mercenary capital. Then (GMX) number go up.


I am quite strongly apposed to cutting MP APR. To reach maximum boost it would take a new entrant ~4 years while previously it took 2 years. This only stands to benefit existing stakers, and without some sort of caveat i think its an ill thought out move.


I agree with you and share your sentiment Snipe but only if we were growing at a better rate than the inflation we are introducing through MP points. At this point the challenge is base APR not even attractive for any new entrant to even think about entering GMX ecosystem forget them willing to be here for 2 or 4 years to get same advantage as someone who joined at the start of the system.

Maybe in future if we are again in hyper growth phase and the overall MP is not so much we can increase APR. To not decrease it now where it is quite obvious the impact of MP has dramatically reduced base APR where the amount of fees is in flat growth is to ignore reality. Let us not get idealism stop us seeing reality.

This makes it even more unattractive to enter and stake though. If there were something like an option to lock for max stake already in place, then yes 50% could make sense.

More generally, I could get on board with 50% APR is max boost was 100% and not 200%, but unfortunately greed has put things in a really difficult spot.