Hard to argue with this prioritization list other than not knowing what synthetic tokens are for gmx dex. The PvP AMM was mentioned in X4 article. Idk which is best. Got to trust X. If the second task is less difficult I can see a momentum structured in this list.
Was very excited about X4, would developing it take longer than 3 months?
Excited to see this amazing working platform continue to grow and develop.
Similarly would like to understand what the relative timelines are for these.
Is this structured so that each successive step gets easier? Example here might be that we create this synthetic token infrastructure, and by doing it first we’ve actually put in place some building blocks that make X4 easier to build. The base case would be that none would build off each other, but if we were able to structure it differently we could reduce to total time to market.
Another thing to consider is the potential impact each of these makes. Would synthetic tokens be a bigger draw for the protocol vs X4? Or are we potentially putting synthetic tokens first because we will spend less time on that side of the protocol once we begin working on X4 (a smart move if true).
our reasoning for proposing to work on synthetics before X4 is that we’d like to gain more market share in the perps market and to offer a great user experience to traders before we try taking on spot swaps with X4
in terms of time taken, both pvp amm and X4 would likely take around 3 months each to launch, just by my rough estimate
we believe synthetic tokens to potentially have less challenges to gain adoption, the challenge with X4 is that we need to convince protocols to use it, so we need to build it then we need multiple good projects to build on top of it, so the time to adoption would be longer even if both take around the same time to launch
from our preliminary discussions, feedback from other protocols on X4 have been mostly positive so we do see a path forward with it, just that it will take a longer time to see results
Solid prioritization. Hard to prioritize X4 vs synthetics imo. Since visibility of GMX is generally high rn it might be good to work on synths before X4 due to adoption advantages as you mentioned. Something to consider as well imo is fee structuring, as discussed in another topic, to increase the perp market share / the competitiveness in the perp sector
Yeah this makes sense. If I understand correctly, tactically we’d be working on synthetics while we’re speaking with other protocols (and even now) such that when we get to developing and releasing X4 then protocols will be onboard and adoption would be easier
It would take about a month or so to launch on a new chain, the contract deployment should not take too long, but based on our past experience the challenge is dealing with chain specific issues like setting up GMX liquidity if needed and also dealing with keeper gas issues, also adds overhead in terms of monitoring contracts, etc.
I think those are valid points, I believe there needs to be a balance between launching on new chains and improving the core product. If we put too much focus / spend most of our time on launching on new chains while competitors improve their product, there is also a risk of being left behind.
For the specific chain to launch on, ZkSync isn’t on mainnet yet. For Optimism, possibly we would miss out on the initial airdrop because we aren’t Optimism native. It is uncertain how much momentum there would be, but if they are continuing the airdrop for the long term and gain traction then in my view there would still be time to launch on it and for that reason I think we should prioritize improving the user experience and product for users.
in my book, being early on the first zk-rollup that gets traction, could be prioritised, when thinking about new chains. if it looks like to be zksync, we should be there.
if we have a leading zk-rollup, and a leading optimistic rollup (arbitrum), I think this combo is powerful, gmx narrative wise (best L2 dex).