The GMX Flywheel – Reigniting Growth, Volume, and Price Momentum

Proposals
43

one of the things i learnt over the years is that big traders also look for safety in reputation.
if there are no mindshare, no talking abt a specific DEX perps, then the big traders are also not aware, or not comfortable in a “small name” branding.

getting retail traders in, getting pple aware of GMX, all these small traders are the key point of making big traders comfortable and aware of GMX

Coincidentally, i actually saw business review on why content creators actually bothered with such public-pleasing content, when the real paying money is with small number of large fans.
anyway, that content creator quoted ROLEX or Ferrari as an example, if you do not get the mass market to desire for that big brand, the big buyers are not interested.

44

GMX should do something. My personal opinion is as follows.

I believe a perpetuals exchange only needs to nail these five core points:

  1. 0 gas fees
  2. Competitive taker/maker fees
  3. Millisecond-level execution
  4. Minimal price impact
  5. Deep liquidity

Once these five trading experiences reache a satisfactory level (eg. the same as Hyperliquid), GMX will have the base to attract all kinds of users. And then GMX can further differentiate by emphasizing the unique advantages of a pure DEX model.

A typical characteristic of platforms with CEX-like properties (Binance, Hyperliquid, etc.) is the requirement to deposit funds. The purpose of deposits is to concentrate both capital and order matching on off-chain centralized servers, thereby achieving an excellent user experience — such as zero gas fees and instant fills.

However, the CEX/CEX-like off-chain centralized server inevitably introduces 【the moral hazard risks】:

  1. Funds sit on centralized servers → potential risk of misappropriation or rug-pull (FTX’s sudden collapse is the classic proof).
  2. Manipulation of price feeds or order-book data (instead of real market moves) to deliberately trigger liquidations of leveraged positions.
  3. Inability to close positions during extreme volatility — some platforms are suspected of intentionally “locking” users out to force liquidations.
  4. Withdrawal suspensions — this has happened repeatedly, even on the world’s most well-known exchanges.

In contrast, a pure on-chain DEX model has its unique, irreplaceable advantages:

  1. No centralized server → funds are either in your own wallet or locked in transparent, auditable, immutable on-chain smart contracts. Zero risk of misappropriation or rug-pull.
  2. No centralized server → all trades are executed by open-source contracts. Zero risk of data manipulation.
  3. No centralized server → all trade execution is governed by open-source contracts. No artificial interference preventing users from closing positions (technical outages are purely engineering issues to be solved, not moral hazards).
  4. No centralized server → the moment a trade settles, funds are automatically returned to your wallet. Zero risk of withdrawal freezes.

Conclusion:
If GMX can achieve the following two things, it will win users’ trust on both dimensions — user experience and security of funds & trading:

  1. The five core points above → deliver a cost and operational experience on par with CEXs.
  2. Fully leverage the differentiating strengths of a pure DEX: open-source contracts, complete user custody of funds, and fully transparent on-chain data. Maximize blockchain’s tamper-proof and publicly auditable nature to establish decentralization merit compared with CEX/CEX-like platforms.

Finally, some will argue: “Pure DEXs have to write everything on-chain, so 0 gas and millisecond execution are impossible,” or “they are vulnerable to certain attacks,” etc. My response is simple: users don’t care about excuses. They only care about results.
You either start from the user’s needs, solve the problems, and attract users — or you start from your own limitations, fail to meet user demands, and watch users leave. There is no third option.

I’d like to add a few more personal thoughts about GMX.

The reason the previous post emphasized the advantages of a pure DEX over CEX and CEX-like platforms — namely the extremely low moral hazard — is that I feel GMX’s own positioning has become somewhat blurred lately.

The recent multi-chain expansion adopted an ARB-bridging model that introduced a deposit/withdrawal mechanism. Yet “deposit” is the single most prominent centralized feature of CEX and CEX-like platforms, and it is precisely the entry point that opens the door to the moral hazards typical of CEX and CEX-like platforms.

If GMX truly intends to use decentralized fund-and-trading security as the core differentiating feature that sets a pure DEX apart from CEX/CEX-like models, then it should not introduce a ‘deposit’ function that directly undermines that decentralization advantage.
If the platform fails to clearly define its unique competitive edge, gmx will maybe meet both problems:

  1. neither delivering the operational smoothness and cost experience of CEX/CEX-like platforms,
  2. nor retaining the low moral hazard of a pure DEX.

In other words, it would combine the biggest drawbacks of both DEX and CEX, significantly weakening its own competitiveness and giving the impression that the decision-making team is unclear about the fundamental question ‘What exactly is GMX’s positioning?’ — a strategic ambiguity that can seriously jeopardize the product’s long-term future.

If GMX is determined to stick to the pure-DEX route, it should clearly and consistently maximize the advantages of the DEX model (zero centralized moral hazard), firmly reject any centralized elements, and then push user experience and fee competitiveness to the same level as CEX/CEX-like platforms through every possible means. Only in this way can it simultaneously satisfy the needs of both CEX-oriented and DEX-oriented users while retaining the unique security advantage of a pure DEX.

If, on the other hand, the team believes that introducing some centralized components is acceptable (or have to do so in the future), then the optimal approach would be to follow Hyperliquid’s example: develop in parallel a full CEX-like off-chain + on-chain product (given the existing partnership with Arbitrum, building an Arbitrum Orbit chain would be the natural choice), while continuing to maintain and improve the current pure-DEX version. This way both CEX and DEX user segments are fully served and all their merits are kept for both DEX and CEX-like platforms.

There is absolutely no intention to slander or criticize the GMX decision-making team. These are purely personal thoughts and reflections shared in the hope that GMX will keep getting better and better.

4 Likes
45

Appreciate the thought you’ve put into this, Michael.

I think a key underlying issue is that the market and public have shown that, in the current crypto era, they do not significantly value the pure-DEX model with minimal centralized moral hazard.

Instead, the market has signaled that introducing centralized components is fine; even preferable, if it enables zero gas fees and faster throughput and execution. As a result, there are now suddenly 15-20 Perp DEXes competing in that crowded segment.

In terms of positioning: GMX is the only leading Perp trading platform fully built on public, decentralized blockchains that offers deep liquid markets. And with all the UX refinements of the last year, I’d say we’re currently scoring a 3.5 out of 5 on your list of essential core points.

5 Likes
46

your comment is very impressiive and work

48

Yes, everyone has seen the fact that “the vast majority of people don’t care about the pure DEX model.” What most traders care about most is “achieving the ultimate user experience and cost experience.” This is the fundamental reason why trading platforms using the HYPE-like on-chain + off-chain model are becoming increasingly popular—they meet the core needs of the vast majority of traders worldwide.

Based on this, I personally believe that

【GMX should consider adding an on-chain + off-chain product line to meet the needs of the vast majority of traders globally】.

The essence of gaining market recognition is that “where users choose, that’s where the product direction should be,” especially when that direction represents the choice of the vast majority of users worldwide. Ignoring this trend determined by user behavior could lead to difficulties. For example, Nokia used to be the brand with the most mobile phone users in the world, when phones still had mechanical buttons. Later, touchscreen phones appeared, allowing for larger screens and a much better visual experience than mechanical button phones, gradually becoming the mainstream choice for global users. However, Nokia persisted with its mechanical button product style and was even unwilling to develop touchscreen phones simultaneously. Ultimately, after several years, Nokia almost completely lost its users, and its market share fell entirely into the hands of its competitors.

Given the long-standing partnership between GMX and ARB, the on-chain + off-chain model can be implemented using ARB orbit. In fact, there are already exchanges based on ARB orbit – edgeX is an example of an on-chain + off-chain exchange based on ARB orbit. GMX should seriously consider adopting a similar approach to create an on-chain + off-chain product line to ensure it can meet the needs of the world’s mainstream user base. If it doesn’t keep up with industry trends and consider the future of its products for the absolute mainstream user group, it may face a situation similar to Nokia’s.

Currently, DEX products will always have a small user demand (only a small one), mainly from those who are always worried about the moral hazard of centralized exchanges (as I mentioned in my previous post). They are willing to sacrifice some user experience for greater security. This product line, with “security” as its main value proposition, can continue to be maintained and optimized (as long as its revenue covers its expenses).

Conclusion:

(1) The ultimate goal of all products is to acquire users, especially mainstream users. Since the mainstream global user base has chosen the on-chain + off-chain model, GMX should bravely accept this objective fact and build the product line that users need.

(2) The main problem with the on-chain + off-chain model is the introduction of a centralized off-chain component, which inevitably introduces the moral hazard associated with centralization. Therefore, how to significantly reduce or even eliminate users’ concerns about moral hazard in the on-chain + off-chain model can be considered a unique core competitive advantage for the platform. For example, maximizing the transparency of various transactions and data, regularly disclosing financial data on-chain, and allowing withdrawals of deposited funds without platform review (e.g., funds can be withdrawn from the chain even without going through the platform itself), etc.

==== added on 2025.12.03 ====

attach someone else’s post to emphasis the importance of “focusing on mainstream users and meeting their needs.” Only in this way can GMX continuously acquire users and achieve continuous growth.

https://x.com/hansolar21/status/1995873232231301350?t=1Fd46QDShz1er71xpvZ9xw&s=19

2 Likes
49

GM @nxs and other members of GMX
Here is an update for Dec about governance and our non-technical updates

A quick shoutout to devs which would be launching JIT from this week. (Just in Time liquidity which allows traders to build up size, especially for alt coins. Liquidity in GLV will flow to altcoins that needed that liquidity when traders demand a sizeable position)

LP this week (or next week, depending on testing) and then mainnet in two weeks.

AND OTHER developments as well (Good opportunity to remind all to add Telegram: View @GMX_Announcements as a lot of technical announcements there)

A few discussion that we took from proposal to current stage

  • competitions. discussion that statistics are not favourable but we are on the lookout with others to hold competition on GMX platform
  • talking to funds on LPs.
  • discussion on referral revamp
  • treasury, asking governance members to do treasury of reinvesting money in “safer” zones in defi, such as GLV, AAVE, Curve etc etc. would be faster and more efficient. Also discussing the merits of having a dedicated treasury committee who can do more.

There would be a big revamp on referral, and community referral, with many types of benefits incoming.
As this would be a big revamp, we would like to have 1 or 2 mths to check on the growth in trader volume after we launch this.

As such, after this referral revamp, when we can see the good and bad of the revamp, then we can go through heavier follow through on flywheel proposal, buyback for incentives etc etc.

Revamp is a huge work by the team, and I see 3-4 meetings every week to push this head, and with very cautious steps, as we want the big traders to feel aligned with us.
We would be happy to launch this soon
And taking this opportunity to thank the team!

PS: NXS and other members, pls feel free to dm me at telegram to bring discussion further.

Proposal for Fees Rebate Incentive Program (December to March 2026)
50

You show a good grasp of the crucial dilemmas, industry developments, and business decisions infusing GMX’s unique positioning and development direction. All this fuels the vision we’ll articulate for 2026 and beyond.

1 Like
51

Hi nxs, thanks for the proposal.

I disagree “GMX has the best technology in DeFi” because such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof, and the market over the last few years has demonstrated it values GMX technology less than Hype, Aster, etc. Self-congratulation is easy; many bagholders of failing projects do it as a lazy form of cope. To reclaim our lost mojo, we must be better than that.

My once huge bag of GMX is now tiny (I smelled trouble coming when people voted to partner with Scam Bankster-Fraud’s FTX), but like you I would be ready to increase it if “the team and community commit to a roadmap that prioritizes token value, engagement, and sustainable growth.”

I also disagree regarding community strength. Governance is not a feature but rather a bug at best and a curse at worse; blockchain democracy is another populist god that failed. The blueberry crowd has almost no wisdom, as shown by our litany of awful governance proposals decided by overwhelming majorities to thunderous applause.

One red flag I am guilty of enabling via my participation was the Blueberry Club. I should have known it was a warning sign, a first wisp of smoke in a crowded theater, and made for the exit sooner. Oops, lol. In hindsight our NFT project marked the inflection point where GMX turned inward, substituting our original focus on growth via external competitiveness with insular hoopla and meaningless granfalloonery.

Expanding supply by even one GMX sets a terrible precedent. Your idea to bloat total emission almost 8x sends the worst possible signal(s) to potential token stakers/investors. Bloating token supply would be proof GMX is nothing more than digital fiat and we make our infinitely supplied money printer go BRRRR anytime we need to paper over past mistakes. It also is an insult to the few brave people left holding their blueberry bags. Nothing personal, it’s just the exact wrong direction and amplifies damage already done to the GMX brand and tokenomics.

The Floor Fund is also the exact wrong approach. The market will not, in the long term, be manipulated and will in fact punish acts of hubris which seek to enforce predetermined outcomes. As shown by several other now-dead projects, Price Floor Funds merely increase economic attack surface, chumming the water for the whales and sharks who have already feasted on our project’s lost prestige and prominence. Success in our sector is the ultimate and only true price floor fund. You can’t fake it; there is not enough money in the world to subsidize it. Econ101 stuff, but again nothing personal bro.

I agree we need to return to the “engagement-driven culture that made early GMX participation exciting and sticky” by reintroducing MPs. I don’t like the short-term gimmicks of points determining fees (too complex) and qualifying users for airdrops, beta access, and exclusive rewards (too complex and creates have vs have-not market segmentation).

Marketing & Awareness must come exclusively from objective merit, they must be earned. Not faked. Not purchased. Not hyped by shifty KOLs and griftfluencers. Not subsidized by endless trading contests. Better to sponsor one good hackathon for devs building on GMX than throw money at 10 World Trading Championships. People will educate themselves because it is in their self-interest to find the best projects. It’s a bad look and conflict of interest for GMX to do much more than publish the docs, FAQ, and respond to public TG and Twitter inquiries.

This proposal correctly recognizes the GMX flame has not gone out, but needs rapid, radical changes to avoid being reduced to a cold, dead cinder. I will post my own proposal soon. It shares the same spirit of this one, yet differs drastically in its approach to coordinated action and thoughtful incentives. I look forward to you ruthlessly analyzing it item-by-item and hope you likewise enjoy the process of rebuilding the flywheel together.

-Blu Berri

2 Likes
52

This is highly debatable, even from my perspective as a GMX/Arbitrum/Ed Felten fanboy.

To be more “fully” decentralized (and credibly neutral), GMX must:

  1. have front-end and API servers accessible via TOR, IPFS, and .eth infrastructure
  2. not be 100% reliant on Circle, the most centralized and least credibly neutral stablecoin
  3. wait for Arbitrum’s eventual progression to Stage One rollup status (per L2BEAT specs)
  4. recognize & respond to the fact Tether and Circle have effective fork control of Ethereum

Don’t worry, I have a plan. But it will take some time to be approved and executed. Meanwhile, let’s not whistle past the graveyard by exaggerating GMX’s relative and absolute advantages over (arguably) somewhat less decentralized perp dexes.

1 Like
53

I’m glad you agree. Additionally, I need to say another point I personally consider crucial: GMX must steadfastly adhere to BBD token economics, regardless of the product developed. Because:

(1) BBD token economics ensures GMX upholds its core project value of 【being driven by real value】. In today’s crypto industry rife with bubbles, the vast majority have grown accustomed to speculation and pay little attention to genuine value positioning. Any product built on speculative models will only generate short-term excitement. Ultimately, lacking a foundation in real value will cause the project to lose its direction and fail.

(2) BBD creates a simple yet complete closed-loop token price logic.

(A) Upside loop: Product/product line upgrades → Attract more users to trade → Platform revenue growth → Increased buybacks + APR boosts long-term holding incentives → Drives token price upward → Token price reaches new equilibrium → Product/product line upgrades →…

(B) Price Decline Loop (typically triggered by market bear phases): Declining trading volume → Reduced platform revenue → Reduced buybacks + APR cuts prompt token selling → Driving token price down → Token price reaches new equilibrium → Further declining trading volume → …

(C) While the price decline loop (B) is unavoidable, BBD ensures the existence of a “minimum price equilibrium point.” Crucially, as long as GMX continues attracting product users, this “minimum price equilibrium point” can be continuously elevated.

(3) The BBD model resembles dividend payouts in traditional stocks. Numerous large US tech companies have maintained dividends for over a decade, such as Intel/Microsoft/Qualcomm/Cisco/Apple/TI/Oracle/Broadcom/IBM… This demonstrates that similar BBD models constitute sustainable economic frameworks (【key point: provided genuine utility value is delivered to the public】).

(4) In the competitive landscape of exchange products, the GMX platform inevitably faces pressure to “lower fees,” which could reduce revenue and trigger a decline in token price under the BBD model. However, if the platform can continuously attract and retain traders, its revenue will not only avoid decline but also grow and become more stable. Specifically, the trader growth I refer to encompasses: 【CRYPTO PERP traders, CRYPTO SPOT traders, RWA stock PERP traders, and RWA stock SPOT traders】. The combined global population of these trading groups is sufficiently large. As long as long-term users can be attracted, “lowering fees” will not be an issue for the GMX platform.

1 Like
54

There’s always more work to be done in terms of decentralization and removing dependencies, for sure.

Arbitrum is a Stage 1 rollup, though. I’m assuming you meant Stage 2? > L2BEAT - The state of the layer two ecosystem

1 Like
55

BBD cannot be logically considered a “core project value” because it is a new feature; BBD was not part of the original project tokenomics. It is an ongoing, so far unsuccessful, experiment. The exodus of capital and community who have abandoned GMX, some silently and some saying farewell, concisely and thoroughly refute your overwrought rationalizations and justifications to continue the BBD experiment in an equally illogical ‘nO mATteR wHat!!1!’ manner.

How low do the token price, TVL, and community activity have to go before you relent? It sounds like you would rather the project die than admit BBD was a mistake, but such fanaticism has no place in a rational reconsideration of past choices in light of over a year’s worth of empirical feedback.

56

Haha yes I meant Stage 2. Thanks for pointing it out!

57

I think we need to put thing’s back to how they used to be with mp and network based payouts, but I’m not sure about such an increase in circulation, I understand were you are coming from but I don’t believe increasing the circulation as a good thing, I see it as a positive a smaller total supply with all of the tokens in circulation

1 Like
58

Just want to say that this is the main proposal thread that I am keeping an eye out and following….
the wheel is moving up.
ICYMI (can’t possibly miss it… ) we are expanding to megaeth.
GMX V2 Deployment on MegaETH - Proposal - Proposals - GMX

meanwhile, marketing is spending and getting some results.
Behind the scene discussions are pretty much ready for more big things soon in feb and beyond..

LETS GO!

59

Adding more fuel.
A wave of marketing campaigns when GMX launches on Megaeth.
to get new users to be aware of

  1. megaeth high speed TPS for great execution speed trading on gmx
  2. trader incentive launch, to get both new and old traders back and rewarding them
  3. broadcasting that multichain working very well, trade on major L1s such as mainnet, base, bnb etc etc on gmx…..