GMX should do something. My personal opinion is as follows.
I believe a perpetuals exchange only needs to nail these five core points:
- 0 gas fees
- Competitive taker/maker fees
- Millisecond-level execution
- Minimal price impact
- 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】:
- Funds sit on centralized servers → potential risk of misappropriation or rug-pull (FTX’s sudden collapse is the classic proof).
- Manipulation of price feeds or order-book data (instead of real market moves) to deliberately trigger liquidations of leveraged positions.
- Inability to close positions during extreme volatility — some platforms are suspected of intentionally “locking” users out to force liquidations.
- 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:
- 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.
- No centralized server → all trades are executed by open-source contracts. Zero risk of data manipulation.
- 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).
- 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:
- The five core points above → deliver a cost and operational experience on par with CEXs.
- 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:
- neither delivering the operational smoothness and cost experience of CEX/CEX-like platforms,
- 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.