# Towards Addressing the Question of MPs - Consolidated Suggestions **URL:** \ **Category:** Feature Discussion\ **Created:** [March 15, 2024, 2:39pm UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/towards-addressing-the-question-of-mps-consolidated-suggestions/3315 "2024-03-15T14:39:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Saulius](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/gov.gmx.io/saulius/32/455_2.png) [@Saulius](https://gov.gmx.io/u/Saulius)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2024, 6:37pm UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/towards-addressing-the-question-of-mps-consolidated-suggestions/3315/88 "2024-04-16T18:37:00Z")
We should vote on 3 options with 20%+ support. As always option for no change should be included too. I don’t know who is in charge for creating and posting these proposals, but last one was big fail because of too many options to choose. Should be only 4 options for next voting: a) End MP b) Convert MP to esGMX c) Adjust MP APR d) no change. None of these 3 options can be split in parts because it will dilute votes!! If option b) or c) will win, one additional voting needed to decide MP\>esGMX conversion rate or MP APR amount. ---
**Author:** ![mhuthma](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/gov.gmx.io/mhuthma/32/1098_2.png) [@mhuthma](https://gov.gmx.io/u/mhuthma)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2024, 6:23am UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/towards-addressing-the-question-of-mps-consolidated-suggestions/3315/89 "2024-04-17T06:23:15Z")
Agreed. Especially for a sentiment check purpose. The poll should have been limited to 5 or 4 broad options just to see how the community was leaning. The arbitrary 20% threshold was pointless, if they needed to make a 20+ option poll. Just say the top 4 or 5 vote getters move on. To be honest the poll itself should have been the product of a forum thread discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Saulius](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/gov.gmx.io/saulius/32/455_2.png) [@Saulius](https://gov.gmx.io/u/Saulius)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2024, 10:24am UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/towards-addressing-the-question-of-mps-consolidated-suggestions/3315/90 "2024-04-19T10:24:58Z")
I heard rumors that “the cartel” is preparing proposal quite opposite from my suggestion. Will be only one option for abandoning MP and a lot different/spread options (to dilute voting power?) for those who want MP to stay or be compensated with esGMX. If this proves to be the case (hope not), I call on all MP supporters to boycott this vote and opt for the “no-change” option!! ---
**Author:** ![Jonezee](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/gov.gmx.io/jonezee/32/1238_2.png) [@Jonezee](https://gov.gmx.io/u/Jonezee)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2024, 3:35pm UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/towards-addressing-the-question-of-mps-consolidated-suggestions/3315/91 "2024-04-19T15:35:04Z")
I feel that limiting it to just 4 or 5 options would have invited the criticism that some of the options that parts of the community favoured were not included. It makes sense to include many viewpoints in a sentiment check like this. Do agree through that the 20% threshold was arbitrary, in hindsight. Using a ‘the top x options move on’ criterion is simpler. ---
**Author:** ![Nuggs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8edcca/32.png) [@Nuggs](https://gov.gmx.io/u/Nuggs)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2024, 3:43pm UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/towards-addressing-the-question-of-mps-consolidated-suggestions/3315/92 "2024-04-19T15:43:07Z")
@Saulius i understand your hesitancy to lose your MP’s, however the appeal of more than doubling the current APR for new entrants should really help the token price, which would also benefit you. ---
**Author:** ![Nuggs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8edcca/32.png) [@Nuggs](https://gov.gmx.io/u/Nuggs)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2024, 6:44pm UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/towards-addressing-the-question-of-mps-consolidated-suggestions/3315/93 "2024-04-23T18:44:09Z")
What are we doing here - last vote ended on April 11th, why does it take 12 days to move to the next step? And we wonder why there isn’t more interest in GMX as a platform or for the token, everything moves at sloth speed these days, votes and development. ---
**Author:** ![russiamanbit](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/gov.gmx.io/russiamanbit/32/41_2.png) [@russiamanbit](https://gov.gmx.io/u/russiamanbit)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2024, 8:01pm UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/towards-addressing-the-question-of-mps-consolidated-suggestions/3315/94 "2024-04-24T20:01:31Z")
> [@Nuggs](#): > > should really help the token price who really cares about token price? Only speculators care about it. Any long term player here who REALLY care about the protocol, more think about userbase (platform traders, not gmx holders), TVL, asset utilization value, fees generated, UX, UI, token interoperability… and other “boring” stuff, which speculators (who only dream about selling GMX after new pump) dont even care at all. ---
**Author:** ![Nuggs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8edcca/32.png) [@Nuggs](https://gov.gmx.io/u/Nuggs)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2024, 8:22pm UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/towards-addressing-the-question-of-mps-consolidated-suggestions/3315/95 "2024-04-24T20:22:39Z")
I’m not sure that’s true. It’s a bit of a self fulfilling circle, if everyone is seeing the price always go down, people will give up, sell, and the project will move down into the not relevant category of tokens. New market entrants then won’t have it on their radar as a good place to start trading and will see other more relevant projects higher up the top 100 list first, which will then hurt volume and then GMX price. ---
**Author:** ![CredegarFhristensen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@CredegarFhristensen](https://gov.gmx.io/u/CredegarFhristensen)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2024, 11:31pm UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/towards-addressing-the-question-of-mps-consolidated-suggestions/3315/96 "2024-04-25T23:31:11Z")
the 20% threshold was not arbitrary but was intended to ensure that at least some options would be excluded moving forward. in this regards, it accomplished its end, and left us with a neat 3 options to deliberate over as opposed to 4 or 5, which would have prolonged a process which is already beginning to net some community fatigue ---
**Author:** ![CredegarFhristensen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@CredegarFhristensen](https://gov.gmx.io/u/CredegarFhristensen)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2024, 11:33pm UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/towards-addressing-the-question-of-mps-consolidated-suggestions/3315/97 "2024-04-25T23:33:30Z")
We wanted to make sure all community input regarding a highly impactful and foundational tokenomic and platform feature to GMX were accounted for. we don’t think accounting for wide ranging community input on a controversial topic is pointless. listening to one’s community, especially on matters that impact members new, old, and prospective, is important for any growing crypto project ---
**Author:** ![mhuthma](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/gov.gmx.io/mhuthma/32/1098_2.png) [@mhuthma](https://gov.gmx.io/u/mhuthma)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2024, 8:16am UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/towards-addressing-the-question-of-mps-consolidated-suggestions/3315/98 "2024-04-26T08:16:56Z")
Then you could have “listened” to the community’s thoughts on how the poll could have looked in a thread dedicated specifically to it, an assurance that “no change” would remain a choice, and not created a scenario where the second & third choices were in danger of being at 19.99% or slightly lower. Instead we ended up with a mess that included people changing their “no change” votes to “adjust apr” so that something other than option 1 could meet the 20% threshold, and many top wallets outright abstaining. In the future just say “top 4 vote-getters will move on” when you throw 20 options at us. ---
**Author:** ![CredegarFhristensen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@CredegarFhristensen](https://gov.gmx.io/u/CredegarFhristensen)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2024, 8:47pm UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/towards-addressing-the-question-of-mps-consolidated-suggestions/3315/99 "2024-04-26T20:47:47Z")
> [@mhuthma](#): > > Then you could have “listened” to the community’s thoughts on how the poll could have looked in a thread dedicated specifically to it, an assurance that “no change” would remain a choice, and not created a scenario where the second & third choices were in danger of being at 19.99% or slightly lower. the point of this thread and the sentiment vote was to listen to the community, and they have spoken. no change is still an option. if votes were close to not passing quorum, that is simply because there was not enough community support for it > [@mhuthma](#): > > Instead we ended up with a mess we ended up with a succinct 3 options out of an array of 17 choices. if we had gone with the top 4 strategy, we’d have one additional option to consider now that would not otherwise have netted a lot of support in reality > [@mhuthma](#): > > hen you throw 20 options at us actually it was the community coming together which generated 20 options, we just did the hard work of combing through them to collect them all and synthesize them into a summary the community could act together on. yes, contributors could have been a bit more unilateral, but as this is such an important topic, we opted for the hard work of listening and digesting what it is the community is saying to us [Previous page](https://gov.gmx.io/t/towards-addressing-the-question-of-mps-consolidated-suggestions/3315.md?page=4)