Towards Addressing the Question of MPs - Consolidated Suggestions

[russiamanbit]

For context:
I am an investor in GMX from day 0.
All of my tokens is staked. Have no plans to sell atleast till 2b+ MC. period.

First of all I want to express my general position which is related to everything I will write further…
I think general roots of this discussion is quite “skewed” in terms of focus.
What I mean … All of discussion is orbiting around the idea of “unhappy new investors”. Which is wrong direction at all!
We, GMX platform DAO, MUST focus not on growth of investors-base BUT on the idea of expanding our user-base!
And in that context by having this big discussion we put our energy in a quite wrong direction as for my PoV.

Further I will comment on each of the ideas from the original post.

@CredegarFhristensen

Reduce MP Emissions Rates

I dont like it because it’s some kind of half-measure .

@CredegarFhristensen

Maintain Current MP Emission Rate of 100% AP

Totally fine with that one.

@CredegarFhristensen

Creates a situation in which indefinite MP emissions dilutes the overall base rate of GMX staking as an increasing share of fee participation goes to MPs

As a long term investor I dont see ANY problems here, and feel TOTALLY fine that my reward share is diluted because of new LONG-TERM investors.

@CredegarFhristensen

Disincentivizes new entrants, as they either will perceive GMX starting rate uncompetitive, or will perceive the advantage of early entrants as a hurdle in acquiring similar APR rates

Dont see any problems with that. Again, I think that the platform should put its focus on USER-base growth, not into investors-base growth.
Guys, we all should understand one simple thing - you can’t fool math! The more investors → the lower individual profitability (base APR). A simple conclusion follow from here - there is no point in chasing an endless expansion of the investors base. But chasing an endless base of USERS (traders) makes a lot of sense!

@CredegarFhristensen

diminishing the sense of MPs as rewarding long term stakers

Totally disagree here. EVERY one have an opportunity to jump on the boat (take the risk) and slowly but steady accrue MP till max capped value. Absolutely the same path as EACH of early investors did. If you dont like to join as “long-enough” term (you dont see perspectives here) … then you very free to leave the boat and move to other ship in the sea.

@CredegarFhristensen

Current emissions rates have demonstrated inflexibility relative to the volatile week-over-week change in fee share, diminishing the perceived benefit of the staked APR for both newcomers and early-stakers when other options with better yield are available

Dont see any problems here. If you not satisfied with current APR - you free to leave the pool (=burn your MP’s) and move forward. All the long-term GMX holders will say BIG ARIGATO for that and SAYONARA .

@CredegarFhristensen

Current emissions rate has shown at time to make the base rate of GMX native staking less competitive compared to other competitors in the same Perp Sector of DeFi, making GMX less attractive to both newcomers and early stakers

I will repeat again, as long term holder myself I totally happy to be among stakers. And will repeat again - you cant fool the math. Low APR is clear indication of involved RISKS! we should remember about that. If some competitor offer you 1000% APR - this not mean that I will unstake all of my GMX and sell them for joining this crazy APR pool - this is nonsense.
We should stop to focus on the fear of low APR. We must focus on the fear of weak user-base growth and trading volume etc… which is not directly related to count of new investors (gmx holders).

@CredegarFhristensen

Current emissions rate demonstrate an possibly indefinite emission of fee-participation, creating the impact of an effectively “soft” (non-token related) inflation of the GMX through the vector of earning potential

Again, I don’t consider this a problem, since all income in any case will be distributed among long-term holders anyway.
I understand perfectly well that (purely THEORETICALLY) extrapolating much forward, such a model can lead to the case when 10% of investors can accumulate 90% of the revenue share over time (relatively speaking) .
However, in REALITY it will take 5 years, if not more, to implement such a scenario. And in 5 years I’m 90% sure - that the protocol will evolve\fork into something completely new and probably with a completely new economic model.

@CredegarFhristensen

Abolish MP Emissions Entirely

Sounds ok to me.

@CredegarFhristensen

Reduce MP APR to 50% and Implement MP Burn with MP Redistribution

Dont like this one.

@CredegarFhristensen

Supplement Base APR with esGMX emissions

Dont like this one either.

@CredegarFhristensen

Introduce GMX paired GM Pools

I wouldn’t mind introducing gmx trading on the platform. Because in fact, we are losing traders who want to trade GMX and do it anyway on competitors platforms, giving them fees trading.
But I like this idea not as a solution to the “MP problem”, but rather as an idea to open new trading pools to increase user base + additional opportunities that are interesting for those who want to stake their gmx.
The market will already decide where it is better to keep its GMX. One way or another - it all comes down to risks/reward status quo.

@CredegarFhristensen

MP to esGMX Conversion + MP Emissions & Boost Reduction of Some Amount

50/50… but rather dont like this idea…

@CredegarFhristensen

Expedited Vesting Vaults & Revolving esGMX Emissions

DOnt llike it. too complicated. We have already complicated system.

@CredegarFhristensen

Time-Lock of Native Staked GMX for Max Boost

Ohh God please noo. I want to have a LIQUID asset in my hands.

@CredegarFhristensen

Allow Subscription of MPs for Other Purposes Besides Fee Share

I do not like.
this “maybe” works IF we assume that MOST gmx investors are also active traders. But I suspect that this is far from the case.

@CredegarFhristensen

Means of Acquiring MPs Other than Native GMX Staking

dont like it.

@CredegarFhristensen

Decouple MP Emissions from native-staked GMX rewards:

dont like it.

@CredegarFhristensen

Abolish MP Boost: Remove future and present MP boosts entirely

10000% against it.
Yes, this will definitely attract new investors. (100? 1000? 5000?) doesn’t matter, what matters is that it ends the SAME! - low APR in any case! (I really hope most readers understand this).
we need to solve the problem of user base and not investor base.

@CredegarFhristensen

Makes MPs Transferrable:

against.

@CredegarFhristensen

Staked MP Decay-Over-Time: Have a decaying mechanism which burns staked MPs over time

against.

@CredegarFhristensen

MP Burn for Earmarked Fee Share: Set portion of platform fees aside each week only for those who choose to burn MPs

Dont like this one.

@CredegarFhristensen

Cap MP Fee-Participation to X% of Fees directed to native staked GMX: Cap the amount of fee participation MPs will be entitled by X%, IEO: Allow MPs to only participate in 50% of fees generated for GMX

against.

thank you.