# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 31
**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:** [March 20, 2024, 2:41am UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/towards-addressing-the-question-of-mps-consolidated-suggestions/3315/31 "2024-03-20T02:41:11Z")
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. ![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/gmx/original/2X/9/982714247f76d61b30e6ffcce03df03ea5920730.gif) --- _[View the full topic](https://gov.gmx.io/t/towards-addressing-the-question-of-mps-consolidated-suggestions/3315)._