I would suggest that only number of gmx tokens counts as a vote. Not MPs. Especially when voting about future of MPs
I do not think this will change anything. First 200 stakers have the most coins regardless of the MPs.
Arthur Hayes is the number one with 251K coins staked.
What is the logic of not allowing MP to vote on decisions about MP future? Next time we will prohibit GMX token to vote on decisions about GMX future?
5 Likes
Totally Agree with you Saulius.
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 furtherâŚ
I think general roots of this discussion is quite âskewedâ in terms of focus.
What I mean ⌠All of discussion is orbiting around the idea of âunhappy new investorsâ. 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.
I dont like it because itâs some kind of half-measure .
Totally fine with that one.
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.
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 canât fool math! The more investors â 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!
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 âlong-enoughâ term (you dont see perspectives here) ⌠then you very free to leave the boat and move to other ship in the sea.
Dont see any problems here. If you not satisfied with current APR - you free to leave the pool (=burn your MPâs) and move forward. All the long-term GMX holders will say BIG ARIGATO for that and SAYONARA 
.
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).
Again, I donât 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 Iâm 90% sure - that the protocol will evolve\fork into something completely new and probably with a completely new economic model.
Sounds ok to me.
Dont like this one.
Dont like this one either.
I wouldnât 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 âMP problemâ, 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.
50/50⌠but rather dont like this ideaâŚ
DOnt llike it. too complicated. We have already complicated system.
Ohh God please noo. I want to have a LIQUID asset in my hands.
I do not like.
this âmaybeâ works IF we assume that MOST gmx investors are also active traders. But I suspect that this is far from the case.
dont like it.
dont like it.
10000% against it.
Yes, this will definitely attract new investors. (100? 1000? 5000?) doesnât 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.
against.
against.
Dont like this one.
against.
thank you.
3 Likes
I appreciate your thoughts on the matter russiamanbit, and of course the data & graphs that Saulius brings into the discussion.
One issue that should give all parties/sides pause is the acknowledgment that the âproblemâ is still vaguely defined at best. I mean, here we are, discussing potential âsolutionsâ and large-scale changes to the very tokenomics upon which GMX has succeeded these past 2 years. Yet virtually none of the people proposing changes to MPs, boost, etc are providing a clear definition of the problem.
How is any appropriate solution supposed to be ascertained if the problem isnât clearly defined? I fear some people keep it vague because their actual motive is simple, basic-level envy. Envy over seeing what the boosted apr is, and perhaps due to an inherent aversion towards delayed-gratification, they feel they are âowedâ the same apr as those who spent two years stacking MPs.
So for us to really come together and put together appropriate solutions, we need people who arenât in the âthis discussion is a waste of resources & timeâ camp to come forward and offer clear explanations of why MPs are a problem at all. (And Iâll caution that being coy, overloading hyperlink or data âspamâ, or some kind of âWar & Peaceâ-length response, doesnât drive the conversation forward.).
Here is my request:
-
Using two or three sentences at most, state the exact problem presently befalling the GMX protocol.
-
State why this matter should be addressed be prioritized by the dev team over innovation, expansion and new-pair work. (Remember, itâs a zero sum environment, time worked on modifying contracts is time NOT spent on other activities, which get pushed back)
Itâs only by first CLEARLY identifying the problem and stating why itâs a major-focus problem that good solutions can come into focus. Otherwise we end up where weâre at now: with 60+ possible âsolutionsâ littering the gov forum and telegram.
For all we know, this supposed problem is on the scale of a toothache, where a solution can range from taking ibuprofen (incentivizing not staking but using a gmx gm pool), getting a dentist cleaning (slow decrease in MP strength), or detonating a nuclear bomb in the patientâs mouth (eliminating all MPs). All three options will solve the toothache, but it helps to understand how severe or big of a deal this tooth pain actually is.
3 Likes
Oh, and on a totally unrelated note, just because it pains me to keep seeing it from all sides of the debate (unfortunately) in both the forum and telegram, Iâd like to say something:
How long you have been a member of the community or how long you have owned gmx coins has ZERO effect on whether your argument is sound or whether your solution is the most appropriate. It is literally a logic fallacy.
For critical readers, when they see opening statements like âAs an OG, I thinkâŚâ or âHaving XYZ number of gmx coinsâŚâ or âIâve been holding since Day 1 and I thinkâŚâ it makes them think you have a weak argument, since you have to appeal to a data point that is unrelated to whether your position is correct or not.
So Iâll repeat, because I know in some peoplesâ backgrounds or upbringings, they believe such a piece of trivia is relevant. Your amount of gmx or mp coins, your boost %, and your length of time involved in the project are all ONE HUNDRED PERCENT immaterial to the problem, the solution, and moving the debate further. Itâs merely showing that you fall for the ad hominem fallacy, using oneâs personal traits as a means to bolster or attack an argument.
1 Like
And I apologize for breaking my own âNo Dostoyevsky-long postsâ belief. But below is the original copy of my comments in the other âReduce APR of Multiplier Pointsâ thread (like others have said, dunno why Credegar made two threads on the same subject).
Respectfully, I feel that the âmp problemâ being referenced by many people in this thread isnât clearly defined. And yet itâs being cited as the reason for making major changes to the protocolâs tokenomics.
If itâs a concern over demand for GMX tokens, then the âburn all mpâs or reduce their aprâ contingent should explain why the token rose 17% (from $53.32 to $62.37) in a roughly 30 hour period this past week despite no changes to the boost cap or mp generation rate.
If itâs a concern over growth of the userbase, then the âburn all mpâs or reduce their aprâ contingent should state how many new users we are currently getting and how many they think we âshouldâ be getting, and why the vague âmp problemâ is the whatâs holding us back. For reference, as per the dune dashboard, one of the peak trading months was just this past November (so 4 months ago), a period of time that already featured users with >200% boosts and the same mp apr as now.
The reduction of APR of multiplier points feels like a solution in search of a problem. And this âsolutionâ can create so many new problems that itâs a bit worrisome at how theyâre being glossed over.
In that previous thread, there wasnât anyone that spoke up regarding the above requests for clearly defining the problem. Just Saulius giving data on why it isnât the problem on the scale that others are making it out to be.
1 Like
First of all thx to Credegar for his extensive curating of this topic.
In my mind, the market is pricing GMX at 4-6% base rate apr on average. The problem doesnât come from MPs itâs coming from the fees generated, i.e. volume. As volume/fees grow, $GMX will go up and base rate will stay around the same level. Volume comes from volatility, and volatility comes and goes. So there will be periods of sharp repricings, itâs inevitable. The value of GMX comes from an economic activity, not speculation on what might be the next btc, eth, shib or whatever. Growth perspectives are still huge (DEX vs CEX market share), so even if base rate stays around 4-6%, $GMX can appreciate a lot.
There is also a lot of competition now in the perp dex sector. They attract users with points and emissions, which mechanically drives users out of gmx. However, gmx is still growing, itâs just growing organically, which takes time. When I see whatâs happening on hyperliquid, itâs just points driven. The profitability of the HLP vault is just insane at the expense of traders. The perp dex sector will eventually consolidate when they release a token (if they ever, lol, farming users with points is just too lucrative). And traders might return where thereâs the best liquidity and no scam wick.
As for the discussion about MPs, gmx tokenomics are great and itâs normal early users and long term believers are rewarded. Now that MPs are there, itâs very difficult to go back. There is no good solution, someone will be angry.
Maybe the gm pool idea is quite nice, it can create additional demand for gmx.
The focus should be on growth. And angry holders should study patience.
4 Likes
Are you serious about gmx DAO, gentlemen?
We have already voted and implemented the 200% cap, it is only a short time ago, and now we voteing again?
Should we keep voting as long as someone is unhappy with the result of the vote until they are satisfied?
So what if the new vote causes another group of people to be unhappy?
Are you serious about gmx DAO, gentlemen?
Think about who is trying to cut MPâs rights?
There are two kinds of people:
The first: not willing to stake in gmx long term and therefore not true gmx supporters, they have no or very little MPs and are not willing to get MPs by staking and therefore complain that the mp system is unfair.
Do you think the opinions of such people matter?
If the mp system is unfair to new stakers, is it fair to arbitrarily cut OGs? Shouldnât OGsâ real money and two years of time be respected? If we do this so often, who will invest in gmx?
Second: gmx long-term stakers, but suffering from gmx price action, expect to change to push the price up.
However, in essence, this way of pushing up the price is a castle in the air, is without foundation, and is not sustainable. To push up gmx price, we should focus on increasing revenue. To increase revenue, we need to improve the product. How to improve the product? more assets/ more chains/ better UX and so on.
More importantly, if we are already running a profitable business and consistently generating cash flow, why should we be obsessed with the token price? Are we rushing to push up the token price so we can sell it? We can pay no attention to token price, as long as we continue to enjoy dividends. With the development of gmx protocol and crypto as a whole, our business will become bigger and bigger, with increasing revenue and dividends, and gmx will become our lifelong money printer. Think about what Warren Buffett said? Instead of focusing on price, we should focus on creating value. Maybe some people will say here is crypto, no one wants to get rich slowly, thatâs fine, there are many memes to choose from, people can decide for themselves.
2 Likes
VOTE: MP 100% cap and 100% Apr for even more volatility for gmx token. Like that one guy said above though Apr diminishes with more investor base, focusing on user base is by making number go up too.
One year gets âog statusâ in crypto not bad. Two years for max boost in crypto seems to harsh maybe.
market maker makes sense now or more hyped marketing/ sales IF we make NO VOTE.
Then we add a gmx gm pool then decide to deploy on base or PvP AMM.
Everyone wins.
Below are personal thoughts, this is not in any way a reflection of an opinion of any other contributors. Nor are the ideas innovative or novel, they are simply taking from ideas posted here and in chats on how we might evolve GMX, esGMX & MPs.
2.0 Streamlining for Future Success
As we reflect on the journey of esGMX and MPs, itâs evident that they played a crucial role in aligning tokenholders and liquidity providers with the long-term success of GMX. However, just as companies evolve from private to public, our protocol is maturing, creating an opportunity to transition towards simplicity, cleaner governance, and a reflection of this maturity.
From its inception, GMX has prioritized flexibility for stakers be it GLP, GM or GMX, you were always free to enter without constraints, and exit the same way, even if there were some incentives to bootstrap the protocol through esGMX and MPs.
While esGMX incentives initially boosted GLP, they eventually posed a barrier to wider adoption in DeFi as a core building block. The cessation of esGMX incentives marked a significant unlock, removing the indirect âtaxâ on protocols using GLP since they couldnât pass along esGMX.
By phasing out MPs and introducing additional use cases for GMX within our ecosystem, we can have a similar unlock for GMX, allowing clean, simpler tokenomics for a DAO that controls one of the largest fee earning protocols in all of crypto. This includes facilitating clean uses for GMX such as self-repaying loans and usage in vaults, which could remain complicated with the overhang of MPs limiting utilization.
Proposal:
- Set MP boost to zero and likely pause issuance of MPs
- Implement a one time redemption or airdrop of esGMX against MPs (proposed ratio of 1 - 25) as a Thank you recognizing their contribution to the growth of GMX. This is in addition to the large returns that MPs have already accured over the last number of years well after the initial bootstrapping of GMX was completed. The fresh esGMX could have a vesting term equivalent to a one-year vesting period with a holding requirement of GMX.
- Introduce an esGMX instant vest vault, enabling the exchange of esGMX for GMX at a fixed rate [4-1]. This will allow a direct mechanism for redemption of esGMX for the benefit of all GMX holders especially stakers, as it will remove some of the overhang from esGMX that is indirectly force held into the ecosystem and reduce the denominator further on the reward distribution. This could potentially easily be setup using a whitelisting of a bonding contract, that offers fixed rate esGMX - GMX swaps, limiting development bandwidth.
These changes collectively can streamline the GMX cap table. While one maybe larger than the other the migration of additional esGMX through the MP transition will be balanced by the discounted redemption into the treasury of esGMX from those opting to sell.
Will these changes cause GMX to skyrocket? No. Will they enhance the core products? Not directly. But they will set the stage for future growth and development.
Above is a relatively complete idea but there are definitely nuances to work out, just hope this can be included in the options being evaluated and iâm sure the community will have ways to further improve it.
How does this idea compare to a 100% MP cap for MP whales with 200% boosted positons?
Your total earnings would be ~9% direct yield lower than the idea of a 100% MP cap proposal BUT that is before you factor in receiving 8% more esGMX for your original MPs that are now earning yield. After factoring in removal of MPs, fresh issued esGMX, you are looking at earning 2-3% less yield on their entire position and thatâs assuming no esGMX are taken off the market from the esGMX-GMX buyback window which may well make this entirely neutral.
11 Likes
I am a fan of this; removing MPs will simplify the GMX tokenomics and even out the APR for old and new entrants into the ecosystem. As you mentioned, is this a silver bullet? No, but it wipes the slate clean of an outdated bootstrapping mechanism and will allow the GMX community to move forward focusing more on growth then tokenomic issues.
5 Likes
I´m supporting those ideas. Some additions from my side:
(2) I like the idea of tiered vesting of the respective esGMX. Say you get a 1:25 rate MP: esGMX when vesting over 1 year, vesting over 2 years gives you a rate of 1:15 and instant vesting gives you 1:50. Additionally, this would enable a mechanism where people need to deposit their MPs into vesting vaults, meaning a necessary active interaction to participate in the âairdropâ of esGMX. I assume there are a lot of abandoned esGMX accounts out there that accumulated a significant number of MPs. Using an active interaction (like with most airdrops), this change of tokenomics can be used to remove yield dilution from those accounts + it saves esGMX emissions from the treasury.
1 Like
i will drop a single chart to prove why this thinking is redacted:
The amount of ref volume on code coingecko, who inject their code on their link to the dApp, hit its highest during what period? Well of course, when GMX token was hitting its ATH in $ and against ETH. The token price has fallen in both $ and ETH, people are talking about it less and less, it doesnât hit trending lists, and their referred volume has died off dramatically.
So no, I absolutely do not agree with your statement here.
2 Likes
I 100% support general intention to simplify the protocol logic.
And in general I am ok with @coinflipcanda proposal. Sure there is many nuances⌠but general idea sounds ok to me. We can polish it .
But for sure I will not like it if this idea will lead to slashing early participants positions .
Sadly this has no bearing on whether the elimination of mpâs would cause the price to go up.
Removing a softlock on gmx token dumps isnt likely to increase price or referrals. People would see the common-sense outcome and say âthanks but no thanksâ when you send them a referral.
Letâs vote on this with different esgmx conversion ratios
Sadly, you missed the point.
I was replying to the statement about how we shouldnât be focused on price. I made no indication on whether or not this proposal would impact price positively or negatively.
2 Likes
I think we are really overreaching with all this variety of proposals and drastical changes to tokenomics - so in my opinion the best solution for now is âstatus quoâ meaning no any changes needed at all. Better to concentrate our attention and efforts on GMX development/expansion/user base growth. We implemented 200% MP cap only a month and a half ago, so maybe lets wait for at least 6-12 months to see how it plays out before rushing more big changes. Many changes discussed here will introduce new problems down the road and headache for developers again.
So I will vote NO to any proposal for big tokenomics overhaul. And am advocating to do the same every serious gmx holders who are not chasing gmx price action but are happy with current passive income and overall course of gmx protocol.
I will express my opinion and rank some other ideas that have been put forward in this thread.
NO CHANGES NEEDED
Rank: 5/5
Rank: 5/5 . With help of MP burns this change will help to bring global MP boost way down and diminish fees dilution âproblemâ. The only downside is that weâll hear again about âunhappy new investorsâ.
Rank: 5/5. With MP cap implementation I donât see big problems maintaining the same issuance rate. Only difference from MP reduction will be slightly higher level of global MP boost (but it never reach 200% because of burns). On the other hand it can make ânew investorsâ happier, because it will take only ~1,5 years to catch up with average rewards APR.
Rank: 4/5. But it should go in tandem with burned MP redistribution to all current stakers to let newcomers accumulate boost in long run. Maybe these burnt MP can go to different rewards pool which has not linear redistribution curve preferring lower boost (new) stakers.
Rank: 4/5. Rationale like above.
Rank: 1/5. It is bad idea to artificially inflate base APR. It will unnecessary waste of scarce esGMX resources that could be put to better use in the future. Market should decide staking APR not community.
Rank: 5/5.This can be a very good way to boost GMX token activity and visibility or even raise its price because of more utility and better APRâs of pool and native staking.
Rank: 2/5. Unnecessary waste of scarce esGMX.
Rank: 3/5. The advantage is that it requires no additional esGMX/GMX resources. However, I doubt whether it will be widely used, because let us not forget that the esGMX issuance was stopped long time ago and everyone who wanted âto get rid of itâ has already done so. The rest staked esGMX is mainly used for long-term passive income and will not be converter to GMX at steep haircut.
Rank 2/5. I am ok with this but time-lock should be strict without any possibilities to exit earlier. On the other hand daubt will be many to strictly lock for longer time frames. Another concern this will create even more MPâs out of thin air and will hurt base APR.
Rank: 4/5. This would allow better and more diversified use of MPs valuation. Not everyone has the same desires for the use of the platform and the time horizon, so more MP use cases can help inspire additional activity.
Rank: 4/5. Will help to sponsor more activities on platform. But should implemented only in tandem with MP APR reduction to not dilute base APR too much.
Rank: 3/5. The advantage is that market will decide MP valuation, but it will introduce additional complexity to already complex tokenomics.
Rank: 4/5. I am ok this this, but share of rewards to MP should be no less than 50% and MP cap should be removed as proposed by X.
Rank: 0/5. MP had and still has a very useful functionality from the very beginning which has helped to build a strong community and loyal token holders base. Abandoning MP will remove many of the benefits and for many holders will feel like soft ârug pullâ and will break long lasted trust.
P.S. Sorry for my English
2 Likes