In order to maintain the base APR as is, volume and fees need to double each year (because of the current 100% APR dilution from MPs). So, if we base the $GMX price hypothetically as coupled to the base APR, in order for $GMX price to double in a year, then volume and fees would have to quadruple.
2 Likes
-
The question(s) are simple either: âare the current tokenomics, designed for an earlier period in the product development cycle, still relevant to where GMX stands today?â and/or âdo tokenomics warrant a review and update, and if so, in what direction?â but as mentioned, it appears as the focus of many different inquiries for many different people
-
Any update to tokenomics should be streamlined ahead of further chain expansions/appchain development/additional platform and community growth
This will be an exciting feature. Imagine gmx single token pool or gmx-usd pool to provide liquidity for new meme coins such as $alert or $bome or $int
Get more traders, more fees, more utility for gmx
Beside, gmx price more stable than eth nowadays 
2 Likes
The question(s) are simple either: âare the current tokenomics, designed for an earlier period in the product development cycle, still relevant to where GMX stands today?â and/or
Thats the very definition of a loaded question. You should remove the editorializing you do in the middle and leave it as:
âAre the current tokenomics still relevant to where GMX stands today?â
Nobody should be able to accurately guess the writerâs opinion on the matter from an open-ended question.
I second this, it makes a lot of sense 
1 Like
200% boosted staker here. I fully support this proposal and the added benefit of simpler and more composable tokenomics cannot be understated for the OG real yield protocol.
3 Likes
First, thanks for your work @CredegarFhristensen , and @gmsolq, I think you have an elegant solution.
Iâm curious why you believe we need to target a 20% base APR by supplementing with esGMX? This is the only part I donât immediately agree with, but I am genuinely asking. Please correct me if my assumptions or logic are misguided:
If we removed MPs, the base APR would immediately more than double and then over time a new p/e equilibrium would be reached as new stakers join, GMX price rises, and the APR falls back down to market dictated level. As you said, âcurrently the value of GMX has been completely diluted.â My understanding is that without MPs, the true value will be realized. Then, as protocol revenue increases, GMX price will move reflexively as the APR is loosely maintained by the market.
It seems to me that offering esGMX rewards provides another mechanism to dilute revenue distribution away from natively staked GMX and dilutes the GMX token by up to 8% a year in your example.
Sure there would be short term gains in price action to offer esGMX rewards, but in the long term is it not more sustainable to just distribute real yield?
3 Likes
This is a great analysis and I fully support this initiative. I believe all your logic is sound, except you might be downplaying the effect base yields will have on price action.
What is most important is that the true value of the GMX token will be realized and we will have a foundation where the value created by the protocol is better represented in the price and revenue distribution of the GMX token.
One boon of the MP system is its ability to mute the effect of mercenary capital entering the staking pool after a week of high protocol earnings, diluting those who staked during the period the fees were earned, and then exiting. I would advise adding a simple 7-10 day cooldown after depositing GMX before you start earning distributions. Tokens to remain liquid throughout.
3 Likes
what do we need to vote on this , we should move swiftly
I think Coinflipâs proposal is the most concise and actionable of any of the proposals so far. If it goes to a vote and doesnât get the necessary support then we likely need to take that as a clue that the majority doesnât want MP change.
1 Like
Why does everything move so slowly from the gmx team.
We arenât even a top 200 coin anymore donât you guys get the status quo isnât working.
We need to vote ASAP
Iâm not sure who can move this to a vote, seems like itâs always super slow and then someone associated with the team starts a vote when they are ready.
1 Like
In preparation of the next steps towards the first snapshot, I will suggest some staging for the following procedures:
-
a Snapshot vote first focused on gauging interest of suggested options, with options that fail to meet decorum being axed from further consideration. All options that meet decorum will remain for further consideration*
-
An action based Snapshot vote to decide on the initial decision related to fundamental MP mechanics: their continuation untampered, or some kind of reduction or pause
-
Based on the sentiment vote, through which irrelevant ideas will be discarded, and based on the action based vote of changing or maintaining current MP mechanics, further consideration of remaining and relevant options will continue in thread-specific forum discussions
-
each topic-specific thread will conclude in a presentation of the refined option and potential variants, along with an option to exclude the final iteration which will go to a snapshot vote; upon the conclusion of each snapshot vote, the DAO will have the finalized listed mandate as it pertains to tokenomcis, which it can then set a timeline to, execute on, and focus elsewhere on other areas of development
Suggested Staging for Next Steps
(1) Sentiment Vote on the Following Options (not final and in no particular order, multiple choice, suggested decorum of 20%):
-
(a) Reduce MP APR and Implement MP Burn with MP Redistribution
-
(b) Adjust MP APR
-
(c) Adjust MP APR and MP boost cap
-
(d) Adjust MP Boost Cap
-
(e) Supplement Base APR with esGMX emissions
-
(f) Introduce GMX paired GM Pools
-
(g) MP to esGMX Conversion
-
(h) Expedited Vesting Vaults & Revolving esGMX Emissions
-
(i) Time-Lock of Native Staked GMX for Max Boost
-
(j) Allow MP Utility for Other Purposes Besides Fee Share
-
(k) Means of Acquiring MPs Other than Native GMX Staking
-
(l) Decouple MP Emissions from native-staked GMX rewards
-
(m) Abolish MP Boost
-
(n) Make MPs Transferrable
-
(o) Staked MP Decay-Over-Time
-
(p) MP Burn for Earmarked Fee Share
-
(q) Cap MP Fee-Participation to X% of Fees
-
Based on (1), publish forum topics for votes that passed decorum
-
After forum discussions from (2) list respective snapshot votes for each for the final omnibus mandate for the DAO
5 Likes
g and f
Nice write up
4 Likes
I will vote against any changes to MP. Weâve just voted to reduce to 200%. Simply get over it and concentrate on the GMX exposure by adding new assets to increas fees.
2 Likes
One of the longest, confusing and meaningless suggestions in a while. Not a simple point as to how GMX will benefit from this.
1 Like
its pretty straightforward
the 200% boost cap was an anticipatory decision that did not alter the fundamental tokenomic dynamics of the GMX platform
at this stage of growth, there is commentary from potential investorys/buyers, as well as OGs and regular community members responding to the same thing, if from different places - which is that some aspect of tokenomics needs to be updated to reflect and be responsive to the stage of growth and development that GMX is at right now, which is different than GMX at Day 1 and GMX at day 368, and even from GMX 6 months ago. much of the discussion has surrounded the fee share dominance of MPs, which were a loyalty reward incentive to help bootstrap early engagement/investor
the next suggested step is to have the community cull any suggestions that dont reach decorum in order to focus on the ones that have, towards updating the tokenomic dynamics to get to a point where they are ore appropriately reflecting and responsive of GMXâs place in the perp sector of DeFi and future growth
2 Likes
Once again, a poem long sentences that do not prove anything as to how any of your points will benefit GMX as a whole. Newcomers are no different from me who began staking 2 and a half years ago and enjoying a benefit of almost 193% boost.
1 Like
No major changes to MP needed because global MP boost already perfectly staled at ~126% for full month of March so there will be no further fee dilution in the future. By reducing MP APR we can push global MP boost even lower.
My preferred choices from options above are (a) , (b) and (f)
5 Likes
Youâre right on point as always. his is exactly what I meant replying to CredegarFhristensen Thank you, Saulius.
1 Like