Towards Addressing the Question of MPs - Consolidated Suggestions

you are a gentleman and scholar, thank you for replying in terms of the options provided :skull:

in all seriousness it helps direct attention of the discussion towards next setps

@Saulius thank you as well for replying in terms of the provided alphabetical options, as stated it helps direct attention to configurations ppl should start thinking about, as well as thinking about the fact that the solution might be combinational


There is some interesting solutions and some not so interesting. Here is my take. The main issue about the mp points in short is that it makes it less interesting for new investors to invest and stake.

Current format is: 2 year stake for max lock at 200%.

The issue is not the MPs, and there is quite a simple solution to the issue that benefits all and makes it way more interesting for new investors, whilst still rewarding holders.

Solution: decrease max boost time from 2 years to 6 months (increasing MP apy % by 4x).


Given that MPs can accrue even above 200% max boost, would mean the increased apy would make max boosters having to invest alot more to CONTINUE making use of their new MP points (increasing buy pressure from already max boosters)

New stakers can rapidly aquire max boost (incentive to buy and hold)

New stakers will rapidly be in the same position of OGs with max boost where to make use of the MPs aquired when max boosted would have to increase their gmx staked.

This is the absolute best solution i can think of for everyone, new and old investors.

1:It massively increases buy pressure from all investors, old and new.

2: It still REWARDS holding the asset / long term investors.

3: Rapidly levels the playing field between the investors

4: Does NOT require anything from the Esgmx treasury.

5: will increase unstaking/staking ( which will burn MPs)

From an inflation stand point what options would reduce inflation? I believe the market is not being kind to inflationary tokens and however we can reduce would be most appropriate for me.

In addition, as a GMX holder above 100% MP’s I have no problem reducing some my MPs to make base APR more desirable. Again so many more intelligent folks with a better understanding. I saw once this is solved we can focus additional revenue generation (chains, assets, etc).

Increasing base apr is not necessarily the best way to make the token more desirable and i do belive the solution i wrote above manages to absolutely make the investment desireable for both new investors and people with max boost.

Besides regarding the inflation. The inflation will be dormid if above max boost, hence all with mp amounts above 200% would actively need to buy gmx (at a way higher rate than now) to make use of their mps.

The new max lock time being 6 months also would lead to alot more burning of mp positions as the time to build it up again isnt “that long”

The max boost is also easily achievable for new stakers making it a way better investment for newcomers, increasing buy pressure originally AND continues to increase it due to the fact that they will rapidly have to buy more gmx to make use of their new MP points when approaching max boost

It is very poor proposal. As history proved already there was absolutely no buy pressure from 200% boosters after cap was implemented. For these 2 months crypto markets were in rally mode but GMX was just trending sideways (because only way to boost GMX price is to increase protocol fees). MP issuance increase 4x and fees dilution acceleration is quite opposite of what we i trying to resolve for second year already. And all this massive pile of MP tokens sitting unstaked in wallets will create problems in the future, because will be hard to get rid of them without some form of compensations.


History didnt show that, as we all know. And making a 200% cap and increasing the apy 4x is 2 quite different proposals with very different outcomes. You are arguing A, im proposing B.

There is no compensation for unstaked mps, and they dont need voting power either. They are dormid. The proposal solves the issue of the protocol. Every other proposal in here has big negatives with a slight possibility to make a difference. This proposal is balanced for all and do definetly make it better for short term and long term holders (200% max boost did damage for ling term holders and did nothing for new investors).

Your statement makes no sense. Please, clarify you point as to how your proposal will benefit GMX.

Think i wrote it quite clearly.

It solves the issue. It makes it alot better for new investors, while old investors need to invest more to continue taking advantage of new mp.

The only negative is base apr (pure short term speculators) will not get alot of % fees the 1 week they are staking. Everyone buying with an investment in mind will rapidly get boost priveledges.


I copy paste my tg take. “We could even have two stones in one throw. Reduce the MP fees by half (1mp = 0.5gmx) and take the other half for buy and burn GMX.”

Would support long term grow of GMX price and attractivity.

oooh, different. appreciate the effort. remain involved as the topic develops, you might have a chance to more realistically pitch this change.

thank you for being involved

1 Like

good idea,lets do it,i will vote for you

Team is busy with BTC and ETH

Really? What are you ready to vote for?

g and f make it where gmx can become collateral. MPs reduce composability.

Pick your letters.

Mine are g and f

I am most in favor of @coinflipcanda proposals 1 and 2, and don’t think we need to change esGMX vesting.

MP served is purpose and absolutely contributed to GMX growth in the earlier stages. That contribution is worth some ownership of the protocol.

Proper capital allocation is the lifeblood of any protocol/business. MP is obviously a drag on the return calc for prospective capital allocators - top of mind for any serious investor discussion. Removing this overhang is critical.

Based on the above, I am in favor of a combo of (g) and (m).


Now that the vote is complete on single sided staking, can we vote on this asap

voting is live ser, looking forward to the results


Guys, I found this interesting topic to consider reward points for traders.

Arthur Hayes sells $9.6m of GMX as newer protocols eat market share with point systems – DL News

I do not think that its fare to people who purchased GMX accounts on STNL with multiplier points boost to eliminate multiplier points, not to mention early stakers…
Hayes liquidated his portfolio, burned all points over 400K. That was his choice.
I do believe that if we decide to eliminate Mps, they shall be converted to EsGmx for early stakers and accounts purchased at SNTL.

So when do we vote on the 2 options that got over 25% support??