Towards Addressing the Question of MPs - Journey's End

Over the last 60 days through multiple forum threads, over 100 community posts and two snapshot votes, the GMX community narrowed in on the preferred option of: Ending MP Rewards, and providing 1 esGMX for outstanding MP at a rate of 1 esGMX to 25 MPs

Links to prior deliberation and voting on the matter:

Towards Addressing the Question of MPs - Consolidated Suggestions

Towards Addressing the Question of MPs - Next Steps

Sentiment Temperature Check on Snapshot

Final Vote Following Temperature Check on Snapshot

To fulfill the snapshot vote, development contributors propose to take the following implementation steps:

Part 1:

  • Set MP emissions rate to zero
  • Set max boost percentage to zero
  • Call compound for every GMX holder

Part 2:

  • Create a migration contract with the migrate function and grant it the appropriate permissions
  • A list of addresses can be passed into the migration function
  • For each address:
    • Sum MPs in account’s wallet balance and pending claim balance
    • Mint esGMX for the account at a ratio of 25 MPs to 1 esGMX
    • Increase the GMXVester.bonusReward amount for the account by the amount of minted esGMX. This allows the user to vest the esGMX using the existing GMX Vester.


  1. After the migration, MPs will remain in users’ wallet, the usual burning of MPs on unstaking will still apply

  2. After the migration, MPs cannot be used for vesting

  3. This is a technical limitation as the vest vault only checks on the staked token balance

  4. For users that are already utilizing MPs for vesting, their vesting will continue. If a user withdraws tokens to stop vesting, when vesting is restarted, MPs will not count towards the vesting requirement

  5. Similar to vesting, the GMX_DAO tokens are minted based only on the staked tokens, so after the migration MPs will not have voting power

  6. For the airdropped esGMX, the amount of staked tokens needed to vest the esGMX would be based on the user’s existing average staked GMX + esGMX amount already recorded in the contracts

Some fair concerns in anticipation of the execution of these decisions have arisen, mainly calls for clarity around vesting requirements and calls for clarity around which steps to be conducted when.

Regarding calls for such clarity, contributors have agreed that, due to some objection, it is best to have a Snapshot vote for community to have input in order of steps to be executed and on the staking requirements following the airdropped esGMX. The proposed options will be as follow:

1a. Execute Part 1 and Part 2 at the same time
1b. Execute Part 1 First and Part 2 Afterwards

2a. Require GMX + esGMX for esGMX vesting
2b. esGMX can be vested without any staking requirement

Users would be allowed to vote for multiple options, the option with the largest share of votes for each group (Group 1 and Group 2) will be for chosen for each group - that is, the final result will be inclusive of the results from Group 1 and Group 2, and participating members are notified to take this into account and provide a vote on each option.


Roger Roger. Makes sense.

1 Like

Great! Let’s complete this community decision and move to the next good stage :)))
Thanks all dev and contributors for the nice work!

I will be unsatisfied and contentious again. :slight_smile: All previous discussions and votes about MP matter assumed MP abolishment (a) and MP conversion to esGXM (b) as separate independent options. But now you want to implement (a) and only sometime in the future implement (b). We already know that these implementations can take very long (MP boost cap was implemented only after 8 months!). So I demand to swap order of your proposed implementation steps- create migration contract first and only then remove MP airdropping esGMX.

This point is also questionable. Many assumed airdroped esGMX will be vestable linearly thru the year without any reserve requirement. Imagine situation someone was staking 10k GMX for long time but unstaked and sold half of it just weeks ago. By unstaking he burned half of his MPs and they are gone. Now he will be airdroped new esGMX for only fraction of his initial MP stake, but requirement to vest these esGMX will be like for full 10k GMX stake. And it gets even worse because now you don’t have staked MP to use it as reserve. Unfair!

We have vesting vault for affiliates already and it can be used for vesting MP > esGMX aidroped tokens too. Without any reserve requirement!

Please find time to answer these my concerns before implementing proposed changes!

P.S. My opinion is often different from majority :slight_smile: But I invite all those who support my strict and opposing views to choose me as a delegate in upcoming GMX DAO governance. My delegate profile …

1 Like

I strongly support the arrangements made by the GMX Core Contributors regarding the end of MP rewards and the esGMX conversion. It looks like it can stop the emission of MP as quickly as possible and maximally preserve the scarce esGMX remaining in the GMX Treasury.

The remaining esGMX in the GMX Treasury itself can be used to promote the development of the GMX ecosystem, such as the upcoming GM GMX/USD Market and Single GMX Pool. If esGMX is used for incentivizing these Pools, it can greatly enhance GMX’s potential to become a Liquidity Token and even help GMX implement a stable fiscal policy by subsidizing these SS GMX Pools to stabilize GMX’s APR, allowing GMX to calmly cope with various market conditions.

However, the current voting result is to use most of the GMX Treasury to subsidize MPs, which is of course fair, but it must be said that this has already severely limited and affected the long-term development of GMX. Based on this difficult situation, GMSOL has not even applied for any esGMX from the GMX Treasury as an incentive for early adoption, not wanting to add any financial burden to GMX. It is hoped that GMX can use this esGMX in places that can create value, instead of repeatedly consuming the stock value.

As we all know, developing the migration contract still requires some time, and I will strongly oppose the extremely selfish and short-sighted behavior of waiting for the migration contract to be implemented before stopping the emission of MP and executing the esGMX conversion. We should immediately stop the emission of MP, and based on the voting results that have already passed, execute the esGMX conversion as soon as possible in the future to maximally protect the GMX Treasury on a fair basis.

I also see the view that requires lowering or even canceling the vesting requirement of this part of esGMX. There are even examples assuming that if a user unstaked and sold half of it just weeks ago, they still hope that GMX will thoughtfully adopt the practice of lowering esGMX’s requirement for these users instead of using average values.

First of all, regardless of whether the method proposed by the current GMX Core Contributors to take the average value or the method of taking the real-time value is adopted, the requirements for each user are the same and are fair. GMX itself is already free to buy and sell. Now, considering which fair scheme to adopt for users on the selling side, I once again clearly oppose this ridiculous idea.

Most people firmly believe that “only a few people grasp the truth” and even claim or boast to be part of that minority, even opposing for the sake of opposing. This is a huge logical joke. I will never presuppose a position to believe that only I am right. I will listen to the opinions of all community members and engage in discussions, regardless of whether you are in the majority or minority, everyone deserves to be heard. Here, I invite all those who support my rational views to choose me as a delegate in the upcoming GMX DAO governance.


Once again, thank you @CredegarFhristensen for organizing all the above proposals, for your dedication to GMX, and for your outstanding contributions. It is my honor to be with you in the GMX Community.


Your series of proposals are leading GMX out of its current predicament, which has been reflected in the price of GMX. Thank you for your continued contributions. I fully support you.

1 Like

Thank you very much for your encouragement. I may not think that it was my series of proposals that led GMX to gradually emerge from its predicament, but I believe that if more community members can continuously prioritize value creation and think about solutions and contributions to GMX from this perspective, then GMX will no longer have any predicament.


Stop this bullshit. What short-sight and selfish behaviors you are talking about? You yourself actively campaigned, promoted and voted for the abolition of MPs without any compensation. But unfortunately the other option won the vote- compensating MPs for their loss of fees share with esGMX at a ratio 1:25. So please respect the outcome of the vote and be accurate to the end implementing winning option. I don’t see much difference if the MP stays for a few more weeks after having been around for almost 3 years. MP issuance/burn ratio is stable for almost 3 month and it will not impact esGMX amount needed for compensation.

Thank you for your confirmation. I am talking about my short-sighted and selfish behaviors. I have over 200k MPs, yet I actively campaigned, promoted and voted for the abolition of MPs without any compensation. But unfortunately the other option won, I have to receive more esGMX from GMX Treasury.

I have always respected the results of the votes. Moreover, when facing such highly controversial issues within the community, I am very cautious in using my voting power of over 400k to avoid flipping the results at a critical moment.

Currently, there is another whale with over 400k voting power. In the last MP cap vote, the leading choice was 100% ahead until the very end, when that vote flipped the outcome.

This does not mean I am against him, but regarding the MPs issue, I need to hedge against his influence and give the real decision-making power to ordinary users. Therefore, my voting strategy is simple. At the time, the leading options were “end MP rewards” and “1:25”:

  1. If he votes for “no change,” I will vote 50:50 for “end MP rewards” and “1:25.”
  2. If he votes 50:50 for “end MP rewards” and “1:25,” I won’t vote.
  3. If he votes for “end MP rewards,” I will vote for “1:25.”
  4. If he votes for “1:25,” I will vote for “end MP rewards.”

The final result was 4. After both of us voted, “end MP rewards” and “1:25” each had 1.2M votes. I believe that this voting strategy has fully demonstrated that “I fully respect the community’s opinion.”

What is my motivation? Why do I hold a large number of MPs and even vote to end MP? In your view, I might be pushing a plan that exploits MP holders, including myself. If you only consider what you can directly gain from this vote, then yes, it is obvious. But if you look from a broader perspective, protecting the GMX Treasury ultimately benefits all GMX/esGMX holders.

I am very fortunate to see and be part of such a community. Many MP holders can also see this point. Initially, I also believed that the chances of “1:25” winning were the highest, or we could say “smart people” would vote for “1:25,” and only “fools” would vote for “end MP rewards.” However, the number of votes for “end MP rewards” was astonishing, including a significant number of 200% users. This is a great and incredible thing.

From a personal perspective, yes, the difference is negligible—it might mean having a few hundred more or fewer esGMX. But from the GMX Treasury’s perspective, considering the uncertainty of the time required to develop the migration contract, the difference is significant.


I can’t believe that this time my criticisms and suggestions were taken into account. :slight_smile: Respect and sincere thanks!