Towards Addressing the Question of MPs - Next Steps

The First Steps towards addressing MPs and simplifying the GMX platform tokenomics have concluded with a successful sentiment Snapshot vote. The purpose was to rally the community around a select few options to refine and implement.

The results of the temperature check indicate the community prefers to refine the following proposals, to be implemented afterwards or ultimately discarded:

  • End MP Boost for Rewards
  • Convert MPs to esGMX (at a ratio)
  • Adjust MP APR

It was suggested earlier that each option should have its own forum post, to allow for further deliberation before final choices are made for a binding snapshot vote. However, it seems sensible that we can use a single forum post for all remaining options.

Here are the suggested arrangements and options, which will then be refined into a series of final snapshot vote. These vote will conclude with a community mandate of final deliverables.

Top Voted Options

  • esGMX conversion
  • Adjust MP APR
  • End MP boost for rewards

Final Vote Options

  1. Remove MP Rewards, No MP to esGMX conversion
  2. Remove MP Rewards, 100 MP to 1 esGMX conversion (100k esGMX supply required)
  3. Remove MP Rewards, 50 MP to 1 esGMX conversion (200k esGMX supply required)
  4. Remove MP Rewards, 25 MP to 1 esGMX conversion (400k esGMX supply required)
  5. Set MP APR to 75%
  6. Set MP APR to 50%
  7. Set MP APR to 25%
  8. Set MP APR to 0%
  9. No Change

Votes for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, 6, 7, 8 will be grouped to decide the winning group, the top voted option within that group will then be the final decision. Option 9 will be its own group, so it needs to have more votes than both groups to be viewed as the final decision.


To take dev resources into consideration and for sake of transparency and expectation-management, it is to be disclosed that the following potential steps be taken should the airdrop option pass:

Option 1: a one time onchain snapshot of current holding will determine current MP amounts per account, and allocate an esGMX allocation in accordance with the consensus-derived conversion rate

Option 2: the snapshot will be conducted twice. The first will be for earmarking an initial MP amount for each account; a second airdrop will be conducted some time afterwards.

Option 1 is simple and efficient, Option 2 allows for some dynamism in the disbursement.

The Google Doc is private

Please consider adjusting the Vote groups:
As (1) esGMX conversion, (2) Adjust MP APR, (3) End MP boost for rewards, and (4) No Change are the 4 different outcomes being decided, those should be the 4 vote groups.


End MP boost for rewards

End multiplier points, they don’t stabilize or sustain anything. We encourage trading and make it easy to hold with yield. Onchain demand for gmx token will lead to further scaling. MPs hinder demand onchain.

Long gmx

1 Like

An important question: Can these converted esGMX be vested? If not, then all the options for converting MP to esGMX are meaningless, because esGMX only has the value of sharing revenue, and even at a ratio of 25MP to 1esGMX, the value of this sharing revenue becomes negligible

1 Like


Long time GMX staker.

I believe 25:1 MP:esGMX Conversion rate is too low to begin with. Who came up with these values as suggestions? So, not only did I lock up GMX for nearly two years to earn the MPs, now I’ll have to lock up even more GMX to realise any future value from the rewards being taken away?

Doesn’t seem to make much sense to me.


Initially I was for the change of MPs system, but if vote goes as suggested I will support no change option.

I have one general critique - this type of decision making is not adequate for changes of this complexity. Having a snapshot with 20 options follow by this seems like a sure way to get some mid option that doesn’t make anyone happy.

In my eyes, protocol leads, should have picked a number of concrete options regardless of their complexity and let us vote on those. There is a reason why countries don’t hold elections for every choice they make.

Protocol governance is hard, maybe it would be better to postpone this once we have more clarity and governance structures in place.

This is already second vote on same topic, and if we choose wrong option it will be much harder, if not impossible, to justify another change.


If votes for 1, 2, 3, 4 are in one group, by same logic all remaining votes 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 should be in one group too. Because 9 is MP with APR 100% (it’s current state). So only 2 groups in total.


At this stage I’m not even sure if I stand for ending MP boost part of me tends to think we are just flapping around looking to see what we can do to get token price go up as soon as possible.

If I was to lean in that direction though I would suggest a one off esGMX allocation for current boosters is a needed gesture, we have gone from people locking up their GMX and investing in the ecosystem 2+ years ago for indefinite MP boosts which were later capped and now it’s being taken away completely.

esGMX still need to be vested and they’re somewhat clunky which makes for an ideal system that incentivizes staying in the game, you couldn’t pick a better alternative really from the limited options we have.

Also thank you to OP and everyone else who’s putting these threads together and moving us towards a resolution there’s dozens of people across numerous chats wanting quick changes but this is a topic with many angles to consider and I appreciate people who make these concise threads to move us further along.


We should not even dream of a GMX price increase. Due to the poor sentiment in the markets and the sharp drop in GMX protocol’s activity and indicators, now is the worst time to “drop” MP. I’m guaranteed it won’t increase GMX token price but decrease it even more. I don’t see how base APR rise from 4% to 8 % can attract many new buyers in a market conditions like this. It would probably should be at least 15-20% APR to drive more buyers to GMX. And to reach such high base APR price needs to drop by at least another -50%. Without MP the big whales, who were soft locked before, will leave for a better yield in another protocols. And all the talk that we are not afraid of their dump because new buyers will step in is worthless and funny. As practice has shown, one single whale managed to dump the price from 40 to 26 (-35%) practically without any rebound.


The way the GMX platform worked in the early days seemed to be ok and the price was ok. I think if we had kept things as is we may be having a different discussion today. I do think burning mps for a 1 of drop of esgmx sucks for those that were early to the party. If we really need change how about increased yield percentage for every year you hold GMX to encourage people to see GMX as a long term hold and not just another 5hit coin to flip

yes, they’ll be vestable like regular esGMX but on the basis of the snapshot, so you can vest immediately with same requirements for reserved tokens etc

Please note, this proposal has now moved to Snapshot for voting:

where these numbers coming from ?
I am quite shocked haha.
All these initiators of MP drama was mainly stand on the fact that GMX cant go up in price… lol.
Now if you check timeframe you will clearly get that outcome of all this discussion (which lead to drain OG’s holders who locked their tokens for two years without selling) - is that GMX drop in price freaking alot. Thats the outcome you wanted guys ? ok.

Feel quite sad about these options.
I am already mentioned my vision on this subj in previous discussions about MP… But it seems it was totally ignored. so to me it seems current “governance” thing is just a formal thing to pass already finalized vision of “someone”.

If you REALLY listen to your community and holders - then please lets discuss MP—>esGMX conersion rate separately before make snaphot voting.

otherwise its totally game… which I have no interest to play further :slight_smile:

here is my previous replies on this subj:


@narok @Preston
thank you guys!

@romaine.eth put his vote on “100% for Set MP APR to 0%”

Can somebody clarify it to me?
like… as I thought that option not assume that “early supporters” WILL keep “what they have earned” …
but @romanie assume contrary…

I am ok with his interpretation and will move my vote on that option then.
thank you.
And in this case I should say this is quite misleading naming for these options is used… they should be “Set APR on MPs emission to …” instead of “Set MP APR to …”

The discussion about MP has been going on for a long time, and every option has its pros and cons. Although some options are quite foolish, like making MP transferable, no single option has an absolute advantage, such as ending the MP reward or making no change.

The meaning of a DAO lies in the ability to discuss anything, vote on it, and then follow the majority vote. Therefore, it’s hard to imagine that someone could continually negate the consensus of the majority of the community from their limited knowledge and isolated perspective.

  1. Even after being disproven multiple times, they still believe that only their opinion is correct and that development, including price, will definitely follow the path they have planned. No one can predict the rise and fall of prices, let alone accurately determine the net impact of a specific proposal, whether they are supporters or opponents.

  2. They believe that once a proposition has been voted on, there should not be another vote, and they mock those who initiate new votes. In 1919, the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was the prohibition law, and in 1933, the 21st Amendment overturned prohibition. This is true constitutional democracy.

  3. They directly ignore and negate the results that have already occurred and sneer at the majority vote. In the MP Temp Check vote, the total votes for End MP Reward and Convert MP to esGMX were 918k+579k=1497k, accounting for 70.98%; the total votes for Adjust MP APR and No change were 612k, accounting for 29.02%. Despite such a huge disparity, they still believe that the 70.98% vote is funny and worthless. At the same time, they question the voting results, saying the current “governance” thing is just a formal thing to pass the already finalized vision of “someone”.

In this vote, I will personally vote for End MP Reward, which does not prevent me from believing that no change is also a reasonable option in some respects. No one can know exactly what is right, but we can easily know what is wrong through common sense. We will not question any community members whose opinions differ from our own, and we will always respect their right to vote and take responsibility for their choices.

Moreover, the results that can be seen are relatively consistent with the real choices and circumstances of the community, given that community members with over 200k fee power have not yet participated in the vote. If, as in the mp cap vote, a member with very high feepower votes at the last moment and reverses the outcome, we will still respect the voting results. However, under Tally’s new governance mechanism, we absolutely should not expect that similar proposals will not be initiated again.

Here, I will also actively exercise my responsibilities as a GMX DAO Delegate, listen to the voices and feedback of the community, and initiate proposals without discrimination, regardless of whether they are recognized or opposed, as long as a certain number of unified opinions are reached. In this way, everyone’s voice is equally important.



Ending MP rewards = fee sharing for MPs is removed completely.

Setting MP APR to 0 = fee sharing remains for current MP holders, no new MPs are earned at all.

(The naming of the options is not intentionally misleading in any way, there are just a limited number of characters you can use. The options are also clarified in the linked thread.)

1 Like

Unfortunately the categorizations are misleading. There’s no reason option 9 “Set MP APR to 100%” should be in a separate category from “Set MP APR to 25%, 75% or 0%.”

Not when option 1 “No mp-esgmx conversion” DOES count in the same category as the mp-esgmx choices.

This stark inconsistency makes the whole categorization aspect of this snapshot very questionable. The silent powers-that-be are splitting the MP APR category vote while merging “burn them all” and mp-esgmx categories.

“Thumb on the scale” as it were.


Literally this, and this goes for all DAOs.

Thank you for articulating this.

1 Like