What is the appeal of the $GMX token to new buyers?

1

When GMX platform first launched, there were a ton of reasons to buy $GMX:

  • Staked rewards paid in ETH
  • ESGMX distributions
  • Lots of token liquidity
  • Accumulate Multiplier Points
  • Governance power

That was a strong value proposition, and one that took $GMX from $2 to $92.

Now let’s look at the current value proposition:

  • No staked rewards unless the price reaches $90
  • No Multiplier Points
  • No ESGMX distributions
  • No effective governance power - one holder now makes up half the voting power
  • No liquidity beyond a small bit that gets sold into every day

What on earth is the pitch that the marketing team is supposed to make?

I get why long-term holders have to hold now - their APR is being held hostage. But have we entirely given up on appealing to human buyers, and just waiting for a bot to raise the price?

2

I feel the Governance forum should primarily be reserved for Governance matters. There are multiple threads where this topic has come up, and this response could have been added.

That said, it’s a valid, important question. So as one of the key contributors in the Marketing-Communications domain, let me state the current value proposition as I see it:

The original GMX token indeed offered a clear yield-based thesis, with incentives for early adopters (esGMX, MP). That model worked for the first year; year and a half. Then faltered. (People don’t care about real yield in a bull market; they want to see prices going up. DeFi ideals became less central to the space. The Perp DEX space consolidated, and competition increased. And so on.)

The current GMX thesis, with the staking rewards threshold-dependent at $90, differs materially. GMX is no longer a yield-driven token.

But here is what the token does represent in its current form: a type of protocol equity rather than a yield instrument. I would argue this is now the value prop:

• Ownership in a proven, revenue-generating trading platform
• A non-dilutive token supply; there are no meaningful ongoing emissions
• A clear link between the token and the thriving GMX business (Ongoing buybacks. Plus staking the already scarce token will soon give lower trading fees)
• A defined, programmatic, on-chain rewards-sharing trigger at $90
• Exposure to a growing fee surface (MegaETH very soon, further chain expansions likely, high-volume traders will soon be incentivized, and markets for other popular asset classes are assured)

So who should be interested in the GMX token..?

1.) Any crypto-native value investors looking for discounted fundamentals in a proven protocol with real, non-inflationary revenue.

2.) Platform users who want alignment with the Perp DEX they actively trade on.

3.) Ecosystem investors with a Long thesis on perp DEX growth as an asset class.

3

What does this ownership convey? The token provides “ownership of a revenue-generating” trading platform but why does that make someone want to buy it if they are unable to receive any of that revenue?

What kind of buyer is this meant to appeal to? GMX doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If a new buyer is considering buying $GMX over say, BTC (which will only ever have 21m), where’s the appeal?

When the prospective buyer asks how much the price of $GMX has risen thanks to Botanix and other chains, what would you tell them?

The human, non-bot buyer is supposed to find this untested mechanism appealing? Isn’t it a massive layer of uncertaintly (whether it will work, how long it will take to reach it, what will occur to holders the moment apr fees are distributed….) Again, this isn’t happening in a scenario where $GMX is the only crypto available. Why would someone prefer this over a normal yield-bearing token?

And are willing to wait an unknown length of time for something that isn’t a sure thing.

Wouldn’t these people buy HYPE or some other token that doesn’t have this degree of additional layered requirements mixed with not just the normal uncertainty of price action, but the added uncertainty of the most recent revision to the tokenomics?

I can’t fathom any new buyer looking at the responses your AI provided and thinking $GMX is a smart buy at this point, Jonezee.

To recap: We’re now at the two-year anniversary of Q beginning his massive changes to the tokenomics. Since then not only have we gone from $62.00 to $6.20, but we never got any uptick in stakers. It’s been mostly a flat line. None of his changes have resulted in more people thinking that its a good idea to buy & hold $GMX.

So far your ChatGPT hasn’t explained how this most recent Q idea, which is essentially a hostage ploy, would make an outsider look at this and think “Yes, this is something I want to be a part of.”

Or to put it more succinctly: What sets $GMX token apart from the other perp dex tokens?

4

I was buying GMX tokens monthly. I liked the constant cash flow, and I reinvested it by adding to the new tokens I bought.

I don’t like the current situation. It’s reminiscent of the regulator’s actions. I liked the dialogue about the project’s development here and absolutely disliked the concern about the price. However, I think the main decision was to work on the token price.

Under these circumstances, I won’t be buying tokens monthly because the situation is unclear. A price of $90 seems unrealistic to me.

I think we’ll buy back the tokens, creating a shortage, but the desire to buy them has waned.

Nevertheless, the majority of votes, delegated or not, have chosen this path. I’m interested to watch. Time will tell. Finally, we can forget about the GMX token price discussions and focus on the product.

1 Like
5

I think governance is spending time on the token, which i understandable for the DAO, but look at the proposals and updates from contributors … value for the DAO comes from the protocol growing and being sustainable, that is very much the focus for contributors while also ensuring that the will of the DAO is represented in other changes being implemented.

1 Like
6

Adding on:- you can see warren buffett’s opinions on dividends.
He suggested anyone who is interested in monthly cashflow, to sell a portion of his stocks to get that cashflow instead of using dividends.
his reasonings, which i think is roughly the same for any yield bearing assets vs growth stocks

  1. dividends attract taxation. tricky for those living in countries that are heavy on tax or regulation

  2. selling of stocks for cashflow - capital gain may not have tax.

  3. if a company has cashflow to give as dividend, means that they have no better opportunity to spend that cash on better growth and returns. thats a bad sign, according to warren.

above are not necessary for GMX, i am just sharing the merits of price reflecting the dividend growth vs outright giving out dividends, points shared by one of the richest man on earth.

i like my yields, but i also like capital growth, which is tax-free in many countries.

1 Like
7

All the contributors’ main focus is the product: development updates, further optimizing UX, growing the fee sources, expanding the addressable market.

But a great product doesn’t automatically equate to a strong token, and the community is right to address that. Us holders have earned excellent yield. Us holders have seen our principal go through a full bear cycle.

A crypto business works best when its success adds value to the scarce token, and the token serves as a calling card that rallies the community and attracts new users to the business. GMX is getting there.