First off I’ll say thank you for putting this proposal out, it is certainly an interesting consideration. The way GMX/GLP is structured currently is like a positive cash flow equity. Money flows in, money flows out proportional to each shareholders share %. It’s pretty simple and straightforward.
Enabling a bonding mechanism like this could potentially reduce the volatility of available liquidity. Rather than all liquidity being “at will” cash, it gives the protocol a way to introduce duration (and by extension, convexity). As liquidity is locked into longer duration bonds, they are compensated with higher yields (following a classic positive yield curve), and the protocol liquidity becomes sticky insofar as those bonds pay a convincing enough yield. However, the bonding mechanism itself could become it’s own source of volatility, and the rises and falls of the bond yield curve cause periodic disruptions in liquid supply. The oscillations of the bond curve are probably worth the risk if the goal is to source long term liquidity, as it guarantees that at any given time there will at least be a great majority of the liquidity available. Greater liquidity supports greater utilization. Greater utilization supports greater fee capture. Greater fee capture supports cash flow. And cash flow supports DCF valuation, which accrues value to the GMX token. Not bad.
Implementing a bonding mechanism could range between trivial to quite complex. The main thing I would worry about is how the rates are set. I could foresee scenarios where long duration completely overwhelms short duration rates and liquidity growth from sources who have high liquidity availability as one of their priorities stops entirely. In bond markets, liquidity prefers short duration - and if it is treated badly by long bond rates, a lot of liquidity will simply not participate. Should always be enough of an incentive on the short end (GLP) to attract that liquidity, because short duration / current shares is generally the vast majority of available liquidity in any such markets.
At present I do not see a need to implement a bonding mechanism. Liquidity has been growing rapidly on Avalanche as yields still remain quite juicy. It is worth considering for future implementation.
It seems to me the most reasonable course of action at present is to focus on developing the trading platform so that it has the functionality and seamlessness of a CEX. A good product speaks for itself and develops loyal users. That’s where real value is realized and ultimately what we are considering here, product loyalty. Since the token price has incentives aligned to the success of the platform itself, the latter is all we need to consider to arrive at the former.