[Gains Network][FINAL][STIP - Round 1]

First, I believe the perps platforms overall demand has become an issue and I’m not sure how the DAO will address it. The cumulated amounts have gotten out of hand, regardless of my personal opinion about who deserves or doesn’t deserve to be voted. I can imagine none will budge if the others don’t as well. If everyone is open to it, a solution could be for all of you to discuss and lower your requests proportionally.

Back to the proposal itself, could you please clarify a few points in your proposal:

  1. The only restriction for incentives allocation is a cap on the Volume Points. Through the various other boosters, it looks like you could end in a situation where users would be paid to trade.
    Allocating 6m to unlimited payouts seems extremely risky and potentially very inefficient, as this could end up attracting only fake or wash trading volume.
    I saw that other Synthetix perps or GMX in their proposal included caps in their incentives at fees, is there a specific reason for you to not do something similar?

  2. Asking 1m for GNS liquidity incentives feels excessive compared to entire DEXes requests like TJ (1.8m) Balancer (1.6m) or even Camelot (3m).
    It also overlaps since several all of them will already support GNS, or with other types of protocols such as lending ones.
    Would you be open to restrict your ask only to gDAI, being the liquidity that supports your protocol, instead of direct incentives to your token?

1 Like

Hi Perl, thank you for your comment. Regarding your questions:

  1. All points will be restricted per epoch (1 epoch = 1 week). Each trader can only earn up to 100 points per week. The cap we refer to wrt Volume is that users can only earn a few points per day coming from volume to prevent users from just opening and closing trades with high leverage. In summary, it is not unlimited payouts as that wouldn’t make sense.
  2. If you check section 3 of the proposal, you will be able to see that the Liquidity Incentives are for GNS and gDAI. GNS is listed/getting listed as collateral on lending platforms and CDPs so making sure it’s as liquid as possible makes integrations safer and allows for liquidations without further impediments. The same line of thought for gDAI and very soon other gTokens.

Hey @Lunaman thank you for your answer!

Understood and that makes sense. Is there any link/documentation where we could read more details about the way points are allocated? It would help to clarify this part.

Absolutely I noticed it also includes gDAI, which sounds logical given that it’s your liquidity token. My main criticism was for also including GNS. It seems to me to be too big a request considering:

  • the overlapping liquidity incentives from multiple other protocols
  • your overall ask which is already huge proportionally to the STIP total

I know I’ve already mentioned that point, but if you compare your ask for GNS liquidity with most of the DEX requests of this program, aiming for tens of different protocols’ liquidity, it immediately strikes as being quite disproportionate imho.


Bland boring project with undoxxed team . Just one of the many perp players in the space most likely going nowhere in comparison to peers.

1 Like

Interesting how gTrade grew from one chain to another, to finally find home in ARB.

Supporting you all the way! Hoping for those incentives to accelerate further defi initiatives to grow atop of Gains Network.



Gains Network showcases a forward-thinking approach with gTrade, aiming to bridge the gap between decentralized and centralized trading platforms through its liquidity-efficient design. The allocation towards trading and liquidity incentives is insightful, as it not only promotes active participation but also ensures sustainable liquidity. With clear, measurable KPIs, this project not only holds itself accountable but also sets a precedent for transparency and strategic planning within the community. The Magpie Ecosystem recognizes the substantial contribution the Gains Network offers to the Arbitrum ecosystem and has confidence in the team’s capabilities moving forward. With the STIP award, Gains Network is poised to foster growth and draw more users to Arbitrum.


Hello @Lunaman,

Unfortunately, the following section of your proposal is not eligible to be funded with treasury funds as it can be seen as gambling, which is against Cayman Law.

Please either remove or reword this section so that there is no mention of a lottery or gambling.

Please let me know if you have any questions and tag me when the changes are made so I can recheck the proposal for eligibility.

1 Like

Hi Matt, thank you for bringing this up to our attention.
We have reworded that section to better capture the nature of those points.
Let us know if it’s alright from your side.

1 Like

Thank you for these changes! Your submission now meets all requirements to be considered for a snapshot vote.

Hello @Lunaman ,

Now that your application has been marked eligible, please be advised of the remaining steps in the application process to be completed prior to the Review Period Deadline:

Please complete the following steps required for your application to proceed to Snapshot:

To change your proposal to final, please tag an Arbitrum Foundation Forum Moderator (@ stonecoldpat @ cliffton.eth @ eli_defi) by the Review Period deadline to notify them of your proposal’s readiness to proceed from [Draft] to [Final] status.

Once notified, the Arbitrum Foundation Forum Moderator will adjust your title from [Draft] to [Final] status. Once marked as [FInal], your application post will be locked by moderators and you will no longer be able to edit your proposal.

1 Like

Firstly, thank you for your proposal and your enthusiasm for contributing to the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Introduction and Rationale

Gains aims to further incentivize trading on its already-successful platform through a points system, with a slight focus on liquidity incentives. They have requested a total of 7mm $ARB for this endeavor. Their unique offerings in non-traditional crypto markets like forex and commodities align well with Arbitrum’s diverse ecosystem. With $16bn in volume and over 4,800 users on Arbitrum alone, they have demonstrated significant traction. While their approach to incentivizing user engagement through a points system is innovative, we’re cautious about the grant size and its primary focus on trading volume.

Major Concerns

Concern Regarding Grant Size and Ecosystem Alignment

  • The grant request seems more focused on trade volume than on broader ecosystem benefits
  • Gains sold half of their initial $ARB airdrop for $GNS, questioning their commitment to Arbitrum
  • Our recommendation for change: Reconsider the grant size and distribution to align more closely with Arbitrum’s broader ecosystem goals. A reduction to 1.5mm $ARB, based on budget constraints, and general non-alignment with the Arbitrum community.

Minor Concerns

  • Incentive system may not cater to a diverse range of users, focusing more on trade volume
  • The points system, while innovative, might require more details for transparency
  • Our recommendation for change: Expand the incentive structure to cater to a more diverse set of users, and provide more details on how the points system would work in practice.


Castle Capital appreciates the contributions made by Gains and the unique trading opportunities they offer within the Arbitrum ecosystem. However, we believe that adjustments to the grant size and its distribution could better serve the community at large. We look forward to your feedback and are optimistic that fine-tuning the proposal can strengthen Gains’ commitment to Arbitrum.

We hope our insights serve as constructive input for the benefit of the broader Arbitrum ecosystem. Thank you for considering our feedback.


Following up here to clarify on the major concern we outlined…

The reason for the ask for reduction is based on budget constraints along with our governing values for the program:

  1. Protocol effectiveness = High (generally a well designed synth perp)
  2. Arbitrum Alignment (taking into account length of time and impact) = Low (due to their late join and selling their ARB airdrop)
  3. Innovation = Medium
  4. Collaboration = Medium
    Along with whether the grant focuses internally or externally (this proposal mainly focuses on internal metrics and does not seek to drive second-order effects of other protocols in the ecosystem)

For context, the 1.5M we are suggesting still puts Gains in the top 5ish protocols in our internal recommendations.


I have been trading at GMX and Gains for more than 1 year now, and I would say that your summary is very well written with careful and detailed arguments. With that being said, I think the perfect place for your arguments would be the trashcan. First of all, what is castle capital? Is that the best name you could come up with ? Nobody even heard of y’all and you come here passing judgement like experts.

Now talking about the platforms, I have used both extensively and I think the amount asked by gains is reasonable , i would say maybe ~10-15% less could make more sense. The one that really is an atrocious ask and should be cut down by atleast 35-40% is GMX. I have read their proposal multiple times and still shouts to me “that give us the money because you are nothing without us” . Their proposal is absolutely bringing no additional value or new customers onto Arbitrum.


Can’t agree more with misterpaoo. I know Castle Capital that you are a big GMX investor, but dropping all those nonsenses is very hurtful for Arbitrum ecosystem. We have to keep our chain wellbeing way above any biased consideration.

This grant is very detailed here, funds won’t be used for anything else than explained. It’s a commitment. What they did with the previous funds was simply money management, and they still own a big chunk of our token.

Innovation - Medium is laughable for the most innovative leveraged trading platform on our chain. They basically invented 1 click trading, for a CEX like feeling and a first ever feature for a perp. What about guaranteed orders they call lookbacks, 1st of its kind and CEX like ? Their vault is very innovative as well. Your review is beyond dishonesty.

The volume they do on our chain is GMX like since weeks if not month now. How many Forex traders are coming to use Arbitrum only thanks to them ?

If I would have to cut any grant, it would definitely be GMX one, all metrics would point for equal grants for both projects. Let’s vote but with Arbitrum interest in mind, not some people bags :slight_smile:


This looks like a strategically planned, final day hit piece to attack competitor. I really don’t know who you are but quick look at your socials shows you are all in on GMX so your comments should be taken with the grain of salt imo. How about holdings disclosure to fully expose your financial interest here? It would be a great start



The grant request seems more focused on trade volume than on broader ecosystem benefits

Doesn’t that relate to “onboarding new users” and "incentivizing trading”, 2 of the 3 main pillars you mentioned when praising GMX’s proposal? Only a humongous level a bias would allow to turn the exact same aspects someone’s strengths and someone else’s weaknesses.

Gains sold half of their initial $ARB airdrop for $GNS

How can that be simply summarized to “questioning Arbitrum”? Gains, as a relatively smaller project, needed some capital to achieve the project’s goal of growing adoption.

Innovation = Medium

1-click trading, first fully community-ran and profitable chainlink DON, first-ever guaranteed order on-chain executions, look back execution, multitude of asset classes. Are you for real?


all thinks are clear here :ok_hand: :ok_hand: :ok_hand:

1 Like

As a user of GNS and other protocols, I couldn’t disagree more with your statement which is full of dishonesty.

Gains network:

  • Invented one-click trading.
  • Guaranteed execution first ever on-chain (Not even CEXs have it)
  • Multiple asset classes for 2 years (Others have been trying for years and nothing yet :slight_smile:
  • gDAI vault.
  • Run their own custom chainlink DON.
  • The UX UI is way superior,
  • Etc…

GNS product is 10X better than the rest of the players by far, and with the level they execute new and amazing features… it is going to be a fun ride.

So with that level of bad faith you showed here, and no idea where it is coming from (you guys are probably so biased). I just expect nothing but everybody in this space to keep away from Castle Capital plus whatever project you represent.

True Innovators are in GNS, so I think they deserve what they are asking for or even more.