[GMX] [FINAL] [STIP - Round 1]

I agree with this sentiment, not to insult any of the other fine fine protocols here but GMX is Arbitrum.


Really like the fact that this stipulation is preserving the integrity of the incentive program and ensuring the use of benchmarks with third-party auditing to ensure the quality of the incentive programs.

It’s a well known recognize issue, and in accordance to (4.4), GMX is taking a unique approach preventing bad actors from liquidity mining and maintaining accountability can really help create longer term value to the wider ecosystem in with utilizing GMX and ecosystem related projects.

Well done to David, SniperMonke, Saurabh, JoneZee, Coinflip and the many other contributors for organizing this!


I just cannot justify giving GMX like a third of the ARB when we can disperse that between lots of other protocols. Especially when the arb here seems to be just replacing GMX for incentives. Love the product, and it should definitely get a large grant, but this amount is way to disproportionate in my opinion.


Delegates that think this is too large and should consider whether non-native protocols who deployed on Arbitrum a few months ago with little to no users should be getting $500,000 to $1,000,000 of incentives.

GMX seems to be one of the only protocols on the chain that can actually effectively distribute emissions of this magnitude.

Reduce the other grants to make room. I support this grant fully. GMX is Arbitrum.


Before diving in, I want to emphasize that I’ve been a devoted follower of the perp DEX sector for quite some time.

I have a deep respect for GMX. After all, they were the trailblazers in the realm of perpetual DEXes and arguably one of the key factors that brought Arbitrum into the spotlight.

However, I must express my reservations about the substantial grant request of 14 million ARB tokens. While GMX has undeniably served as a source of inspiration for many other protocols, including Gains, MUX, Vela, Level, and others, the innovations introduced in GMX v2 haven’t lived up to the groundbreaking potential one might have expected. For example, Gains Network, a project with a significant history in the space, already provides most of the functionalities found in GMX v2.

One perspective worth considering is the trading volume distribution between GMX and other perp DEXs within the Arbitrum ecosystem, as well as the contrast between GMX v1 and GMX v2.

Here are some key takeaways from the screenshot I captured on DeFi Llama regarding Arbitrum’s derivatives volume:

  1. GMX has lost its position as the leading protocol on Arbitrum in terms of trading volume. While it still holds the top spot in Total Value Locked (TVL), trading activity (as represented by trading volume), which I consider a crucial on-chain indicator, has slipped to #4, accounting for only approximately 10% of the total volume on Arbitrum.

  2. Even when we compare the usage of GMX v1 and GMX v2, it becomes apparent that a significant portion of users has not migrated to the v2 platform. The majority of trading volume continues to occur on GMX v1. When a newer version of a product fails to replicate the success of its predecessor, it does raise questions.

Given the decline in trading activities, GMX’s request for 14 million ARB tokens, which accounts for 28% of the grant allocation, seems perhaps excessive. It might be more beneficial for Arbitrum to allocate grants to emerging projects with the potential to attract and onboard a more extensive user base into the Arbitrum ecosystem. This would diversify support and reduce the risk of concentrating too many resources in one protocol, particularly one that may no longer hold the top position.

To clarify, I’m not suggesting that GMX should receive no grant at all; they indeed deserve a significant grant. However, it’s challenging to justify allocating approximately 30% of the total grant value to them when they are no longer the #1 trading platform on Arbitrum.


Thanks for the response.

In reply to points:

  1. volume is NOT a reliable indicator currently with such little market volatility. I won’t comment as to why many of the protocols above have more volume, but what do the stats looks like if you reframe it by open interest, a far more reliable indicator of protocol usage?

  2. the open interest Vs TVL has been a good indicator of the v2’s potential. The reason traders haven’t necessarily switched is inability to open trades (maxed out liquidity), which a grant scheme would exactly solve. As to why LPs haven’t migrated, a couple reasons imo such as fees and vesting esGMX requirements with GLP.

edited to incl this open interest chart:

GMX v2 oi is not incl on this chart, which is another ~$21m at the time of writing, meaning that across the tracked perp dex protocols on Arbitrum GMX open interest still accounts for over half of this


An excellent, thorough proposal and I wholeheartedly support it. GMX is a project which has, through its own power and at times alone, pushed Arbitrum to the lengths it needed to go to achieve L2 dominance. GMX has had projects of all shapes and colours building around it. It has been the catalyst for a lot of growth on Arbitrum and has, itself alone, been >50% of TVL on Arbitrum at times. GMX has also been on Arbitrum since Day One. If ANY protocol deserves a large allocation, it is GMX.

v2 has gotten off to a slow start and this is fine - we are in uncertain times and activity in crypto is low. However, with the right push and incentives, v2 will take off. Of that I am certain. And it is in everyone’s interest that GMX v2 does indeed succeed.

Much love to the contributors and community that made this proposal. Hard work but I believe this will bear fruit and usher in something wonderful.


Thank you for everyone involved putting together the proposal. I love to see data driven proposals like this from projects with a strong track-record for delivering great products and proven capabilities of managing funds and reasonable team funding. I hope the DAO appreciates this in a similar way, supporting a strong team and product that essentially shaped the arbitrum ecosystem as it is today.

Full support from my side (obviously).


We, at Kunji Finance, wholeheartedly support this proposal. GMX has played a crucial role in fostering the expansion of the Arbitrum ecosystem. The allocation sought under STIP will further solidify its standing as the foremost derivatives DEX and will contribute to drawing in a larger TVL within the Arbitrum ecosystem. It’s important to note that numerous protocols are built upon GMX, and its development significantly bolsters the overall growth of the ecosystem.


GMX stands as one of the most well-known and used DeFi protocols, impressively representing 25% of Arbitrum TVL.

This isn’t just a testament to its utility but a clear indication of its foundational role in the Arbitrum ecosystem.

We must emphasize that without GMX, the landscape of Arbitrum would be starkly different. Their dedication to innovation has consistently shaped the course for many others in the space.

The foundation of Arbitrum rests upon pillars like GMX. I’m wholeheartedly in favor of this proposal


Thank you so much for the note. Appreciate the swift response.

On 1, now that you brought up OI as a metric, I do agree that OI can help shed some light on GMX’s platform activities. I think your point is valid that GMX leads the OI metric across all perp DEX, signifying it’s still at the top, but I still think we cannot just look at OI alone and disregard looking at the trading volume. Rather, I think we should make an assessment based on the combination of the two.

I think the ratio between OI and volume can provide insights into the trading style of the traders on each platform. Based on the data you presented on GMX OI, I think GMX traders tend to hold their positions longer (as GMX’s OI is ~3-4x of its daily trading volume).

On the other hand, I’m glad you brought up the OI metrics. I think protocols whose OI is much lower than their daily trading volume does raise questions (i.e. an OI:Daily Volume ratio of 1:10 or more). In that regard, I think GMX’s stats are healthy. I have done some quick scan through of other protocols, and I think there are a few protocols where their OI to trading volume ratio is outrageous (e.g. one protocol has a $5M OI to $56M daily volume, 1:~11).

On 2, noted on the esGMX vesting along with GLP. Do you think you could provide some statistics on how much GLP is “stuck” for vesting esGMX?

I think if amount of GLP “stuck” is not substantial (i.e. <30-40% of the current GLP TVL), then it might indeed challenge the hypothesis that LPs are not migrating due to vesting esGMX. This data will provide crucial context for assessing the situation.

All in all, I believe GMX should still receive a substantial amount of grant. Ultimately, the decision regarding the grant amount should be a collective one that aligns with the community’s goals and priorities. I just personally think that $14M in ARB is excessive.

On a side note, I just cross-checked the data on the screenshot you sent over, and it seems the data on the dashboard might be inaccurate. For example, Gains Network OI, according to their official protocol dashboard, sits at ~$16.5M, but your graphic is currently showing ~$70M. See pic below for reference:

Link to Gains’ Dune: https://dune.com/shogun/perpetual-dexs-overview

Although this discrepancy doesn’t impact your point that GMX leads among perpetual DEXs in terms of OI metrics (or maybe even supports it if Gains’ OI is overstated), I just wanted to bring it to your attention as an FYI.


100% agree. 14m ARB!!! Far too much. Spread the love.

Great write up though.


To all the ones who say Arbitrum is GMX, given the facts I can’t really disagree. But you are giving it a positive connotation when in reality it’s not.
Think twice, if something bad happens to GMX… wht happens to Arbitrum?

My point is that we should aim for a diversified space where competition leads to a continuously cutting-edge development.
Decentralization will avoid us a lot of troubles long term.

Having a flagship product = good.
Sustaining the whole chain on it = dangerous at least.

Allocating 5M to them (which is 2.5x the max amount of the tier immediately below) should be already considered a nice deal and VIP treatment.

12M is just too out.

Also, GMX is a great dapp and it’s not debatable that it was so innovative when they launched, they built a name in the cryptosphere and has no rival in terms of adoption, but that’s probably in part due their early introduction.

I’m not sure if it’s still currently the most innovative and competitive perpetual dex existing. I’m just wondering. I’ve seen similar ones offering a wider range of products for example. It has rained a lot since they took the space by storm back then. So yeh, it’s a great dapp, but don’t exaggerate too much some of you guys when you make it seem like there is nothing after GMX.


Thank you GMX for putting together such a well-thought-out proposal! Vaultka, being the first and only protocol building on GMX V2 GM tokens, wholeheartedly supports the goal of encouraging new developers to work with GMX. The 2 million ARB allocated for supporting protocols with integration is a fair amount of distribution given the great potential that GMX and protocols building on top can generate. We believe that when protocols support each other, the entire ecosystem becomes stronger.


As a builder who has built on the Arbitrum ecosystem, I want to iterate how important GMX role was in shaping Arbitrum as we know it.

GMX and its team have been leading the way with innovation, community building and users attraction on Arbitrum since its launch and now more than ever have proven how important pushing boundaries is for them with the launch of GMX V2.

I fully support this proposal, and despite being a consistent amount, I do not see a better way of committing these ARB tokens than to put them to service of one of the most promising projects on Arbitrum.



No one can deny that GMX deserves the biggest % on the pie given they are the biggest protocol and the biggest motor on Arbitrum.
Saying this i think 14M/50M is quite a lot, it will leave a lot of projects out from this incentive program.


I fully support this proposal for a grant. I’ve read a lot of messages criticizing V2 and comparing it to other protocols. Many don’t seem to have understood that the foundations for the V2 have been totally rethought and that it will be able to accommodate a significant influx of volume in the next cycle.

GMX has proved its worth on the Arbitrum network, and whenever there’s volatility, gmx is back in the spotlight. I don’t think the demand is too great, GMX is artbitrum’s native protocol par execellence, so if there’s a VIP “role” then that’s the one to give it to.

As a reminder, today GMX represents 26% of arbitrum’s TVL.

The protocol has been able to evolve and continues to attract people to arbitrum, and I would also argue that it is absolutely essential to incentivize liquidity providers as quickly as possible, since liquidity is limited by GLP’s esGMX vesting, which limits the transition for the time being.

Just look at TVL utilization, which is over 70% for all V2 peers. Let’s lay the foundations together for the next cycle to go smoothly.

For all these reasons, I would support the GMX proposal.


This seems an honest request in view of what GMX has brought to Arbitrum. You don’t have to do away with competition altogether, but not rewarding the person who made you what you are today would be very damaging to the ecosystem, especially since even today it’s Arbitrum’s protocol no. 1. You know that this money will not go to waste and that it will be used to promote gmx and arbitrum.


I support GMX as an OG protocol and like what they built in v1 and the new features of v2 (even though I don’t believe in fragmented liquidity, but i like other design points especially price impact etc).

That being said, I just think size is a bit big compared to the current daily volume of GMX.
I’m not comparing to perp dexes with off-chain orderbook where they can print any number they want (there’s lot of wash trading on those, vertex, hyperliquid etc); but other fully on chain perp dexes.

Still think GMX should have biggest size among all protocols; but just a bit lower.


What can I say? GMX is Arbitrum. While I can’t deny that Arbitrum’s success today is mostly thanks to GMX’s success, but could you please cap your asking amount for the public good?
There are many innovative projects on Arbitrum that simply need a bit of capital to bootstrap their concepts and prove their viability. If GMX truly cares about the Arbitrum ecosystem in the long term, and for a higher purpose, it would be in the best interest to nurture innovation by sharing their privilege.

God bless GMX and Arbitrum. :pray: