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

Reducing trading fees is imperative to compete with CEX’s and other trading platforms. I am in favor of this proposal.


Can’t agree more. Arbitrum needs more than “one perp rule them all”.


GMX has been the catalyst to starting the DeFi boom on Arbitrum. A number of perp DEXs have come on Arbitrum since then, but GMX continues to dominate on TVL, volumes and open interest.

I believe they deserve the grant to continue growing out the ecosystem on Arbitrum.

We at Stella are looking forward for GMX V2 to grow out, so we can support leveraged strategies on top of GM tokens.


Difficult to not be supportive of this.

Arbitrum would not be where it is without GMX, and this success was not without reason. Other DEXs showing high volume numbers really do not appreciate the scale of GMX.

I can understand why other perp DEXs would be against GMX getting the largest grant, but they can feel free to contribute as much to the ecosystem with the same level of success and request the same amount. There is no other protocol that has had the impact that GMX has.

Anyone that is not aligned with supporting GMX clearly does not understand the reality of the Arbitrum ecosystem. GMX is a bluechip, and it should be treated as such.


Generally agree

However, it is a significant asking and doesn’t just take food off the plates of competing perp dexes, but this will impact every other proposal as part of this program, due to the obnoxious size.

Personally feel this should be a direct to DAO grant proposal and thus funded out of a seperate pot and not the STIP. I really cannot see why the DAO would not approve this proposal. It’s GMX. In addition, this is a comprehensive proposal that is well structured and built with a long-term intention in mind and not really suitable to a short burst over a few months.

Give this proposal the breathing space it needs for GMX to thrive over the long run and not have it cobbled and fit into the STIP where it will undoubtably choke the rest of the ecosystem.


For many in the space, GMX was their first foray into trying out perps. This proposal encourages more users to try out which is basically a household name in crypto. After all, it’s all about the fight to bring crypto holders over from centralized venues and make them DeFi users. It would be hard not to support this.


Let’s goooo! Give the bois this grant!


I’d like to draw some attention this subsection here.

GMX are not only asking for 14M ARB out of 50, they are also seeking an additional approval for pro-rata (meaning proportional) share of all future grants under this program. This section represents a sum vastly in excess of 14M here.


I feel while its obvious GMX has been fundamental cornerstone of Arbitrum and is one of the most important projects of the ecosystem (deservedly), the fact that they have been already airdropped insane amounts of ARB in previous rounds and the ask size for this grant is 28% (+asking for extensions), it goes against the STIP goals.

There is already, summing all proposals, over 130M in ARB asks for grants for a 50M budget, and a lot of applicable projects in the program. Simply put, the grant size, is so big, that it would leave breadcumbs for the rest of the ecosystem, leaving not a impactful enough grants for the rest (and many of these protocols weren’t lucky enough to get a massive ARB airdrop like GMX got). I see a clear monopoly/concentration power issue if we keep going this route.

I of course believe GMX should get the biggest Arbitrum grant, but the size amount needs to be heavily revised.


GMX was a huge help to fueling Arbitrum’s early growth – largely in part to a fantastic perp exchange that worked with smooth U, offering a unique trading experience for all. GMX is a great team and it has been fun to work alongside them.


The fact that GMX had to write a 10-page proposal and ask 20 different people (who without any sound reason or logic are supporting GMX in comments), in itself says how much inflated this proposal is. Question is : is there any way to punish such absurd and outrageous proposals ? Even if this is a bargaining tactic, we should be starting from something like 12 million and maybe go down to like a 8-9 million ( which is very appropriate of what GMX deserves).


Can you please explain how exactly will “this proposal encourage more users to try out” and “how this proposal will bring out central users to arbirtrum” ? Is GMX hiring bodyshop workers now to endorse their outrageous proposal ?


GMX was a large part of Arbitrum’s early growth, however, they have done little to innovate further while other smaller perp dexes have been innovating and creating new, exciting features or products to acquire more users and bring them to Arbitrum and it shows with this proposal, no new features or innovation, just money to hand out as rewards.


GMX V2 brings a lot of innovation. It improves execution, it’s much cheaper than V1, new Chainlink low-latency feeds are now live, providing liquidity is much safer, LPs are “protected” against traders PNL… V2 can scale and be a rival to the centralized exchanges.
I really don’t want to fud any project, especially here, when some of them are fighting for survival. But your take isn’t fair. Many of the “smaller perp dexes” with grant proposals are just GMX V1 forks…


You should take into account that GMX didn’t sell a single ARB token. GMX DAO will use them to be part of the ArbitrumDAO governance process. Many other projects decided to spend them in various ways, and some even bought their own token with them.
GMX wasn’t “lucky to get a massive airdrop”, DAO was awarded tokens for being one of the most important (if not the most important) projects on Arbitrum, from the time Arbitrum went live. I could argue that GMX should have gotten many more ARB tokens from the initial airdrop, but that is not the subject of this discussion.


Hello @coinflip thank you for your application! Apart from missing a multisig funding address, your submission meets all requirements to be considered for a snapshot vote. Please notify me when a funding address is added so a can verify your submission.


Great write up! 100% Support. GMX leads by a large margin and should receive the majority of the grant in order to pave the way once again for the next cycle.


Thanks for your feedback!

It’s possible that “20 different people without sound logic or reason” are supporting this proposal because they recognise the very clear impact GMX v1 has had on, not only Arbitrum, but the wider Defi space.

The grant size is a big ask, and so would you rather a 14m ARB ask was presented with a 1 page document? A lot of time and effort was poured into drafting this proposal to present the evidence that GMX has, and will continue to, change the perp dex and defi space.

I’d invite you to present some sort of tangible evidence to support your claims on why GMX is not deserving of the ask they have made, rather than anecdotal claims


Thanks for feedback!

I’d invite you to take a look at v2 of GMX, paying attention to the incredibly composable nature of its design, which will allow a multitude of protocols to spawn just as it did with v1.



Thanks for the feedback!

The initial ARB airdropped to GMX has been retained for future use in the participation of the governance system, rather than frivolous waste in buybacks, LP, or paying team members.

GMX, and it’s community, recognise and appreciate the Arbitrum community, and many see the potential that v2 has and it’s ability to create a whole new wave of defi within Arbitrum just as v1 did.