Blockworks Research is inclined to support this proposal on the condition that the requested maximum amount comes down from 14M ARB to 11.7M ARB based on, among other things, the anticipated sustainable impact on, and goodwill to, the ecosystem, metrics such as TVL / volume / fees on Arbitrum and overall, a comparative analysis of all submitted STIP proposals, the distribution of incentives across verticals, as well as, to a certain extent, the recommendations made by the Arbitrum Working Group through the four grant categories.
1 Like
The GMX proposals is something great to be looked upon the held their place in Dex space and are doing the most
1 Like
Neither are mutually exclusive, so there is no contention really here
Secondly, the âbuilt on topâ argument raises other concerns. As you and Jonezee have highlighted, many protocols are already built on top of GMX, and a grant of this size would undoubtedly encourage more. But if GMX continues its current decline, which seems likely, then those new protocols will go down with the ship.
the decline has yet to be demonstrated tho - looking forward to that lifetime-to-date analysis, which would give your concerns more teeth.
1 Like
@BlockworksResearch thank you for being an engaged delegate and appreciate the feedback over the last few days. While the reasoning is different, please note that GMX has reduced the maximum amount sought to 12.0 million as mentioned in the new section 1.1 of the proposal.
We agree that there is an opportunity for STIP to support a wider group of smaller proposals and newer protocols. We are hopeful the reduced ask will filter down to support a generation of new Arbitrum native protocols to help in driving the growth of Arbitrum.
7 Likes
No they donât have to be mutually exclusive but again why should GMX get a cut?
If you feel there is more data and analysis that could add conversation feel free to add it, I think Iâve made my points
2 Likes
You are clearly biased and comparing apples vs pears.
You are trying to tell me Vertex with 5M OI is doing organically more volume than GMX with 120M?
You should know by now that you cannot compare incentivized volumes vs unincentivized volumes, as there is always a fair amount of wash trading as we saw with many protocols in the past. When the rewards end, volume plummets.
In addition does not make any sense to compare CLOBs volumes with oracle AMMs as MM are a big part of CLOBs volumes, especially when they have 0 fees. Every trade is a taker in AMMs and the MM are the own liquidity providers. Not all volume is the same.
You are talking about GMX losing relevance when itâs still the biggest dex perp by OI (which shows real demand vs wash trading) after DyDx(which also incentivizes volumes) and clearly being the winner in fees when there is some volatility in the market (more than 50% in the entire market in days with some volatility last 2 months).
Every exchange with organic volumes has seen volumes, fees etc decrease as a result of low volatility, check Coinglass. Saying itâs just GMX is purely lack of knowledge or bad faith.
I like a lot Vertex and think it has a great future, but man letâs be real, you cannot compare both protocols at this stage. Itâs beyond ridiculous. Letâs call a spade a spade and stop the gaslighting.
Thanks in advance and have a good day
4 Likes
how can we be sure that there isnât a lot of double spending here ? there are over 5 different GLP or protocols built on top of GMX that are also asking for millions.
it makes sense GMX wants to incentivise these directly, but seems like a lot of overlap
1 Like
Definitely, as are you, and everyone in this debate has at least some bias.
Possibly, but I donât think so. New DEXs that are faster, cheaper, have better UX, more exciting trade options, etc., are coming onto the scene, so I think a lot of that volume will be sticky for these new platforms. But weâll have to wait and see.
And no, Iâm not just talking about Vertex; as much as I like them, there are many protocols offering something new that will continue to steal market share away.
I havenât seen any complaints from GMX holders about comparisons focusing on TVL, have you? Instead, those comparisons have been persistently and widely spread without caveats when TVL comparisons to CLOBs make zero sense.
My volume comparisons add a bit of extra context.
Not saying itâs just GMX losing volume, just pointing out how much market share GMX has lost as itâs very relevant when GMX is requesting such a large share of the grants.
GMX is the protocol with the most token holders and the most political power on Arbitrum, and Iâm the one gaslighting?
GMX supporters have focused on data supporting their cause, requested grant request reductions, and been critical of all of their competitors. All I have done is try to even the scales in a tiny way; that is, after all, why we have these discussions. Iâm sorry if that upsets you.
I havenât actively been supportive of any grant requests, merely been critical GMXâs because itâs so large and doesnât seem to take into the changing landscape on Arbitrum and in DeFi. Surely the goal is a decentralized ecosystem, not a GMX-centric one?
1 Like
Yeah so there are a lot of DEXes faster, cheaper, with better UX, more exciting trade options but still people prefer to trade on GMX right? Proof is in the pudding
GMX $120M in Open Interest without incentives only in crypto ($27M in v2 launched 1 month ago)
GNS $23M in Open Interest without incentives ($8,3M in crypto and $14,7M in forex)
HMX $35,3M in Open Interest with incentives of $168k each week ($15,2M in crypto and $20M in forex)
MUX $9,1M in Open Interest without incentives. Their volumes are way higher than their OI because they route a part of the trades through GMX and GNS, but those are organic, not wash trading.
Vertex $6.15M in Open Interest with incentives of 12.5 VRTX M each month. Full crypto as GMX
Donât you really see a difference in size here? I advocate for every protocol getting a grant and make Arbitrum less dependant on GMX, but you cannot expect every protocol to get the same grant when data clearly shows they are not at the same level, at least for the time being.
If you want to compare with other orderbook venues, take the biggest CEXes for example, also with a big part of volumes attributable to MM. They have volume/OI ratios of 1-3, and you are trying to convince me that Vertex with a ratio of 10-20 does not have any wash trading?
Itâs ridiculous man. As I said the more the better and I like these protocols, and believe they are +EV for the space overall. In fact I have not spend a single minute in other proposals critizing other proposals as you are doing here, even though I believe some of them are asking for disproportionate amounts relative to organic adoption and influence in the rest of the ecosystem. You cannot say the same thing, so please just work for your bags without bashing on others. Thanks
6 Likes
Because not a single cent of the GMX grant will be destinated to GMX v1 (GLP) only to v2
So that double spending wonât happen as long as those providers use it for GLP
5 Likes
I am proudly part of Castle yeah. As probably another 50 people.
But not taken part in the Arbitrum grant proposal initiative. So my point still stands.
Btw, Castle also asked GMX to lower the requested amount (and they did)
Just take the loss and find some plebs elsewhere to gaslight. Have a nice day
fully support this proposal. Without GMX there wouldnt be arbitrum. Gmx is killer app of ARB.
2 Likes
Really appreciate you reduced requested grant. GMX deserves our support.
5 Likes
Appreciate this being removed as pre-approval for pro-rata allocations of future STIP allocations wasnât particularly well noticed by the voting public and would likely have caused issues in the future if/when STIP was renewed.
2 Likes
Thanks for the feedback.
Appreciate your comments remaining on topic and relevant to the original post.
2 Likes
I think it would be very good,
It is not good for the ecosystem to have funds concentrated in a few protocols
2 Likes
Great. This should be backed
1 Like
GMX go go go
Blockquote
1 Like
Good Evening Arbitrum,
First of all, I really do thank all those who took part one way the other to draft this out. Whether or not GMX deserves to receive g this grant is a matter of opinion. However, there are a number of factors that make me believe GMX is a worthy recipient of these funds.
First, GMX is one of the most popular decentralized exchanges on the Arbitrum network. It has a large and active user base, and it processes a significant amount of trading volume. This makes GMX an important contributor to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Second, GMX is a well-designed and innovative platform. It offers a number of features that are not available on other decentralized exchanges, such as high leverage and low fees. This makes GMX a more attractive choice for traders, which can help to attract more users to the Arbitrum network.
Third, GMX is committed to growing the Arbitrum ecosystem. I believe the team will also use the grant money to fund a number of initiatives aimed at increasing liquidity and trading volume on the Arbitrum network. This includes providing incentives to users and liquidity providers and supporting the development of new protocols on Arbitrum.
Overall, I believe that GMX is a deserving recipient of this grant. GMX is a popular and innovative platform that is committed to growing the Arbitrum ecosystem. The grant money will be used to fund a number of initiatives that will benefit the Arbitrum community as a whole.
5 Likes