Page 8

‍

• Insurance Fund: In response to discussions about black swan protection, the DAO is likely to implement a formal Insurance/Reserve Fund. They are considering diverting a small percentage of fees (e.g., 5%) to a reserve pool denominated in stablecoins. Over time, this could accumulate a significant buffer to cover any unforeseen shortfalls in GLP (none so far, but it’s a forward-looking safety measure). This move would be fairly unique among DEXs and could become a selling point (“fund-secured liquidity”).
  
  

In terms of the team’s focus, sources indicate that about 70% of dev effort is on X4 and core protocol improvements, and 30% on maintenance of current deployments (monitoring Solana launch, minor feature requests, etc.). The community continues to shoulder a lot of marketing and partnership effort, which is a healthy sign.

Summary of Current Health: GMX is operationally healthy and financially sound. It has consistent usage, a committed community, and a treasury that can support ongoing development. The team has delivered on its promises (each major roadmap item from the last year was achieved on schedule), which builds credibility for future milestones. Importantly, GMX has managed to navigate the tumultuous crypto environment – regulatory scares, market downturns, new competitor launches – and has either held its ground or grown. For instance, when a well-known CEX token (FTT) collapsed in 2022, GMX not only avoided any contagion but actually gained users looking for decentralized alternatives. This resilience adds to the investment case that GMX can endure various market conditions.

Investors looking at GMX today will find a project with a solid track record (over two years of continuous, secure operation), clear value accrual to tokens, and multiple avenues for future growth. Its current status as a top DeFi platform is backed by data and community strength, not just hype. The next phases in its progress – X4 and beyond – are poised to potentially elevate GMX from being a leader in DeFi to a fundamental piece of the broader crypto market infrastructure.

References (Project & Team Analysis):

1. CoinMarketCap – Who Are the Founders of GMX? (Team is anonymous; lead dev likely @xdev_10 on Twitter; GMX emerged from Gambit) (A Guide to GMX: Decentralized Perpetual Exchange and Crypto)
   
   
2. Mirror (Sozo Finance) – GMX In-Depth Report (Founders not clearly disclosed; multi-sig signers include Krunal Amin of UniDex and Benjamin Simon of Stealth Crypto; dev treasury ~$1.8M USDC)
   
   
3. BeInCrypto – Guide to GMX (Team hasn’t revealed identities; confirms multi-sig signers Krunal Amin and Ben Simon; notes Arthur Hayes holds 200K+ GMX; dev treasury holds 1.8M USDC)
   
   
4. DefiSafety – GMX V1 Detailed Report (Multi-sig of advisors/community members: Ben Simon, Han Wen, Krunal Amin; 2-of-3 Gnosis Safe controls upgrades/treasury) (GMX V1 - detailed report | DeFiSafety)
   
   
5. GMX Governance Forum – [Proposal] Arbitrum Incentives Allocation (Community discussion on using 12M ARB grant; decision to fund trading & GLP incentives and grants)
   
   
6. CoinDesk – GMX Bags Biggest Chunk of Arbitrum Grant (GMX awarded 12M ARB, the largest portion of the $40M STIP program, to boost Arbitrum trading activity)
   
   
7. Guardian Audits – GMX Case Study (Seven audits pre-launch and 10 post-launch; 351 findings fixed; highlights team’s responsiveness and security focus)
   
   
8. Dune Analytics (JPchihuahua) – GMX Stats (Shows GMX unique voters and proposals; voter turnout on major proposals ~10-20% of supply; healthy governance engagement) (Dune dashboard)
   
   
9. The Defiant – Arbitrum Airdrop Winners (Notes GMX’s community-driven growth and largest Arb grant; mentions Blocktower’s GMX stake purchase as vote of confidence)
   
   
10. CoinMarketCap – Token Distribution (6M GMX to XVIX/Gambit migration; 250k to contributors over 2 years; emphasizes community ownership)
    
    
11. CryptoBriefing – Arthur Hayes on DeFi Perps (Article referencing Hayes’ investment in GMX and positive commentary on GMX’s model as future of decentralized trading)
    
    
12. GMX Substack – GMX 2024 Roadmap (Team outline: focus on X4 protocol, synthetic assets support, mobile app; indicates lean core team working with community devs)
    
    
13. Avalanche Blog – GMX Launch on Avalanche (Recap of GMX’s expansion to Avalanche in Jan 2022; highlights cross-chain strategy and team’s quick deployment abilities)
    
    
14. TradingView (Coindar) – GMX Launches on Solana (Solana integration announced for Mar 12, 2024, enabling full GMX functionality on Solana with Chainlink oracles)
    ‍

‍

3. Technology & Infrastructure

Blockchain Choice and Network Deployment

GMX’s technology stack is deployed across multiple blockchain networks, each chosen for specific strengths in scalability, cost, and ecosystem maturity. The protocol currently operates on:

• Arbitrum One (Ethereum Layer-2): Arbitrum was GMX’s primary launch network (September 2021) and remains its largest venue by liquidity and users. The choice of Arbitrum was strategic: it’s a Layer-2 rollup that inherits the security of Ethereum while massively improving throughput and lowering transaction fees. Arbitrum batches (rolls up) GMX transactions and posts them to Ethereum, using Ethereum’s security for finality. This means that despite trading happening on Arbitrum, users have confidence that if Arbitrum’s validators misbehave, there’s recourse on Ethereum (via fraud proofs). Practically, trading on GMX via Arbitrum costs only a few cents to a few dollars in gas (depending on activity), compared to tens of dollars it would on Ethereum L1, and confirmation times are around 1-2 seconds for Arbitrum vs. 12-15 seconds on L1. This made complex operations like opening/closing leveraged trades or updating oracles economically feasible on-chain. Arbitrum’s popularity and DeFi-heavy user base also meant GMX immediately tapped into a large pool of potential users. Arbitrum’s Nitro upgrade in 2022 further increased its capacity, which GMX benefited from in handling surges of transactions with no issues.
  
  
• Avalanche C-Chain: GMX expanded to Avalanche in January 2022. Avalanche’s C-Chain is an EVM-compatible blockchain known for its high throughput and low latency, achieved through its Snowman consensus (a form of proof-of-stake with DAG optimizations). Avalanche doesn’t derive security from Ethereum – it’s its own L1 – but it has a robust validator set and finality in ~1 second. The appeal of Avalanche was two-fold: it had a growing DeFi ecosystem (in 2021-2022, Avalanche attracted many Ethereum projects via its incentive program) and it offered fast, cheap transactions (typically <$0.25 gas fees for a GMX trade, and near-instant finality) which traders appreciate. By deploying on Avalanche, GMX could serve users who preferred that network (perhaps due to being priced out of Ethereum L1 and not yet on Arbitrum) and capture AVAX-native liquidity. Technically, the GMX contracts on Avalanche are almost identical to Arbitrum’s, but with a separate GLP pool and using Avalanche’s native assets (AVAX, etc.) in that pool. Avalanche’s consensus uses a lot of parallelization, which has handled GMX’s workload well – to date, Avalanche C-Chain has not been a bottleneck for GMX performance.
  
  
• Solana: In March 2024, GMX launched on Solana, marking its first non-EVM deployment. Solana uses a distinct architecture (Proof of History + Tower BFT consensus) which delivers extremely high throughput (up to thousands of TPS) and sub-second block times. The Solana integration required re-writing GMX’s logic in Rust to run as a Solana program. The Solana version of GMX leverages Chainlink Solana Oracle feeds and Pyth network for price data. This deployment was motivated by Solana’s dedicated community of traders (Solana DeFi had a gap after the collapse of central limit order book Serum in late 2022, so GMX filled a demand for on-chain perps) and its performance capabilities. On Solana, network fees are negligible (a fraction of a cent) and latency is very low, appealing to algorithmic traders who might integrate with GMX. The Solana environment also pushes GMX’s tech to be more parallel – Solana’s runtime allowed, for example, multiple liquidations to be processed simultaneously in one block, something EVM chains handle sequentially. The initial performance on Solana has been strong, validating the team’s ability to port to a completely different chain architecture.
  
  

Cross-Chain Bridging and Asset Flows: GMX’s deployments on different chains operate semi-independently. Each chain has its own GLP pool and a local instance of the GMX token (bridged). However, the GMX token is fungible across chains thanks to bridges. For example, a user can bridge GMX from Arbitrum to Avalanche via Synapse Bridge (the DAO worked with Synapse to provide deep liquidity for GMX on their bridge). Similarly, GMX can be bridged to Solana via Wormhole (upon Solana launch, the DAO established a GMX-SPL token with a Wormhole gateway). This cross-chain fungibility is important for governance – Snapshot tallies all GMX, regardless of which chain it’s on, by checking major bridges. For GLP, there isn’t direct bridging (GLP is specific to its chain’s assets), but users can withdraw assets on one chain and move them to another to mint GLP there if they wish, using bridges for stablecoins or other majors. In practice, some arbitrageurs ensure GLP’s value stays consistent across chains by arbitraging price differences via bridging assets.

One thing GMX has deliberately avoided so far is “cross-chain unified liquidity” – each chain’s liquidity is siloed to protect against cross-chain exploits. This means, for instance, a trader on Arbitrum cannot directly use liquidity on Avalanche’s GLP in a trade. While this limits capital efficiency slightly, it contains risk (a bridge hack would not drain all GLP, only potentially assets that were bridged). Users have to choose which chain’s pool to trade on when opening a position. That said, the upcoming X4 protocol might introduce a layer that connects liquidity across chains, possibly using LayerZero’s cross-chain messaging to aggregate orders – but that’s in development and will be opt-in per market.

Security and Consensus Considerations:
Each network GMX is on has a different security model:

• Arbitrum’s security is tied to Ethereum’s consensus and fraud-proof mechanism. This gives high security guarantees (same security as Ethereum, assuming at least one honest validator to spot fraud). The risk is if the fraud proof system fails or if Ethereum itself faces issues. Also, Arbitrum currently has a degree of centralization (the Sequencer is run by Offchain Labs), but plans to decentralize this. For GMX users, Arbitrum is widely considered secure – essentially as secure as Ethereum L1 for practical purposes.
  
  
• Avalanche’s security comes from its own validator set (over 1,200 validators) and Slush/Snowball consensus. It doesn’t rely on Ethereum. Avalanche is known for fast finality ~1 second and high resilience as long as >80% honest validators. Avalanche has been running without incident security-wise. The main risk could be a network-level attack or bug, which is considered low likelihood given its battle-tested nature. For GMX, one consideration is that Avalanche’s AVAX token can be volatile – but that’s more of a GLP asset risk than a network security risk.
  
  
• Solana’s security relies on Proof of Stake with about 1,900 validators and the coordination via Proof of History. It’s a different trade-off: Solana prioritizes performance but historically has had a few network halts (due to bugs or overload) in 2021-2022. These halts meant hours of downtime, during which on-chain trading (including GMX-Solana) would pause. This is a risk for GMX’s Solana deployment: if Solana halts, traders might be stuck unable to close positions on Solana GMX until validators restart (which could lead to losses if price moves in the interim). The GMX team mitigated this by setting slightly more conservative parameters on Solana (e.g., lower max leverage on some assets) to account for the possibility of delayed liquidations in a halt. That said, Solana has improved stability in late 2023/2024 with upgrades. Security-wise, Solana’s cryptography and consensus are robust, but the complexity of the system has in the past led to bugs – a risk factor to monitor. The benefit is Solana’s throughput allows GMX to potentially serve more sophisticated use cases (like high-frequency trading algorithms) that would be hard on EVM chains.
  
  

Network Architecture of GMX on Each Chain:
On each chain, GMX’s architecture comprises smart contracts for:

• Core Exchange Logic: The main contract that holds the GLP pool and manages positions. On EVM chains, this is a set of contracts (Vault, Router, PositionManager, etc.) written in Solidity. On Solana, it’s a program fulfilling similar roles.
  
  
• Price Oracles: GMX integrates with Chainlink Price Feeds (which aggregate data from many exchanges). On Arbitrum and Avalanche, Chainlink oracles provide price updates typically every minute or faster for high-cap assets. GMX’s contracts read these oracle prices for executing trades and liquidations. Additionally, GMX V2 introduced a TWAP (time-weighted average price) from decentralized exchanges as a sanity check or fallback, to ensure the Chainlink price hasn’t deviated beyond a certain threshold from on-chain prices in between updates. This hybrid approach further secures the system against oracle delays. On Solana, GMX uses Chainlink’s native oracles along with the Pyth network (which provides sub-second updates sourced from market makers and exchanges). The combination helps achieve low-latency pricing on Solana.
  
  
• Keeper Network: GMX relies on an open network of “Keeper” bots for certain functions – mainly triggering limit/stop orders and liquidations. On EVM, these are just off-chain services any user can run (and they get a small execution fee paid by the protocol or the order itself). For example, when a stop-loss price is reached, a keeper will call a function on GMX to execute that stop order at the oracle price. Similarly, if a position falls below maintenance margin, a keeper will call the liquidation function. This design decentralizes operations – no central matching engine, just opportunistic bots. In practice, projects like Gelato and community-run bots provide reliable coverage, so orders don’t go unexecuted. On Solana, keepers are typically cranked by the Solana runtime (through the PoH schedule) – the Solana program has built-in order book logic that gets automatically processed by the network validators, eliminating the need for third-party keepers for most tasks.
  
  
• State Tracking: The GMX front-end and analytics rely on subgraph/indexer services that read contract state. On Arbitrum/Avalanche, The Graph is used to index positions, trades, etc. On Solana, a custom indexer had to be built (as The Graph’s Solana support is nascent), which the GMX team implemented in Rust to feed the UI. This is part of the infra needed to present user-friendly info but doesn’t affect on-chain security.
  
  

Consensus Model Implications:

• Arbitrum’s consensus (through Ethereum) means GMX on Arbitrum benefits from extremely high security but depends on Ethereum’s network conditions. During times of Ethereum congestion or issues (like during the Merge event), Arbitrum transactions might lag slightly. However, Ethereum’s upgrade to proof-of-stake and sharding plans will only improve Arbitrum’s cost efficiency, which will indirectly benefit GMX.
  
  
• Avalanche’s unique consensus allows rapid finality and has so far scaled well for GMX’s needs. If Avalanche subnets become more prevalent, GMX could even consider deploying a subnet (though currently not necessary). Avalanche’s consensus does mean there’s not an underlying L1 backstop like Ethereum, but its track record is solid.
  
  
• Solana’s consensus gives GMX perhaps the most CEX-like performance. The trade-off is complexity – Solana’s node requirements are heavy, so decentralization (in terms of easy-to-run nodes) is lower than others, but still robust enough for security. For GMX, Solana opens up use cases like conditional orders with tight triggers, because the chain can handle lots of conditional logic quickly.
  
  

Scalability and Performance Optimizations

Scalability has been at the forefront of GMX’s design. From the beginning, choosing Arbitrum and Avalanche addressed the base layer scalability. Beyond that, the team implemented several optimizations within the protocol:

• Batching of Oracle Calls: GMX’s contracts are designed to minimize oracle lookups. For instance, opening or closing multiple positions can be done in one transaction (one oracle call) if batched by the PositionRouter. The system also caches prices during a block to use for multiple positions, rather than fetching fresh for each calculation.
  
  
• Aggregate Pool Model: By using a single GLP pool for all trades, GMX avoids fragmenting liquidity across many pairs. Traditional DEXs have separate pools for each trading pair, which is capital-inefficient. GMX’s unified pool means it can support a large number of markets (assets) without needing separate liquidity for each. This is a major scalability edge – adding a new asset is more about risk management than finding new liquidity.
  
  
• Price Impact Fee (Dynamic Slippage): Introduced in V2, this not only protects against manipulation but also is a performance optimization. It prevents pathological cases where someone could spam huge trade open/closes repeatedly at zero slippage to strain the system. With even a tiny impact fee, such spamming becomes unprofitable, thus indirectly rate-limiting abuse.
  
  
• Gas Optimizations in Contracts: The GMX solidity contracts have been optimized to reduce gas costs. Guardian Audits noted that GMX devs implemented efficient storage patterns and in-line assembly in some places to cut gas. This keeps user costs low and allows more actions per block. On Arbitrum (which has an arbitrum-specific gas model), GMX devs worked with Offchain Labs to ensure certain heavy functions (like batch liquidations) were handled by Arbitrum’s batch RPC for efficiency.
  
  
• Parallelization on Solana: On Solana, the GMX program leverages Solana’s ability to execute non-overlapping state updates in parallel. For example, two traders trading different assets can be processed simultaneously by different CPU threads on validators, which means higher throughput. GMX’s Rust code on Solana was written to maximize parallel transactions by structuring accounts such that operations on different markets or positions don’t lock each other out.
  
  

The current throughput of GMX on Arbitrum/Avalanche (EVM) is gated mostly by oracle updates (about one per minute per asset). This is sufficient for the current user load, but if user activity 10×’s, the team can simply deploy more frequent oracle updates or incorporate more granular price feeds. Chainlink’s planned “Data Streams” (real-time feeds) could be integrated, and GMX is at the forefront of protocols Chainlink is working with. Additionally, scaling solutions like Arbitrum Nitro have already reduced Arbitrum fees by >50% in mid-2022, effectively doubling GMX’s potential transactions per second for the same cost. Further Ethereum L1 upgrades (like Danksharding) will cascade down to cheaper L2 costs, meaning GMX can handle far more users without increasing cost per user.

Decentralization vs. Performance: GMX has tried to maintain decentralization while scaling. For example, the keeper network is permissionless – anyone can run bots to help execute orders, which decentralizes execution. The team noticed that reliance on one keeper (like if only one bot were active) could be a weakness (it could choose not to liquidate friends, etc.), so they incentivized multiple by making the fee rewards open. Now many independent actors run keepers for GMX (some integrated via Gelato, others custom). This ensures that even as volume scales, there’s a decentralized group handling the back end tasks.

Looking ahead, if GMX needed to scale further, they have options:

• App-Specific Chains/L3s: The community floated possibly deploying an “Arbitrum Orbit” chain purely for GMX if global volumes balloon. This would give GMX an entire chain’s resources (tens of thousands of TPS) dedicated to it, at the cost of some composability. Since GMX heavily composes with collateral and bridges, staying on general-purpose chains has been preferred, but an L3 might become viable if needed (with trust minimized by settling to Ethereum like Arbitrum does).
  
  
• Scaling Liquidity via Aggregation: GMX might connect with liquidity aggregators (like Ferro or Squid) to draw on external liquidity for extremely large trades to avoid stressing GLP. This is speculative, but a cross-Dex aggregation for perps could evolve (imagine GMX tapping into another protocol’s pool if needed for one trade). However, GLP’s depth has been sufficient thus far.
  
  

Security Audits and Reliability

Security is paramount for a DeFi platform managing hundreds of millions in user funds, and GMX has taken a comprehensive approach:

• Audits: GMX has undergone multiple audits by top firms. The initial codebase (from Gambit) was audited by ABDK Consulting in early 2021, which passed with recommendations. Before the Arbitrum launch, the code was re-audited given modifications, and then subsequently:
  
  
  
• PeckShield audited the early GMX contracts in late 2021 (unpublished but referenced by team in forums).
  
  

Dedaub conducted a focused audit on the GMX Synthetics (V2) contracts in Nov 2022 (GMX smart contract audit report | Dedaub Audit Reports). They identified a handful of issues (e.g., a potential reentrancy if certain calls were chained, some edge-case where an oracle price delay could be exploited for tiny gain) – all were fixed before V2 went live. Dedaub’s report gave GMX’s code a positive assessment post-fix.

‍

Thank you for taking the time to read this article. We invite you to explore more content on our blog for additional insights and information.

https://www.thestandard.io/blog  

‍

"If you have any comments, questions, or suggestions, please do not hesitate to reach out to us at [ https://discord.gg/K72hed6FRE ]. We appreciate your feedback and look forward to hearing from you."

‍

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE

PAGE 9: www.thestandard.io/blog/gmx-revolutionizing-defi-with-layer-2-scaling-governance-and-liquidity-innovation-in-2025-9