GMX VS GNS 中英文对比介绍

Analysis consists of project itself and user experience.

Project analysis mainly consists of mechanism, marketing strategy and token economy.

The most important things for derivative traders are security, liquidity and convenience.

Mechanism:

Gns holders are counter party of all traders just like SNX. And DAI vault has settlement function like susd. Trading system works like perpetual contract, which has low fees, various tokens and high leverage. It seems like decentralized version of bitmax. What’s worth mention is that it attempts to decentralized front end. The reason maybe because it has stock derivative market

GLP of gmx works like binance share. They are counter party of traders and share 70% of trading fees. And gmx token works like bnb. GMX has exchange function, which attracts traffic. Leverage trading fee is as much as 0.1%, though it offers relative low leverage.

Marketing strategy

Gns expands horizontally . It provides a wide range of leverages (up to 150x on cryptos and stocks, up to 1000x on forex) with small trade size first. The contract is first deployed on polygon which is side chain of ethereum and will be on arbitrum later .Gns depicts itself as a casino and tries to satisfy traders ‘ needs as much as possible. However, GMX is more likely to protect users and is more cautious about increasing leverage.

GMX expands in vertical way and allows large trade size now. It may add customized exchange and aggregation function in the next version, which may attract more users and challenge other similar protocols like 1inch and balancer. Its leverage trading system is more user friendly as 70% of trading fee will be returned to GD holders and position of traders are settled in GD.

It has been deployed on arbitrum and avalanche.

Token economy:

gmx has strong loyalty contribute feature and long term incentive design. users who believe long term development of gmx have high protocol income share. gmx holders only share 30% of fees.

gns holders are counter party of all traders , thus have all trade profit or loss.

Security mainly consists of Economic security, law security and Oracle

Economic security: you can trade tokens as long as they are in GLP and different tokens have different weight. so trade cap is in accordance with weight as GLP holders are counter party of traders.

GNS has counterpart insolvency risk in theory, which now is controlled by limiting trade size and incentivising balance between long and short position. During ust collapse event , gns vault loss a lot. So there is stop loss mechanism for each pair.

Law security: gns has stock and forex market, which are areas under strong supervision of US government.

Oracle: it relates to price accuracy and immediacy. gns adopts self-developed fast oracle DON , which seems have better performance. And gmx uses chainlink and detection mechanism.

Liquidity:

trade cap in gns is set by protocol manually, limited to dai vault cap and cap of gns,

trade cap of different token in gmx is determined by their cap in GLP pool and may change in next version, which use PvP AMM mechanism

Conveniency:

You can use different tokens as collateral to trade on gmx but only dai at gns.

Gns offers more trading pair, high leverage but not low leverage.

Conclusion:

The current model of gmx is more mature, comparing to gns. In the following version, derivative part of gmx works like gns. The main difference is gmx’s system economy is more self-consistent and wouldn’t go bankrupt even in black swan event. But whether incentivisation leads to balance between long and short position needs to be further improved by market. Otherwise, it affects a lot of traders’ expectation of realized profit.

I am looking forward for the rising trading volume and fees after gns is deployed on arbitrum and trade size is increased. My main concern is regulation from traditional finance agency and protocol economy self-consistency.

Dislaimer： I am holders of both token and LP , non financial advice above.

gmx vs gns

主要从项目本身和用户角度两方面进行分析。

项目本身主要从机制，运营策略和代币经济角度进行分析。

用户角度主要考虑安全，方便和流动性。

机制：

gns持有人是所有交易员的对手方，类似SNX, 其中dai vault起到了结算作用，dai vault的规模限制了交易规模，结算相比Snx更加方便。合约类型类似永续合约，交易币种多，手续费低，杠杆倍数大，类似bitmax。值得注意的是它前端也会逐步去中心化，可能的一个原因是因为有股票衍生品市场

gmx的glp类似币安的股权，而gmx代币功能类似bnb. 交易有引流作用。

更像杠杆交易，费用高，杠杆倍数相对少。

运营策略：

gns采用先横向扩张，即有更可能多的交易对，提供更高的杠杆倍数，然后再增加交易大小. 先部署在手续费低的以太坊侧链polygon上，之后会扩展到arbitrum. 自己描述为赌场，尽量满足用户的衍生品交易需求，而gmx更偏向于从保护用户出发，对于提高杠杆倍数比较谨慎。

gmx采用纵向扩张的方式，先深挖，现阶段已经可以容纳大额交易，接下来的现货交易功能更加可定制化并增加了聚合功能（起到更大的引流作用，是否会挑战其他聚合和定制化协议的地位，例如1inch和balancer），杠杆交易对交易者更加友好（费用损失减少，因为交易手续费的百分之七十都返还给了GD,而交易者持有GD）。

代币经济：

gmx有很强的忠诚度属性，即越相信平台能够发展起来的用户能够获得越大的平台收入分成

gns代币持有者是所有交易方的对手方，同时也获得所有平台交易收入或者损失。

安全方面：

经济安全：gmx对于不同币种采用不同的权重，相应的可交换代币量也不同，充足的对手方流动性，更加符合实际需求；gnx有对手方破产清算风险，通过限制交易规模和激励多空平衡进行控制，之前ust出事，gns有所损失，所以现在设置了单个交易对的止损点。

政策法律安全：gns有股票和汇率市场，这个是美国强监管的领域

预言机：涉及到价格准确性和即时性问题。gns现在来看做的更好，采用自己开发的去中心化的快速预言机DON，gmx采用chainlink的预言机并有检测机制。

流动性：

1，gnx的流动性大小取决于dai池子的大小和gns的市值，现在进行了人为的限制

2， gmx的流动性大小现在取决于glp池子中各代币市值的大小，以后可能会改变

方便：

1，现在gmx更加方便，可以用不同代币进行抵押，虽然gns以后可能也会提供

2，交易方面gns种类更加多，能够提供的杠杆倍数也更大，不过不提供低倍杠杆

总结：

gmx现在的模式更加成熟，之后衍生品交易的改良类似gns模式，不同的是整个系统经济更加自洽，理论上也不会出现破产的情况，但是之后能否如预期的一样多空比例会因为激励和套利趋向平衡有待于市场验证，不然对于交易者的预期收益还是有影响的。

gns之后随着交易大小的放开和不同链的部署，是否能够带来交易量和手续费的提升值得期待。协议经济的自洽性和来自传统金融的监管可能会成为以后它发展的软肋。

免责声明：我是两种代币的持有人和相应的做市商,以上非投资建议