Merge all tokens into one and launch on Arbitrum

When we created each token, they had a clear purpose to us:

  • XVIX: a token with a floor price
  • XLGE: liquidity provider tokens
  • GMT: the governance token for Gambit
  • xGMT: the fee-receiving token for Gambit

As we work on the protocol and introduce new features, we’ve come to realise how much complexity and friction the multiple tokens adds to designing our tokenomics. Adding a new utility to one token needs to be done carefully to ensure the token’s utility is not outsized compared to other tokens. This has been a pain point that has been voiced by community members frequently as well.

We’ve battled with this constantly as each token has their own unique properties and merging them would be a very challenging task. In spite of this, we would like to propose what a migration plan could look like, for the community’s consideration as to whether the end result would be a stronger project overall.

Since we are planning to launch on Arbitrum in about two weeks, we view now as an ideal time to consolidate all tokens if it makes sense to.

Gambit V2

The current market caps:


  • Supply: 99,984 (excluding tokens locked during the last GMT swap and tokens in XVIX-ETH)
  • Last Floor Price: 29.17
  • Market cap: 2,916,533


  • Supply: 32 (excluding team tokens and tokens locked during the last GMT swap, team XLGE tokens will not be migrated)
  • Price: 22,500
  • Market cap: 720,000


  • Supply: 785 (excluding tokens locked during the last GMT swap and tokens held in proxy by XLGEs)
  • Price: 682.27
  • Market cap: 535,581


  • Supply: 254,482 (excluding tokens in GMT-USDG)
  • Price: 10.97
  • Market cap: 2,791,667


  • Supply: 5,781 (excluding tokens in xGMT-USDG)
  • Price: 90.31
  • Market cap: 522,082


  • Supply: 483,129
  • Price: 6.68
  • Market cap: 3,227,301


  • Supply: 150,191
  • Price: 19.27
  • Market cap: 2,894,180

The total market cap is: 13,607,345.

We could merge all tokens into a single token called Gambit V2 (GMX) with the following process:

  • A migration page would be open from 22 June 2021 to 6 Jul 2021

  • XVIX, XLGE, GMT and xGMT tokens can be burnt for GMX (IOU) tokens

  • XVIX-ETH, GMT-USDG and xGMT-USDG will also be burnable with a 10% bonus of GMX (IOU) tokens, the amount of these tokens burnable will be capped at the current supplies: XVIX-ETH: 785, GMT-USDG: 483,129, xGMT-USDG: 150,191

  • The conversion rate to GMX (IOU) tokens will be based on the prices in the snapshot above with each GMX being valued at 2 USD

  • For example, 1 XVIX (29.17) can be burnt for 14.585 GMX tokens while 1 xGMT-USDG (19.27) can be burnt for 9.635 GMX tokens, with a bonus of 0.9635 GMX

  • When we launch Gambit on Arbitrum, GMX tokens will be airdropped on Arbitrum to all GMX (IOU) holders at a 1:1 ratio

  • The migration of full LP tokens is optional, if you hold LP tokens you can choose to only swap the XVIX, GMT or xGMT side of the LP tokens, the USDG side of the LP tokens can be redeemed for BTC, ETH, BNB, BUSD, USDC or USDT as usual

If all tokens are migrated, the max distributed supply would be 7,136,525 GMX tokens worth 14,273,051 USD, after including bonus amounts.

GMX Utility

If we carry out this migration, all current functions can be focused into one single token. GMX would be both the governance and utility token of Gambit.

We had previously proposed bonds in our Medium post Gambit: Chapter II. It has been three weeks since the… | by Gambit Protocol | Medium, and we can adopt a simplified version to improve the protocol while remaining regulatory compliant.

The fee distribution would be modified to:

  • 50% to increase over-collateralisation
  • 20% to USDG holders
  • 20% to bonds
  • 10% for GMX buybacks

The simplified bonds would work as follows:

  • GMX can be bonded with USDG
  • USDG in bonds will continue to earn 20% of fees
  • Bonds will receive 30% of fees
  • Bonds will have a 14 day unbonding period

The amount of GMX you need for bonds would be (USDG to be bonded / USDG supply) * GMX supply.

With this setup, bonds would help to secure assets and the peg during periods of short term volatility and fees are given out as rewards to incentivise this useful work.

Bonds will additionally be incentivized with 50,000 vested GMX per month.

Vested GMX can be used in two ways:

  • To purchase bonds similar to regular GMX tokens
  • Staked to incrementally become 1 GMX over a period of 1 year.

Liquidity mining would be incentivized with the following rewards:

  • GMX-USDG: 50,000 GMX tokens and 100,000 vested GMX tokens per month
  • USDG-USDC: 10,000 GMX tokens and 20,000 vested GMX tokens per month

Floor Price V2

The floor price of XVIX has served well in maintaining a minimum price for the XVIX token. A brief summary of how it works:

  • XVIX began with a starting mint price in ETH
  • If the market price of XVIX increases beyond this mint price, then arbitrageurs would mint XVIX using ETH
  • This minting increases the mint price and the received ETH is sent to a floor price fund
  • Every XVIX can be redeemed for ETH at: 0.9 * (ETH in floor price fund) / (XVIX supply)
  • With the 0.9 factor, each redemption increases the redemption price

If we can consolidate all tokens, we can build a V2 of this floor price mechanism to provide a minimum price for GMX while improving the stability of the USDG peg:

  • GMX would have a mint price in terms of each whitelisted asset
  • Minting GMX using an asset would increase its mint price for that asset
  • The assets received from minting would be sent to a floor price fund
  • GMX can be redeemed for assets in the floor price fund at a rate of: 0.9 * (amount of asset in floor price fund) / (GMX minted using the asset)

This would result in independent floor prices for GMX in each whitelisted asset. If WBTC, ETH, USDC are whitelisted assets, then GMX would have a floor price in each of them.

Improving the stability of the USDG peg:

  • Ideally, with the long positions and fees, the system should become over-collateralized by itself over time
  • However, if the system does become under-collateralized, assets from the floor price can be used to gradually repay the debt
  • This repayment can be done weekly over a duration of 12 months, together with bonds, this should significantly increase confidence in and stability of the USDG peg

XVIX currently uses a curve formula for the minting price; this can also be improved upon by replacing it with a linear formula, leading to smaller gaps between the mint price, market price and the floor price. The formula would be:

(GMX minted with asset * mint multiplier) + starting mint price

A larger number of GMX minted would lead to a larger floor price fund, but would also affect the velocity at which prices can move upwards. We propose to reserve 5,000,000 GMX for minting, this would lead to a floor price fund that can grow to be around ⅓ to ½ the market cap of GMX.

Summary of Supplies

  • 7,136,525 GMX for migration
  • 600,000 vested GMX for bonds distributed over 12 months
  • 720,000 GMX and 1,440,000 vested GMX for liquidity mining distributed over 12 months
  • 5,000,000 GMX for the floor price fund

Other supplies:

  • The xGMT team tokens would be migrated in a similar way into 250,000 GMX tokens, vested over 2 years
  • 1,000,000 GMX tokens will be reserved for marketing and partnerships

Circulating supply at launch: 7,136,525

To allow flexibility in building and launching more products, the GMX token will not have a hard supply cap, any change to the supply will be managed by a 30 day time-lock contract.

Go to Market Strategy

This migration could help Gambit with a much larger launch on Arbitrum:

  • If 50% of XVIX is migrated to GMX, the burn vault would generate ~6.45 ETH worth 16,270 USD per week, these funds can be used for Gambit trade mining on Arbitrum
  • If more than 100,000 or 200,000 USDG in GMT-USDG and xGMT-USDG is migrated, we can host a Gambit trading competition with 100,000 or 200,000 USDG in prizes
  • The locked USDG on BSC will continue to generate fees, and 30% of these fees can be distributed to GMX on Arbitrum

An alternative usage of the ETH from the XVIX floor price fund would be to seed the initial ETH floor price for GMX, with a target price of 2 USD per GMX.


If this proposal is executed, XVIX, XLGE GMT and xGMT would be phased out and replaced by GMX.

A summary of the trade-offs:

  • XVIX: holders would be trading a token that is close to its floor price for a new token that is directly usable within the Gambit protocol but with a floor price that will need to be rebuilt. Further work that was planned for the XVIX project will be changed to be based off of GMX instead. This would allow us to simultaneously serve all holders equally, whether they are currently holding XVIX, XLGE, GMT or xGMT. XVIX holders will be able to have development work done directly on the token they hold instead of having to wait for a few months
  • GMT: holders would be trading a token with a hard cap for a token with additional functions that can be utilized now instead of having to wait for governance to be set up
  • xGMT: the core functions are similar with additional utility provided by the floor price, the majority of supply inflation would now be vested

We are grateful for all holders who have stuck with us through thick and thin, and we are open to suggestions and feedback regarding this proposal. Beyond the mentioned details, it is our desire to see all community members and holders united under a single token, as that would help build a strong base for the project to take-off.

In some ways, the segregation of tokens was necessary in the past, but we’ve also learnt from the experience so far as well as from the experiences of other projects and would like to improve things if we can.


I think it’s a great idea to merge the tokens. imo no real need to have multiple tokens in case of GMT and xGMT. It will probably be a a lot easier to attract new investors as well with a simpler design.


Sounds good @xdev_10 - floor price is the key!


simplicity wins all day!
true quote by Steve Jobs, or at least that’s what someone told me


I support the proposal! Too much complexity at the token level has/is/will be negative for Gambit going forward so the merge is a big improvement.


this is bad idea

you hurt token holders in gambit and xvix by inflating supply indirectly and increasing market cap. they are separate project and remain that way. you open dev team to legal attack from token reward too

leave it the way it is. people saying yes only care about short term pump. you had a vision stick to it

you abandon xvix. it was your best product. go back to support xvix and do not inflate our supply to save your failing gambit. STUPID!!!

lmao XVIX holders you guys got 10% share of the Gambit project, and we lost literally thousands of dollars and now you insulting the person who made that happen? get a fecking grip will ya.

I was one of those investors who poured tens of thousands of dollars into Gambit and kept supporting even as my invested money went down the drain, if it wasnt for us, providing liquidity the platform fee earnings would never happen, hence nothing for you XVIX holders

1 Like

With the migration the equivalent floor price for XVIX will be raised beyond what it is currently even just at launch

The improvements on the floor price for GMX would give it more potential to be raised compared to XVIX

The inflation is at a rate of 0.7% of the initial supply per month, and 2.38% for vested rewards per month.

We’ve seen from X2 that bootstrapping liquidity for a new product would be difficult without some rewards to kickstart things

For fee rewards, we are following models similar to Perpetual protocol and Synthetix, to distribute them as incentives for useful works such as bonds

I never did abandon XVIX, we worked hard to build Gambit and to provide the 10% of fees to XVIX holders

The purpose of this proposal is so that we can continue work for XVIX holders directly instead of having to wait for work on Gambit to complete

Some inflation is necessary in order to grow the project into larger than it is currently

1 Like

Sounds good to me, if we remain regulatory compliant I don’t see why not.

I totally support the proposal, I think with just one token everything will be much easier and smooth.

Fully support the proposal, and looking forward to Arbitrum launch!

We keep the floor price man - its a big win for our XVIX!

Some of the comments above show how different incentives don’t help with community building, despite everyone being part of the same ecosystem. It’s painful to see people attacking each other because of different incentive structures for the tokens they hold (XVIX, or GMT). So I want to highlight this part:

it is our desire to see all community members and holders united under a single token, as that would help build a strong base for the project to take-off

For this reason alone this improvement is welcomed… But there are many benefits and I’m confident this is the start of an exciting journey. I’ll list my top 3.

1. There’s power in simplicity

People would intuitively know that any value from the ecosystem accrues to $GMX, if this endeavour is successful. So instead of spending weeks to research how everything works, only to be stuck with DECISION PARALYSIS (DP) because of multiple token choices, they would now go through a straightforward process of supporting the ecosystem with their time, money, and expertise.

This would also free up resources and time to focus on product building, instead of supporting and onboarding new users stuck with DP.

2. United, we win

The above community-fight example is only one negative consequence of having multiple tokens. But one that profoundly impacts the ecosystem is that every new product would spring its own token, community, and finally micro-ecosystem. So instead of being a value add, it would subtract value.

And new resources would have to be spent for go-to-market strategies, listings, communities, social, and so forth. Doing this over and over again would inevitably reach a tension point where the team would either have to stop launching new products or inevitably get back to this decision and consolidate.

3. Better products

Removing complexity from the ecosystem and using one token across all products enables product interoperability and use-cases that make for a better UX. Leaving aside the fact that it increases the number of transactions and use-cases for the token, hence its value, having the ability to use it across products is a win for users regardless of their experience.

I do agree there needs to be a well-planned emissions schedule, as to not be a bottleneck before the product even becomes adopted. There’s a fine balance between oversupply and overdemand.

You have my vote!


Reduce complexity, compose these awesome defi products under one token. we will all benefit from this in the long term