Try Quests to earn cryptoGains Network vs GMX
Introduction
GMX is a decentralized spot and perpetual exchange that supports low swap fees and zero price impact trades.
Trading is supported by a unique multi-asset pool that earns liquidity providers fees from market making, swap fees and leverage trading.
Dynamic pricing is supported by Chainlink Oracles and an aggregate of prices from leading volume exchanges.
Gains Network is creating gTrade, a liquidity-efficient, powerful, and user-friendly decentralized leveraged trading platform. Our unique synthetic architecture makes gTrade more capital efficient than any other platform, allowing cheap trading fees, and a large selection of leverages and pairs (up to 150x on cryptos, up to 1000x on forex, and up to 100x on stocks). Read more here: gTrade. The ecosystem's GNS and ERC721 utility tokens drive the protocol (NFTs). GNS and NFTs are intended for active use in the platform (utility) and protocol ownership through revenue capture and control (soon). GNS investors receive platform fees through Single Sided Staking, burn GNS using platform revenue, NFT holders get decreased spread and boosted rewards, and NFT bots execute limit orders and liquidations. See GNS Token.
Method
In this dashboard, I will examine the differences between the GMX Protocol (on Arbitrum) and the Gains Network (GNS) in terms of trade metrics (on Polygon).
Following this, we will present some information regarding GNS and GMX tokens, including their effect on the Arbitrum and Polygon chains, as well as user behavior in relation to these tokens.
The arbitrum.core.fact_token_transfers table will be the primary source of data for the GMX Protocol, while the polygon.core.fact_token_transfers table will be the primary source of data for the Gains Network.
For example, the address of a trading contract on the Gains network could look like this: 0xd8…8f58, 0x65…3db1, or 0xf8…0d72. The final two addresses are deprecated at the moment, but we're going to use them anyhow.
Contract Addresses for GMX Protocol Routers = '0x3d…3aba,' and '0xb8…9868.
Numerous tradable assets exist for the GMX protocol (USDT, USDC, WETH, WBTC, LINK, FRAX, DAI, UNI). Thus, we need to utilize ethereum.core.fact_hourly_token_prices to connect data on these tables and compute the USD Value of trades in order to determine the USD Volume of trades.
Since the DAI token used on the Gains Network is USD-Pegged by design, there is no need to join any additional tables in order to determine the USD equivalent of any transactions.
All assessed metrics calculated over past 9 month by weekly, and you can ==change== it by header tapes to your own choice.
✍🏻 Conclusion
As of findings above:
-
Over $802.17M has been transacted on GXM by over 20,000 individuals in 195.7K trades. In contrast, GNS saw 4.9K users conduct 200.7K transactions worth $276.53M.
-
For every one new user added to GNS, there are five to ten more people joining GMS (20k against 4.9K, respectively)
-
The overall number of New users on both services has risen over time.
-
Total amount of generated fees by GXM is $376.25K against to 30K in GNS.
-
The average of transactions count on GXM was over than GNS over past 9 months.
-
Mutual users performed nearly 28K transactions on GXM to trade $74.5M assets in total, against to 16.5K on GNS to trade nearly $60M.
So, now we can better understand why GNS tends to ==move== into the Arbitrum ecosystem. As can be observed from the results in this dashboard, the trading metrics on Arbitrum are stronger than those on Polygon, so it is normal for one platform to seek a stronger infrastructure to absorb more users and more funds.
And finally, I’m glad to share this research with those who care about this issue via Twitter link, and will be pleased by your comments.
About:
-
Author: HaM☰d
\
-
Discord: 0xHaM☰d#8391
\
-
Twitter: @arjmandi_hamed
\
-
Email: h_arjmandi2012@yahoo.com
GSM vs. GNS
A war of the trading platforms? GMX (native to Arbitrum) - GNS (native to polygon, but announced will be launching on Arbitrum soon). Both platform native tokens (GMX - GNS) have seen meteoric price growth during a bear market. Since June GNS has gone from $0.68 to $3.68 and GMX has gone from $13.70 to $41.56
Observe Trading volume. Has one platform absorbed more volume than the other? How impactful is GNS volume to polygon? GMX volume to Arbitrum? Are there any insights that can reveal why Gains Network wants to move into the Arbitrum ecosystem?
Hey there 👋!
Firstly, I appreciate you sticking with it until the conclusion.
I'm Hamed, a civil engineering Ph.D.
student interested in data analysis.
I've made many similar dashboards and visualizations since I started at Flipside in January.
Please take a look at my various contact details and let me know what you think.
:telescope: Findings:
although, the begging date of trading activities on GMX platform on Arbitrum chains was the April 18th, but can be observed three week later the number of transactions, unique user count and trading volume increased and passed the GNS, so that in the last week the volume on GXM was about 4x more than GNS.
The comparision in terms of transactions volume, the GXM platform handled approximately 3x more than GNS, although those was the same in terms of transactions count in total.
:telescope: Findings:
As excepted, the generated fees volume by GXM is too over than GNS at the first, because of totally Arbitrum is more expensive than Polygon network.
Although, after reaching in the highest level in in Jun 27th on GXM, it sharply decreased, that was because of Arbitrum Nove upgrade that affected the generated fees on Arbitrum and decreased it, do that in the recent weeks the average amount of generated fees on GXM decreased to below GNS on polygon.
Overall, total amount of generated fees by GXM is $376.25K against to 30K in GNS.
As of line chart right, the average of transactions count on GXM was over than GNS over past 9 months.
:telescope: Findings:
Mutual users implies to wallet addresses who have had transactions on both platforms, which identified by similar Origin_from_address.
The visuals right show the total transactions count and traded volume($) by mutual users that have had more than 100 transactions in total.
- As can be seen 0x94…5bc1 traded the most volume and performed the most transaction count in both platforms, $28.2M by 960 on GNS & $7.6M by 287 tx on GMX.
The following graphs present the transactions count, user count and traded volume by mutual users on both platforms over time.
As can be observed the count of transactions, unique users and traded volume by mutual users increased over time.
The most traded volume peaked at $11.81M in Sep 12th on GXM and and 45 days later on GNS, with $7.75M in Oct 24th.
Overall, performed transactions count on GNS is over than GXM, but in terms of traded volume GXM is over than GNS over time.
:telescope: Findings:
- The number of new users that performed first their transactions on platforms peaked at closely 6K on GMX in Jun 27th.
- Total count of new users for GMS are about 5x more than GNS (20k against 4.9K, respectively)
- Overall, the number of New users increased over time on both platforms.
:hourglass_flowing_sand: In the following visuals the activities are shown over time.
As can be seen transactions count, the number of unique user and trading volume increased over time.