Deep Dive
1. Vesting Cliff Risks (Bearish Impact)
Overview:
A governance thread (GMX Forum) highlights concerns about ~24% of esGMX entering vesting contracts by mid-July 2025. Historically, whales receiving these tokens have shown low staking retention (12% in 2024 vs. 24% in 2025), raising fears of a supply glut.
What this means:
If large holders exit post-vesting, GMX could face downward pressure similar to its 43% drop over the past 60 days. The protocol’s buyback program (repurchasing 34,500 GMX weekly at 22% APR) may struggle to offset this sell-side momentum.
2. Hyperliquid’s Market Dominance (Bearish Impact)
Overview:
Hyperliquid has surpassed GMX in open interest ($10.6B vs. GMX’s sub-$10M), driven by its high-throughput Layer 1 architecture (Bitrue). Traders favor Hyperliquid’s order-book model over GMX’s pool-based system, which suffers from slippage and slower execution.
What this means:
GMX’s declining relevance in perps trading could reduce fee revenue—critical for its buyback-and-burn mechanism. Until V2 adoption accelerates or liquidity incentives improve, this trend may cap price recovery.
3. Governance-Driven Tokenomics Shifts (Mixed Impact)
Overview:
The DAO is voting on proposals like “Revised Fee Structures on Botanix” and surplus fund deployment (GMX Snapshot). Success here could boost staker yields and liquidity, but failure might deepen bearish sentiment.
What this means:
Positive reforms could attract new capital, but GMX’s track record is mixed—its shift from Multiplier Points to buybacks in 2024 coincided with a 76% annual price decline. Market patience for iterative changes is thinning.
Conclusion
GMX’s price trajectory hinges on mitigating mid-July vesting risks, regaining trading volume from competitors, and executing governance upgrades credibly. While the protocol’s real-yield model ($8.49 price, 22% staking APR) offers baseline support, failure to address these challenges could extend its 90-day -39.94% slump.
Key question: Will the July vesting unlock accelerate the downtrend, or can strategic buybacks stabilize the floor?