7.5
Solid
Best DeFi Protocols · Review

GMX Protocol

Popularised paying liquidity providers from actual fees rather than emissions, then lost $40m to a re-entrancy bug in v1.

Best For
Real-yield perpetuals infrastructure
Headline Cost
Trading fees shared with liquidity providers
Founded
2021
Rank in category
10 of 15
Last Checked
August 2026
The short answer

GMX popularised paying liquidity providers from actual trading fees rather than token emissions, with fully transparent pool composition and open interest. Its July 2025 v1 exploit cost around $40m before a partial return, and its LP model means providers are the house — profitable on average, painful in trends.

Score breakdown

Category rubric →
Security record · 25%
6.5
Economic design · 20%
7.5
Real usage · 20%
8.0
Governance · 20%
7.5
Transparency · 15%
8.5

Works well for a specific use case, weaker outside it. The headline 7.5 is the weighted mean of these marks — see our methodology. Not financial advice.

What we liked

  • Fee revenue distributed to LPs and stakers without emissions
  • Fully transparent pool composition and open interest
  • v2 architecture addressed the original design's weaknesses

Where it falls short

  • The July 2025 v1 exploit cost roughly $40m
  • LPs take the other side of trader positions, which is riskier than it looks

Before GMX, DeFi yields were mostly emissions: protocols printed tokens to pay liquidity providers, and the yield disappeared when the printing stopped. GMX distributed actual trading revenue in ETH, which reframed what a sustainable return looks like and started the real yield narrative.

The pool-as-counterparty model

Liquidity providers deposit into a pool that takes the other side of every trade. Traders get oracle-priced fills with no slippage; providers earn fees, borrow costs and, on average, trader losses. The design works because most leveraged traders lose over time — and it means providers are directionally exposed and can lose heavily in a sustained trend where traders are correct.

v1, v2 and the exploit

v1 used a single pooled basket. v2 replaced it with isolated GM markets, each with its own backing assets, which contains risk per market. In July 2025 a re-entrancy vulnerability in v1 on Arbitrum allowed an attacker to manipulate pool accounting and extract roughly $40m; much was returned following a bounty offer, v2 was unaffected, and v1 was deprecated.

Where it stands

v2 operates across Arbitrum and Avalanche with real fee revenue and transparent on-chain state. Competition from Hyperliquid and other order-book venues has taken volume, and the borrow-fee model still makes long-held positions expensive.

Who should care

Traders wanting slippage-free entries, liquidity providers evaluating whether to be the house, and anyone assessing which DeFi yields are actually funded by revenue.

FAQ

What is real yield?
Returns funded by protocol revenue — trading fees, borrow costs — rather than by token emissions. GMX popularised the distinction.
What happened in the 2025 GMX exploit?
A re-entrancy flaw in v1 on Arbitrum let an attacker manipulate pool accounting for roughly $40m. Much was returned after a bounty offer; v2 was unaffected.
Is providing liquidity to GMX profitable?
Historically yes on average, from fees and trader losses, but providers take directional risk and lose in sustained trends where traders are correct.
Should I use GMX v1 or v2?
v2. It uses isolated markets with contained risk, and v1 was deprecated after the 2025 exploit.
#ServiceBest forCostScore
1Aave ProtocolCredit infrastructure the rest of DeFi builds onReserve factor on interest9.2
2Uniswap ProtocolThe most proven piece of infrastructure in DeFi0.01–1% swap fee to liquidity providers9.1
3Morpho ProtocolMinimal, immutable lending infrastructureNo protocol fee at the base layer8.7
4Rocket Pool ProtocolDecentralised staking infrastructureNode commission plus protocol fee8.4
5Lido ProtocolThe staking layer most of Ethereum DeFi depends on10% of staking rewards8.3
6Pendle ProtocolOn-chain interest rate markets~3% of yield plus swap fees8.3
7Sky ProtocolThe oldest working credit system in cryptoStability fees on borrowing7.9
8Curve ProtocolStablecoin liquidity infrastructure~0.01–0.04% on stable pools7.8
9Compound ProtocolConservative, well-understood lending infrastructureReserve factor on interest7.7
10GMX ProtocolReal-yield perpetuals infrastructureTrading fees shared with liquidity providers7.5
11EigenLayer ProtocolShared security infrastructureNo base-layer protocol fee7.2
12SynthetixSynthetic asset infrastructureTrading fees to stakers7.2
13Balancer ProtocolProgrammable liquidity poolsPool fees plus protocol cut7.1
14EthenaSynthetic dollar yield from basis tradingProtocol take on funding revenue7.1
15Frax FinanceAn integrated stablecoin and yield ecosystemVaries across the product suite6.4