Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
LABS
Comparisons

GMX vs Gains Network: Perpetuals on L2 & Multi-Chain

A technical comparison for CTOs and protocol architects, analyzing the core trade-offs between GMX's multi-asset GLP pool model and Gains Network's gDAI vault and synthetic asset system on Arbitrum, Avalanche, and Polygon.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS

Introduction: The Battle of Perpetual Swap Architectures

A technical breakdown of the two dominant models for decentralized perpetual swaps: GMX's peer-to-pool liquidity and Gains Network's isolated synthetic vaults.

GMX excels at capital efficiency and deep liquidity for blue-chip assets by utilizing a unified, multi-asset liquidity pool (GLP) on Arbitrum and Avalanche. This model allows traders to take large positions with minimal slippage, as evidenced by its consistent $400M+ in Total Value Locked (TVL). The protocol's fee structure, which distributes 70% of trading fees to GLP stakers, has created a powerful flywheel for liquidity providers.

Gains Network takes a different approach by deploying isolated synthetic vaults (gDAI) on Polygon and Arbitrum, allowing for permissionless listing of any asset with a price feed. This results in superior asset diversity—offering 100+ trading pairs including forex and commodities—but introduces the trade-off of fragmented liquidity and higher volatility for exotic pairs. Its use of Chainlink oracles and a dynamic DAI-backed minting mechanism for gDAI isolates risk per asset.

The key trade-off: If your priority is high-volume, low-slippage trading on major crypto assets with a proven liquidity model, choose GMX. If you prioritize maximum asset diversity and exotic pair exposure for a global trading audience, and can manage fragmented liquidity pools, choose Gains Network.

tldr-summary
GMX vs Gains Network

TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance

Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading decentralized perpetuals protocols.

01

GMX: Superior Capital Efficiency

Multi-asset Liquidity Pool (GLP): Liquidity providers earn fees from all trades in a single, diversified basket. This matters for LPs seeking passive, multi-asset exposure. Zero Price Impact Trading: Trades are executed against the GLP pool, not an order book, enabling large positions without slippage. This is critical for whales and institutions.

$500M+
GLP TVL
150+
Assets
02

GMX: Battle-Tested on Arbitrum & Avalanche

Deepest Liquidity on L2: GMX v1 pioneered perpetuals on Arbitrum, achieving $2.5B+ in cumulative volume. This matters for traders prioritizing execution stability and minimal funding rate volatility. Established Track Record: Over two years of mainnet operation with no major security incidents, providing confidence for large capital deployment.

2+ Years
Mainnet Live
03

Gains Network: Unmatched Asset Universe

Synthetic Asset Design (gDAI vault): Trades synthetic forex, commodities, and equities (like Tesla, Gold) with real-world price feeds (Chainlink). This matters for traders seeking exposure beyond crypto. Higher Leverage: Offers up to 150x on major forex pairs vs. GMX's typical 30-50x, catering to aggressive strategies.

150x
Max Leverage (Forex)
40+
Stock/ETF Synths
04

Gains Network: Multi-Chain Native & Gas Efficiency

Polygon PoS & Arbitrum Deployment: Native on Polygon for ultra-low fees (<$0.01), with expansion to Arbitrum. This matters for retail traders and high-frequency strategies sensitive to gas costs. Single-Stake Earning (Dai Vault): Liquidity is pooled in a single, stablecoin (DAI) vault, simplifying yield and risk calculations for LPs.

<$0.01
Avg. Trade Cost (Polygon)
05

Choose GMX If...

You are a liquidity provider wanting diversified yield via GLP, a large-capital trader needing zero-slippage execution on crypto, or a protocol architect prioritizing the most proven, high-TV L2 perpetuals infrastructure.

06

Choose Gains Network If...

You are a trader seeking synthetic stock/forex markets, a retail user on Polygon minimizing fees, or a developer building an app that requires exotic asset exposure beyond native crypto.

HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON

GMX vs Gains Network: Perpetuals on L2 & Multi-Chain

Direct comparison of key technical and economic metrics for leading decentralized perpetuals exchanges.

Metric / FeatureGMXGains Network

Core Trading Model

Multi-Asset Liquidity Pool (GLP)

Isolated Synthetic Pairs (DAI vault)

Native Chain Deployment

Arbitrum, Avalanche

Polygon, Arbitrum

Max Leverage (Crypto)

50x

150x

Trading Fee (Maker/Taker)

0.0% / 0.1%

0.08% / 0.08%

Oracle Solution

Chainlink + Fast Price Feeds

Chainlink + Pyth Network

Supports Forex/Commodities

Protocol Token Utility

Staking (esGMX), Fee Sharing

Staking (gDAI), Treasury Backing

TOKENOMICS & INCENTIVE STRUCTURE

GMX vs Gains Network: Perpetuals on L2 & Multi-Chain

Direct comparison of key token utility, fee distribution, and staking models.

MetricGMX (GMX Token)Gains Network (GNS Token)

Primary Token Utility

Protocol fee revenue share & governance

Backing for synthetic positions & fee revenue share

Fee Distribution to Stakers

30% of trading fees (ETH) & 30% of trading fees (AVAX)

All trading fees (DAI) after treasury allocation

Staking APY (30-day avg.)

8-12%

15-25%

Multi-Chain Liquidity Model

Separate pools (Arbitrum, Avalanche)

Unified treasury (Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism)

Liquidity Provider Role

GLP token holders (passive liquidity)

DAI vault stakers (active risk underwriting)

Treasury Control

GMX stakers govern treasury use

Team-controlled treasury for market making

pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS

GMX vs Gains Network: Perpetuals on L2 & Multi-Chain

A data-driven breakdown of the leading decentralized perpetuals protocols. Compare liquidity models, fee structures, and chain strategies to find the right fit for your trading or integration needs.

01

GMX's Core Strength: Deep, Unified Liquidity

Multi-Chain Liquidity Pool: GMX v2 aggregates liquidity from Arbitrum and Avalanche into a single, unified pool (GLP). This creates a $500M+ TVL base, providing deep liquidity for large trades with minimal slippage. This matters for institutional traders and whales who need to execute sizable positions without moving the market.

02

GMX's Trade-Off: Liquidity Provider Risk

Counterparty is the Pool: GLP holders (LPs) are the direct counterparty to all trades, earning fees but also bearing the P&L. During volatile markets or sustained trader profitability, LPs can experience drawdowns. This matters for capital allocators who must assess the asymmetric risk/reward of providing liquidity versus simple yield farming.

03

Gains Network's Core Strength: Isolated, Synthetic Markets

Synthetic Asset Model: gTrade uses Chainlink oracles and a DAI vault to mint synthetic assets, enabling 1,500+ unique trading pairs (including forex and equities) with no direct liquidity requirement for each pair. This matters for traders seeking exotic markets and integrators who want to offer niche assets without fragmented liquidity.

04

Gains Network's Trade-Off: Oracle Dependency & Complexity

Oracle-Governed Execution: All prices and liquidations are managed by decentralized oracle networks. This introduces latency risks during extreme volatility and requires robust oracle infrastructure (e.g., Chainlink's low-latency oracles on Polygon zkEVM). This matters for protocol architects who must design for oracle failure modes and manage integration complexity across multiple data feeds.

pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS

GMX vs Gains Network: Perpetuals on L2 & Multi-Chain

Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs evaluating perpetual swap protocols.

01

GMX: Superior Liquidity & Network Effects

Dominant TVL and volume: $500M+ in staked liquidity (GLP) across Arbitrum and Avalanche, facilitating deep markets and tight spreads. This matters for institutional traders and large positions where slippage is a primary cost.

$500M+
Staked Liquidity (GLP)
02

GMX: Simpler, Battle-Tested Model

Established PvP/Peer-to-Pool hybrid: Liquidity providers (GLP) act as the direct counterparty to traders, a model proven since 2021 on Arbitrum. This matters for teams prioritizing protocol stability and a straightforward fee structure over complex mechanisms.

03

Gains Network: Unmatched Asset Universe

Extensive multi-chain asset selection: Offers 200+ synthetic trading pairs, including forex (EUR/USD), commodities (Gold), and equities (TSLA), far beyond typical crypto pairs. This matters for traders seeking traditional market exposure or diversified portfolios on-chain.

200+
Trading Pairs
04

Gains Network: Capital Efficiency & High Leverage

Synthetic architecture with isolated risk: Uses Chainlink oracles and a single DAI vault, allowing for high leverage (up to 150x on crypto) without fragmented liquidity pools. This matters for retail and advanced traders maximizing potential returns on smaller capital.

150x
Max Leverage (Crypto)
05

GMX Con: Limited Asset Selection

Narrow crypto-centric focus: Primarily supports major crypto assets (BTC, ETH, LINK, etc.). This is a trade-off for teams whose users demand exposure to forex, stocks, or commodities without leaving DeFi.

06

Gains Network Con: Lower Native Liquidity

Smaller liquidity pool: ~$30M in its DAI vault, which can lead to higher slippage on very large trades compared to GMX. This matters for funds or whales executing seven-figure orders, where execution quality is critical.

~$30M
DAI Vault TVL
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY

Decision Framework: When to Choose Which

GMX for High-Volume Traders

Verdict: The superior choice for large, capital-efficient positions. Strengths: GMX's unique GLP liquidity pool model provides deep liquidity sourced from multiple chains (Arbitrum, Avalanche), resulting in minimal slippage for large trades. Its zero-price-impact swaps within the pool are a key differentiator. The platform is optimized for leveraged spot trading and perpetuals with up to 50x leverage, making it ideal for sophisticated strategies. High TVL (~$500M) ensures system stability. Considerations: Trading fees are higher (opening/closing fees + borrow fees from GLP), which can erode profits on high-frequency strategies. The GLP token's performance is directly tied to trader P&L, adding a unique risk/reward dynamic for liquidity providers.

verdict
THE ANALYSIS

Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation

A data-driven breakdown to guide infrastructure decisions between two leading perpetual DEX architectures.

GMX excels at deep liquidity and mainstream adoption because of its first-mover advantage and concentrated liquidity model on Arbitrum and Avalanche. For example, it consistently maintains a Total Value Locked (TVL) exceeding $500M, providing superior capital efficiency and tighter spreads for large traders. Its permissionless listing model for blue-chip assets like ETH, BTC, and LINK has created a robust, battle-tested ecosystem with integrations across major DeFi protocols.

Gains Network takes a different approach by prioritizing asset diversity and gas efficiency on Polygon. Its unique gDAI vault and synthetic asset model allows it to offer perpetuals on traditional equities (like Tesla), forex pairs, and exotic cryptocurrencies with minimal slippage. This results in a trade-off of more centralized price feeds (reliant on Pyth Network oracles) but enables a vastly broader market catalog that GMX cannot match natively.

The key architectural divergence is liquidity sourcing: GMX uses a peer-to-pool model where LPs share collective risk, while Gains uses a peer-to-peer model backed by its treasury, isolating LP risk. This makes GMX better for high-volume, low-spread trading on core crypto assets, whereas Gains is engineered for accessing niche markets with predictable, low fees on Polygon.

Consider GMX if your protocol needs: deep, established liquidity for major crypto assets; integration with the Arbitrum DeFi stack (e.g., Camelot, Radiant); or a proven, high-TVL venue for institutional users. Choose Gains Network when your priority is: multi-asset exposure beyond crypto; ultra-low transaction costs on Polygon; or a self-contained, treasury-backed system for exotic pairs.

ENQUIRY

Get In Touch
today.

Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.

NDA Protected
24h Response
Directly to Engineering Team
10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall
NDA Protected Directly to Engineering Team
GMX vs Gains Network: Perpetuals on L2 & Multi-Chain Comparison | ChainScore Comparisons