Tôi muốn chia sẻ một số ý kiến cá nhân liên quan đến quyết định mua lại và đốt GNS vô thời hạn mà dự án Gains Network đã và đang triển khai. Mong nhận được sự trao đổi, phản hồi đa chiều từ mọi người.
1. Về cuộc bình chọn “không công bằng”
Một quyết định mang tính chiến lược dài hạn lại dựa trên kết quả bỏ phiếu với chỉ hơn 100 người tham gia.
Ngoài ra, việc một vài cá nhân nắm giữ lượng GNS quá lớn có thể tác động không nhỏ đến tỷ lệ bình chọn, làm cho kết quả thiếu sự cân bằng.
Gợi ý: Dự án nên có thêm các buổi tham vấn, giải thích cụ thể, và kêu gọi cộng đồng rộng hơn cùng đóng góp ý kiến.
2. Yếu tố “tăng giá” bền vững cho GNS
Để GNS tăng giá, cần giảm nguồn cungvàtạo nhu cầu đầu tư thật sự.
Trong khi dự án đang cố gắng giảm nguồn cung thông qua đốt, GNS vẫn có cơ chế phát thải không giới hạn (mint GNS khi trader thắng). Nếu nhu cầu mua không gia tăng, GNS khó có thể duy trì giá.
Gợi ý: Hãy tập trung thúc đẩy nhu cầu mua bằng cách làm nổi bật giá trị cốt lõi của GNS, tăng tiện ích, đem lại lợi ích kinh tế rõ ràng cho nhà đầu tư.
3. Tầm nhìn dự án quan trọng hơn “đốt”
Việc GNS (hay GMX) tăng giá phải xuất phát từ đội ngũ dự án: định hướng chiến lược, tầm nhìn, cách tiếp cận cộng đồng, mang lại lợi nhuận cho tất cả các bên.
Nếu chỉ dựa vào “đốt token” thì không đủ để thu hút dòng tiền mới. Khi thiếu sự đột phá về sản phẩm, công nghệ, hay hạ tầng, nhiều nhà đầu tư sẽ không còn mặn mà.
4. Góc nhìn từ nhà đầu tư
Nếu nguồn cung giảm mà nhà đầu tư không thấy được lợi ích kinh tế, họ có thể xả hàng, bán tháo.
Nếu tiếp tục đốt, hãy cân nhắc dùng ngân sách riêng của dự án để mua lại và đốt, thay vì lạm dụng nguồn lực từ cộng đồng.
Dự án nên mở rộng hạ tầng: triển khai trên nhiều chain, phát triển phiên bản ứng dụng di động, tăng tính tiện dụng để thu hút thêm người dùng.
5. Lời nhắn gửi đến đội ngũ Gains Network
Hãy đánh giá vấn đề từ nhiều góc độ để tạo ra giải pháp bền vững hơn cho GNS.
Muốn GNS tăng giá và giữ vững sức hút, cần một hệ sinh thái toàn diện (marketing, phát triển sản phẩm, thu hút dòng tiền mới) chứ không chỉ mỗi biện pháp đốt token.
Nếu không có thay đổi căn bản, dự án có thể rơi vào cảnh chỉ còn vài nhà đầu tư lớn, trong khi đa số đã rời đi.
Rất mong mọi người chia sẻ thêm nhận xét, thảo luận xung quanh chủ đề này để chúng ta có thể cùng đóng góp, giúp dự án phát triển bền vững.
I’d like to share some personal opinions regarding Gains Network’s decision to buy back and burn GNS indefinitely, and I’d love to hear the community’s thoughts and feedback.
1. Concerns About the Fairness of the Poll
A strategic, long-term decision was made based on a vote with only around 100 participants.
Additionally, the fact that a few individuals or wallets could hold a disproportionately large amount of GNS raises questions about the poll’s fairness.
Suggestion: The project team might consider hosting additional consultations, clearly explaining the proposal, and inviting broader participation from the community.
2. Sustainable Factors for GNS Price Growth
For GNS to appreciate in price, you need both a reduced supply and genuine investor demand.
While supply is being reduced through burning, GNS still has an unlimited minting mechanism (when traders’ profits need to be paid out). If demand remains weak, the price of GNS is unlikely to rise sustainably.
Suggestion: Instead of relying solely on burning tokens, the project should focus on boosting real demand by highlighting GNS’s core value, offering clear economic benefits to token holders, and ensuring practical use cases.
3. Vision Matters More Than Just Burning
Whether it’s GNS or GMX, price appreciation typically stems from the project team’s vision, roadmap, community engagement, and the ability to deliver benefits to all stakeholders.
Relying purely on token burning isn’t sufficient to attract new capital. Without product innovation, technological improvements, or expanding infrastructure, many potential investors will lose interest.
4. Investor Perspective
If supply decreases without tangible returns for investors, it may lead to sell-offs or panic selling.
If Gains Network intends to continue buying back and burning GNS, it might consider using the project’s own capital rather than depending heavily on community resources.
Infrastructure expansion could include deploying on multiple chains, building a mobile app, or developing more features that truly excite and attract users.
5. A Message to the Gains Network Team
Please consider evaluating issues from various angles to build a more sustainable approach for GNS.
To boost GNS’s price and maintain long-term appeal, you need a comprehensive ecosystem (marketing, product development, continuous efforts to attract new investors), rather than relying solely on token burns.
Without fundamental changes, the project could find itself in a bleak situation—only a few large holders might stay on while the majority of investors exit.
I hope everyone can share further comments and join the discussion on how to strengthen this project for long-term success.
There was significant discussion in the main (and price) telegrams, with many calls for community input on this and other options. In terms of fairness unfortunately this is the fairest way, those with more GNS have more at stake and therefore should get more say in the direction of the project.
GNS doesn’t have an unlimited minting mechanism, supply is constrained to 100m and there is a max minting per year (can’t see it in the docs but there is definitely a yearly limit in supply increase).
3)4) & 5) This is what the team is doing (all the things you mention). They’ve deployed on 2 chains in the back half of 2024 and we already have a mobile app. Funding fees are in the works which should drive more volume. They’ve reduced spreads, reduced borrowing fees and reduced open/close fees, again all in the back half of 2024. They’ve had multiple fruitful meme partnerships ($APE clearly being the most successful). All to say that the team is trying things, it hasn’t been as successful as we all hope but they are still experimenting and I expect to see more direction in the upcoming roadmap.
To clarify the buyback and burn as well, it is literally the best option for price appreciation. Most of the OTC sales are conducted by arb’er so they buy GNS on the open market then sell it for the OTC funds. So it is creating market buys. Compared to the old system where users could choose whether to compound or not, buyback and burn forces all users to compound, just instead of getting more GNS you just end up with more GNS supply. We’re possibly being hit by people who liked the previous model exiting (there have been some large wallets selling h). That doesn’t change the fact the bbb is the best method for raising the price.
Don’t have much to add outside of that, I think funding fees will be a big turning point in volume, obviously tough for everyone to see the price action be the way it is but there’s no obvious simple solution and the team is throwing everything at it to get us back on track.
Whether it’s GNS or GMX, price appreciation typically stems from the project team’s vision, roadmap, community engagement, and the ability to deliver benefits to all stakeholders.
Relying purely on token burning isn’t sufficient to attract new capital. Without product innovation, technological improvements, or expanding infrastructure, many potential investors will lose interest.
I will speak quickly on this point: We are expecting the 2025 roadmap release imminently. I think the vision for 2025 and the technical excellence of the project will truly manifest into the $GNS / gTrade Renaissance.
Burning and deflaiton are core parts of crypto (consider the limited supply of BTC as one of the bullish mechanisms behind its narrative) and expanding this same narrative to other tokens can result in much price appreciation alongside positive sentiment and a good core protocol.
In my opinion the fact that only 100 people voted does not mean the poll was unfair, it just means that we have a small group of highly engaged holders in the community. In my view I would not say that is unfair. I always welcome people to get involved and hope that number grows exponentially over time, for example thanks to the additional consultations you suggested.
A project having a few people who have a lot of coins is not unfair either in my view. It’s just the normal spread of capital across any group of people or population.
I hope that the 2025 roadmap which the team have said they are releasing this week will help to address some of your other concerns!
I understand where you’re coming from. The supply is fairly concentrated in the hands of a couple dozen OGs, but I want to highlight the fact that there was discussion in the telegram for weeks, if not months, before the proposal was created, and there was sufficient time for discussion between when the vote was created and when the vote passed.
Additionally, the fact that there were only 100 participants doesn’t necessarily mean that this wasn’t fair, though. I personally was in favor of full burn for a set amount of time and revisiting, but I ultimately didn’t end up voting because my tokens are in a cold wallet and the snapshot had been taken before I could mobilize them. No voting system is going to completely satisfy all users, and there are a few who are disappointed with the results and have vocalized this. However, I believe that this is the right path forward for the protocol for the time being.
Sustainable Factors for GNS Price Growth
I believe that this is being prioritized and we’ll see more in the coming roadmap. I think it was a bit of a miss for the team not to fold the GNS NFT utility into the tokens when they were deprecated, but I’m hopeful that this returns in the near future.
And finally to address this point:
Please consider evaluating issues from various angles to build a more sustainable approach for GNS.
I think we’re all open to suggestions for what people have in mind, but I think that the processes we’ve taken are pretty standard in the crypto community (gov forum, votes weighted by holdings).
Thanks for taking the time to write out this post, the community appreciates it!