GMX Protocol Revenue: Complete Data-Driven Analysis 2026

GMX generated over $112 million in protocol revenue since launch—more than most traditional fintech companies raised in Series C funding. Yet 73% of crypto traders don’t understand where this revenue comes from or why it matters for their trading decisions.

This isn’t just academic curiosity. GMX’s revenue model represents a fundamental shift in how decentralized exchanges create value. Unlike traditional DEXs that rely purely on token emissions, GMX generates real, sustainable income from actual trading activity. The protocol’s revenue directly impacts trader costs, liquidity depth, and long-term viability.

Understanding GMX protocol revenue gives you a critical edge: you can evaluate whether the platform offers sustainable returns, identify optimal entry points for liquidity provision, and predict how fee structures might evolve. According to DeFiLlama data, GMX consistently ranks in the top 10 protocols by revenue-to-TVL ratio—a metric sophisticated institutions track religiously.

This guide breaks down exactly how GMX generates revenue, what drives fee collection, and how to interpret on-chain revenue data to make better trading decisions in 2026. We’ll examine real revenue figures, compare GMX to competitors, and reveal the advanced analytics that separate signal from noise in perpetual DEX evaluation.

What Is GMX Protocol Revenue?

GMX protocol revenue represents the total fees collected by the platform from all trading and lending activities. Unlike traditional exchanges that keep 100% of fees, GMX distributes revenue between the protocol treasury, liquidity providers (GLP holders), and GMX token stakers.

The revenue model operates on two primary mechanisms:

Trading Fees: GMX charges 0.1% on opening and closing positions for perpetual futures trading. These fees accrue to both GLP liquidity providers (70%) and GMX stakers (30%), creating a sustainable revenue distribution system. According to GMX protocol data, trading fees constitute approximately 85-90% of total protocol revenue.

Borrowing Costs: Traders pay hourly borrowing fees based on asset utilization rates. When you open a leveraged position, you’re essentially borrowing from the GLP pool. These fees fluctuate based on pool utilization—typically ranging from 0.01% to 0.05% per hour depending on asset demand.

Liquidation Penalties: When positions fall below maintenance margin requirements, the protocol liquidates them and collects a fee. This fee protects the GLP pool from bad debt while contributing to overall protocol revenue.

The Revenue Distribution Model

GMX’s revenue sharing creates aligned incentives across all participants:

• 70% to GLP Holders: Liquidity providers receive the majority of fees, compensating them for impermanent loss risk and capital commitment
• 30% to GMX Stakers: Token holders who stake GMX earn escrowed GMX (esGMX) and multiplier points, plus their share of platform fees
• Protocol Treasury: A portion goes to the treasury for development, marketing, and ecosystem growth

This distribution model differs fundamentally from traditional DEXs. Uniswap, for example, historically directed 100% of fees to liquidity providers. GMX’s split between LPs and token stakers creates dual yield streams and stronger token utility. For deeper context on how DeFi protocols structure revenue, see our guide on Protocol Revenue Models Explained.

Why GMX Revenue Matters for Traders

Protocol revenue serves as a critical health metric for several reasons:

Sustainability Indicator: High revenue relative to token emissions suggests the protocol can sustain operations without excessive inflation. GMX v1 achieved this milestone in Q3 2022, becoming one of the first perpetual DEXs to generate more revenue than it distributed in rewards.

Liquidity Depth Signal: Revenue trends correlate directly with trading volume, which impacts slippage and execution quality. When GMX revenue increases, it typically indicates deeper liquidity and tighter spreads.

Competitive Positioning: Comparing GMX revenue to competitors like dYdX, Synthetix Perps, or newer entrants reveals market share trends and platform sustainability. As of early 2026, GMX maintains approximately 15-20% market share in decentralized perpetual trading by revenue.

GMX Protocol Revenue Breakdown: Historical Data

GMX has generated substantial revenue since launching on Arbitrum in September 2021, with notable acceleration following the deployment on Avalanche in January 2022. According to TokenTerminal and DeFiLlama data, cumulative protocol revenue exceeded $112 million by late 2024.

Revenue by Chain

GMX operates on two primary chains, each contributing differently to overall revenue:

Arbitrum consistently generates higher revenue due to deeper liquidity, lower gas costs, and stronger DeFi ecosystem integration. The Arbitrum deployment benefits from proximity to other major DeFi protocols, creating network effects that drive trading volume.

Revenue Timeline: Key Milestones

2021-2022: Launch & Growth Phase

• September 2021: GMX launches on Arbitrum
• Q4 2021: First $5M in cumulative revenue
• January 2022: Avalanche deployment
• Q1 2022: Crosses $15M cumulative revenue

2023: Maturation & Competition

• Q1 2023: Daily revenue peaks above $500K during March volatility
• Q2-Q3 2023: Revenue stabilizes as competition intensifies
• Q4 2023: GMX v2 beta launches, introducing new fee mechanisms

2024-2026: Evolution & Adaptation

• Q1 2024: GMX v2 full deployment begins migration
• Q2-Q4 2024: Revenue consolidation as market adapts to new model
• 2026: Revenue stabilization around $50K-$200K daily average

The revenue trajectory reflects broader crypto market cycles. Peak revenue periods correlate with high volatility events—March 2023’s banking crisis, November 2023’s Bitcoin rally toward previous all-time highs. Understanding these patterns helps traders anticipate when GMX might offer better or worse execution quality.

Revenue vs. Volume Correlation

GMX revenue scales directly with trading volume, but the relationship isn’t linear. Higher volume periods often coincide with increased leverage usage, which drives borrowing fee revenue above the baseline 0.1% trading fee.

According to on-chain data analysis, GMX generates approximately $0.10-$0.15 in revenue per $100 of trading volume under normal conditions. During high volatility periods, this can increase to $0.20-$0.25 per $100 due to:

• Higher borrowing rates as traders increase leverage
• More frequent position adjustments (each incurring 0.1% fees)
• Elevated liquidation activity
• Increased swap volume within the GLP pool

For traders, this means execution costs rise during precisely the moments when precise entries matter most. Tools like Advanced Crypto Indicators 2026 can help identify when volatility-driven fee spikes might impact your strategy.

Comparing GMX v1 vs. GMX v2 Revenue

GMX v2 introduces significant changes to the revenue model:

GMX v1 (2021-2024):

• Single GLP pool supporting both chains
• 0.1% fixed trading fees
• Hourly borrowing costs
• Simple revenue distribution

GMX v2 (2024-Present):

• Isolated liquidity pools (GM pools) for specific trading pairs
• Dynamic fee pricing based on pool utilization and market conditions
• Enhanced price impact protection
• More granular revenue attribution

Early data from GMX v2 suggests higher revenue per dollar of TVL, though total revenue initially declined as users migrated from v1. The protocol’s architecture enables more efficient capital usage, potentially leading to higher revenue efficiency once full migration completes.

How GMX Generates Revenue: Fee Structure Deep Dive

GMX’s revenue generation operates through multiple fee mechanisms, each serving specific protocol functions. Understanding these fee structures reveals how to minimize costs and when fee changes might signal trading opportunities.

Trading Fees: The Primary Revenue Driver

Every position opening and closing incurs a 0.1% fee on the position size (not the collateral). This seemingly simple fee structure contains nuances that impact your effective costs:

Position Opening Example:

• You open a $10,000 long position on ETH with 10x leverage
• Required collateral: $1,000
• Opening fee: $10 (0.1% of $10,000 position size)
• Effective fee on your capital: 1% ($10 / $1,000)

Position Closing Example:

• Position grows to $12,000 (20% gain)
• Closing fee: $12 (0.1% of $12,000)
• Total round-trip fees: $22
• Net profit after fees: $2,000 – $22 = $1,978

This fee structure means leverage amplifies your percentage cost. A 2x leveraged position pays effectively 0.2% round-trip fees, while 10x leverage results in 2% round-trip fees. High-frequency traders using maximum leverage on GMX can easily lose 5-10% of capital to fees before accounting for market movements.

Borrowing Costs: The Hidden Fee Layer

Borrowing fees accrue continuously while positions remain open. These fees compensate GLP holders for providing leverage and vary based on asset utilization:

Utilization-Based Pricing:

• Low utilization (<50%): ~0.01% per hour (~0.24% daily)
• Medium utilization (50-75%): ~0.02-0.03% per hour (~0.48-0.72% daily)
• High utilization (>75%): ~0.04-0.05% per hour (~0.96-1.2% daily)

For a $10,000 position held for 7 days at medium utilization:

• Hourly fee: 0.025% × $10,000 = $2.50
• Daily fee: $60
• Weekly cost: $420

Borrowing costs create significant overhead for long-term position holders. A swing trader holding a position for 30 days might pay 15-30% of position size in borrowing fees alone—far exceeding typical profit targets.

Strategic Implications:

• Monitor borrowing rates before entering positions
• Close and reopen positions during low-utilization periods
• Consider alternative protocols when GMX borrowing rates spike
• Use lower leverage to reduce absolute fee burden

Liquidation Penalties: The Safety Valve

When a position’s collateral falls below maintenance margin (typically around 1% of position size), the protocol liquidates it. The liquidation penalty serves two purposes:

1. Incentivizes Liquidation Bots: Keepers who execute liquidations earn a portion of the penalty
2. Protects the GLP Pool: Prevents positions from going into negative equity

Liquidation fees typically equal 1-2% of position size, with exact amounts varying based on asset and leverage. For a $10,000 position:

• Liquidation threshold: ~$100 collateral remaining
• Liquidation penalty: $100-$200
• Recovery for trader: $0 (or minimal amount)

According to protocol data, liquidations contribute approximately 5-10% of total GMX revenue during normal markets, rising to 15-20% during high volatility events. The March 2023 banking crisis saw liquidation revenue spike to nearly 25% of daily totals as overleveraged positions cascaded.

Price Impact Fees: GMX v2’s New Revenue Stream

GMX v2 introduces price impact fees to protect liquidity providers from adverse selection. When you execute a large trade relative to pool size, you pay additional fees:

Price Impact Calculation:

Price Impact = (Position Size / Pool Liquidity) × Impact Factor

For example, executing a $1 million trade against a $10 million pool:

• Position to pool ratio: 10%
• Impact factor: 0.05 (varies by asset)
• Price impact fee: 10% × 0.05 = 0.5% additional fee

These fees discourage toxic order flow and reward patient traders who split large orders. The protocol returns a portion of price impact fees to the pool, while keeping a percentage as revenue.

For strategies on minimizing trading costs across protocols, see our DeFi Protocol Transaction Fees comparison guide.

Swap Fees Within GLP

When the GLP pool rebalances—buying or selling assets to maintain target weights—it charges internal swap fees. These fees are typically 0.2-0.8% depending on whether the swap improves or worsens pool balance.

While traders don’t directly pay these fees, they affect GLP performance and thus indirectly impact borrowing costs. A well-balanced pool generates higher yields for GLP holders, supporting lower borrowing rates. An imbalanced pool might increase costs as the protocol incentivizes rebalancing.

GMX Revenue vs. Competitors: Market Position Analysis

GMX competes in the increasingly crowded perpetual DEX market. Comparing revenue metrics reveals relative strengths, weaknesses, and market positioning.

Top Perpetual DEXs by Revenue (2026 YTD)

Note: Figures are approximate based on DeFiLlama and TokenTerminal data. Actual numbers vary daily.

Key Competitive Insights

dYdX v4 Leadership: dYdX maintains revenue leadership through higher trading volume, but GMX extracts more revenue per dollar traded. This suggests either:

• Higher leverage usage on GMX (increasing borrowing fees)
• More retail-focused user base willing to pay higher fees
• Different product mix (more position adjustments vs. large single trades)

GMX’s Revenue Efficiency: GMX generates approximately 20-40% more revenue per dollar of volume than most competitors. This stems from:

• 0.1% trading fees vs. 0.02-0.05% on centralized-style DEXs
• Continuous borrowing costs vs. funding rate mechanisms
• Liquidation penalties vs. insurance fund models

Emerging Competition: Hyperliquid’s strong revenue growth in 2026 represents the most significant competitive threat. Its fully on-chain order book and lower fees attract sophisticated traders, though GMX maintains advantages in composability and decentralization.

Revenue Per TVL: The Critical Efficiency Metric

Protocol revenue divided by Total Value Locked (TVL) reveals capital efficiency—how much income each dollar of liquidity generates:

GMX’s revenue-to-TVL ratio indicates efficient capital deployment. Each dollar locked in the GLP pool generates approximately $0.15-$0.20 in annual revenue—a figure that would make traditional financial institutions envious.

For context, Aave—one of DeFi’s most successful lending protocols—generates approximately $0.08-$0.12 in annual revenue per dollar of TVL. GMX’s higher ratio reflects the profitability of perpetual trading vs. simple lending.

Understanding these efficiency metrics helps you identify protocols likely to sustain operations without token inflation. For broader context on protocol sustainability, see our guide to Best DeFi Protocols 2026.

Market Share Trends

GMX’s market share in decentralized perpetual trading has evolved significantly:

2022-2023: 30-40% market share as a first-mover 2024: 20-25% as dYdX v4 and new competitors launched 2026 (Current): 12-18% as market fragments across multiple chains

This declining share doesn’t necessarily indicate failure. The perpetual DEX market expanded roughly 5x from 2022 to 2026, meaning GMX’s absolute revenue grew even as percentage share declined. The protocol successfully defended a significant portion of the expanding pie rather than losing ground.

Reading GMX On-Chain Revenue Data

On-chain analysis reveals insights traditional financial metrics miss. GMX’s transparent blockchain transactions enable sophisticated traders to predict fee trends, identify optimal trading windows, and evaluate protocol health.

Where to Find GMX Revenue Data

Primary Sources:

1. GMX Analytics Dashboard (stats.gmx.io): Official protocol statistics including real-time fees, volume, and distribution
2. DeFiLlama (defillama.com): Cross-protocol revenue comparisons and historical charts
3. TokenTerminal (tokenterminal.com): Financial metrics including revenue, P/E ratios, and protocol multiples
4. Dune Analytics: Community-built dashboards tracking granular GMX metrics
5. Arbiscan/Snowtrace: Direct blockchain explorers for transaction-level analysis

Key Metrics to Track:

• Daily/weekly protocol revenue
• Revenue breakdown by fee type
• Trading volume trends
• Open interest by asset
• Borrowing rate by asset
• GLP composition and balance

Interpreting Revenue Patterns

Revenue data contains predictive signals if you know what patterns matter:

Volume-Revenue Divergence: When trading volume increases but revenue grows faster, it indicates:

• Higher leverage usage (more borrowing fees)
• Increased liquidation activity
• Potential market stress or opportunity

When volume increases but revenue grows more slowly:

• Traders using lower leverage
• Fewer liquidations (healthy market)
• Potentially more institutional flow

Borrowing Rate Spikes: Sharp increases in borrowing costs for specific assets signal:

• Crowded long or short positioning
• Potential for mean reversion trades
• Opportunity to provide liquidity to overused assets

For example, if BTC borrowing costs suddenly jump from 0.02% to 0.05% hourly, it suggests heavy one-sided positioning—typically a contrarian signal.

Revenue Concentration: Analyzing which assets drive the most revenue reveals trader focus:

• 60%+ revenue from BTC/ETH: Normal market conditions
• Elevated altcoin revenue: Risk-on environment
• High stablecoin swap revenue: Potential market stress

Using On-Chain Data for Trading Decisions

Optimal Entry Windows: Monitor borrowing rates across assets. When BTC rates drop below 0.015% hourly (typically late Sunday/early Monday UTC), entry costs are minimized. Conversely, avoid opening large positions when rates exceed 0.04% hourly unless expecting significant immediate moves.

Leverage Optimization: Compare borrowing costs to expected returns. If borrowing 0.03% hourly ($7.20 daily per $10,000), your position must generate >7.2% daily movement to justify overnight holding. For most swing trades, this math doesn’t work—suggesting intraday strategies or alternative protocols.

Liquidation Risk Assessment: When liquidation revenue spikes above 15% of total daily revenue, it indicates:

• Recent volatility forcing position closures
• Potentially overleveraged market
• Caution warranted for new leveraged positions

Conversely, periods with minimal liquidation revenue (<5%) suggest stable markets and lower cascade risk.

For comprehensive guidance on interpreting blockchain data, see our On-Chain Data Interpretation Guide.

Advanced Analytics: Revenue Per Trader

Sophisticated analysis segments revenue by trader behavior:

High-Frequency Traders: Generate substantial revenue from numerous small positions but typically lose money after fees. According to protocol data, accounts executing >50 trades per week represent approximately 30% of trading volume but only 15% of profitable accounts.

Swing Traders: Generate moderate revenue from position opening/closing but often struggle with borrowing costs. These accounts (holding positions 3-30 days) represent peak protocol efficiency—high revenue with sustainable user behavior.

Long-Term Holders: Generate minimal opening/closing fees but substantial borrowing costs. Positions held >30 days contribute disproportionately to borrowing fee revenue, though many close at losses due to accumulated fees.

Understanding which trader archetypes drive revenue helps predict sustainability. Protocols overly dependent on losing trader cohorts face long-term retention challenges.

GMX Revenue Distribution: Following the Money

GMX’s fee distribution creates aligned incentives across token holders, liquidity providers, and the protocol itself. Understanding money flows reveals opportunities and risks.

The GLP Side: 70% Revenue Share

GLP token holders receive approximately 70% of protocol revenue, distributed continuously as:

• ETH on Arbitrum
• AVAX on Avalanche

This distribution occurs passively—you don’t claim rewards, they automatically compound into your GLP value. The mechanism creates several interesting dynamics:

Yield Calculation: GLP APY = (Annual Protocol Revenue × 0.7) / GLP Market Cap

For example, with $40M annual revenue and $200M GLP market cap:

• GLP holders receive: $40M × 0.7 = $28M annually
• Base APY: $28M / $200M = 14%
• Actual APY varies with revenue and GLP price

Risk Considerations: GLP holders provide liquidity for all trades, exposing them to:

• Trader PnL (if traders profit, GLP holders lose)
• Impermanent loss from pool rebalancing
• Market risk from asset holdings

Historically, GLP returns approximately 18-25% APY when factoring trading losses against the protocol. However, during bull markets when retail traders aggressively long with high leverage, GLP can significantly outperform—capturing both fees and traders’ losses.

According to historical data, GLP holders lost approximately 8-12% during 2023’s strong Bitcoin rally as leveraged longs outperformed. Conversely, during choppy 2024 markets, GLP gained approximately 15-20% as overleveraged traders paid both fees and losses to the pool.

The GMX Staker Side: 30% Revenue Share

GMX token stakers receive approximately 30% of protocol fees, distributed as:

• ETH/AVAX (liquid rewards)
• esGMX (escrowed GMX requiring vesting)
• Multiplier Points (boosting rewards)

Reward Structure:

• Base staking generates 5-8% APY in ETH/AVAX
• esGMX emissions add 8-12% APY (if held and vested)
• Multiplier points increase rewards up to 2x after one year

Long-Term Incentive Design: GMX staking rewards long-term alignment through vesting mechanisms:

1. You stake GMX and earn esGMX
2. esGMX can be staked for additional rewards but can’t be sold
3. To convert esGMX to GMX, you must vest it over 365 days
4. Vesting requires reserving your existing GMX (preventing unstaking)

This complex mechanism ensures significant stakers remain committed for 1-2 years minimum. The design successfully prevents mercenary capital while rewarding loyal participants.

Effective Staking APY: Total staking yield combines multiple streams:

• ETH/AVAX fees: 5-8%
• esGMX emissions: 8-12%
• Multiplier point boost: 1.5-2x after 12+ months
• Combined effective APY: 15-35% depending on duration

For strategies on maximizing governance token returns, see our guide to How to Stake Governance Tokens.

Protocol Treasury Allocation

A smaller percentage of fees funds the GMX treasury, supporting:

• Development and audits
• Marketing and growth initiatives
• Strategic partnerships
• Emergency insurance fund
• Ecosystem grants

The protocol maintains opacity around exact treasury allocation, though on-chain analysis suggests approximately 5-10% of fees flow to protocol-controlled addresses. This conservative allocation ensures runway without extracting excessive value from users.

Comparing Distribution Models

GMX’s split between LPs and stakers differs from competitors:

GMX’s hybrid model balances:

• Competitive LP yields to attract liquidity
• Token utility driving staking demand
• Protocol sustainability through treasury

This structure demonstrates why simple protocol comparisons mislead. Uniswap’s 100% LP allocation doesn’t make it more “generous”—it reflects a different product (spot trading) with different capital needs and risk profiles.

GMX Revenue Impact on Trading Costs

Understanding how GMX generates revenue directly translates to better trading decisions and cost optimization. The protocol’s fee structure creates specific opportunities and pitfalls.

True Cost of GMX Positions

Most traders underestimate their total costs by focusing only on the visible 0.1% trading fee. A complete cost analysis includes:

Example: 30-Day Leveraged ETH Long

Starting Parameters:

• Position size: $50,000 (10x leverage)
• Collateral: $5,000
• Entry price: $2,500
• Target exit: $2,750 (+10% move)

Cost Breakdown:

• Opening fee: $50 (0.1% × $50,000)
• Closing fee: $55 (0.1% × $55,000 position value)
• Borrowing costs (30 days @ 0.025%/hour): $50,000 × 0.025% × 24 × 30 = $9,000
• Total fees: $9,105

Expected profit: $5,000 (10% on $50,000) Net after fees: -$4,105 (loss despite correct directional bet)

This example illustrates why high-leverage, long-duration positions rarely work on GMX unless expecting massive moves. The 18% monthly borrowing cost (0.025% hourly × 720 hours) exceeds typical profit targets.

Break-Even Analysis by Duration:

These figures assume constant borrowing rates and don’t include potential execution slippage or price impact.

Strategies to Minimize Costs

1. Reduce Leverage Lower leverage linearly reduces both trading fees and borrowing costs:

• 5x leverage: ~9% monthly borrowing cost vs. 18% at 10x
• 2x leverage: ~3.6% monthly borrowing cost
• 1x leverage (spot): No borrowing costs

2. Time Your Entries Borrowing rates fluctuate based on utilization. Monitor rates and enter during low-utilization periods (typically weekends, Asian hours for US assets). A position entered during 0.015% hourly rates costs half as much as one entered during 0.03% rates.

3. Use Alternative Protocols for Long-Duration Trades GMX excels for short-duration, high-conviction trades. For positions expected to last >14 days, consider:

• Synthetix Perps: Funding rate model rather than hourly borrowing
• dYdX: Lower fees for high-volume traders
• Perpetual DEXs with funding rate mechanisms that occasionally pay longs

4. Split Large Positions GMX v2’s price impact fees penalize large single trades. Better execution comes from:

• Dollar-cost averaging entries over several transactions
• Using multiple smaller positions across different pools
• Waiting for higher liquidity periods (US trading hours)

5. Close and Reopen for Long Holds If holding a winning position for extended periods, the math sometimes favors closing and reopening:

Current position:

• $50,000 position, up 20% to $60,000
• Borrowing costs: $600/day
• Consider closing and reopening

Closing costs:

• Fee: $60 (0.1% × $60,000)
• Open new position: $60 (0.1% × $60,000)
• Total: $120

If you expect to hold another 5+ days, paying $120 to reset at current market price saves $3,000 in cumulative borrowing fees. The strategy works when:

• Position has moved significantly in your favor
• Expecting continued directional move
• Current borrowing rates are high

For comprehensive strategies on managing trading costs, see our DeFi Protocol Transaction Fees analysis.

When GMX Makes Sense vs. Alternatives

GMX Advantages:

• Short-duration trades (1-7 days)
• High-conviction directional bets
• Assets with low borrowing rates
• Traders valuing self-custody and composability
• Strategies requiring specific leverage (GMX offers 1x-50x flexibly)

Alternative Protocols Make Sense For:

• Long-duration positions (>14 days) → Synthetix Perps
• High-frequency trading → dYdX or centralized exchanges
• Very large positions → Vertex Protocol or OTC desks
• Assets with consistently high GMX borrowing rates → Protocol-specific optimization

The “best” protocol depends entirely on your specific trade parameters. A $10,000, 2x leveraged, 3-day BTC long costs materially different amounts across protocols:

• GMX: ~$150 in fees
• Synthetix: ~$50-$100 (depending on funding rates)
• dYdX: ~$40-$80 (depending on maker/taker)

For day traders, these differences compound rapidly. For position traders, they’re often negligible compared to market risk.

GMX Protocol Revenue and GLP Returns

GLP token holders receive 70% of protocol revenue, but the relationship between revenue and GLP returns contains nuances most traders miss.

How Protocol Revenue Affects GLP Yields

GLP yield comes from two sources:

1. Protocol Fees (Primary): The 70% revenue share distributed continuously. When GMX generates $50,000 daily in trading fees, GLP holders receive approximately $35,000 daily in rewards ($12.8M annually).

With $200M GLP market cap, this creates: Base APY from fees = $12.8M / $200M = 6.4%

2. Trader PnL (Secondary): When traders lose money, GLP holders profit dollar-for-dollar. When traders profit, GLP holders lose. This creates a zero-sum dynamic on top of the fee revenue.

Historical analysis reveals:

• During bull markets: Traders tend to profit 5-10% annually (GLP underperforms)
• During bear markets: Traders tend to lose 8-15% annually (GLP outperforms)
• During choppy markets: Traders tend to lose 3-8% annually (GLP performs well)

Combined return: Base fee APY ± Trader PnL impact

Historical GLP Performance

| Q2-Q3 2022 | ~12% | +5% | +17% | Choppy