Skip to content
Crypto Almanac Daily
G
Perp Dex

GMTrade

Best for documented on-chain trading

Total value locked:$33m at this checkChains:1Audits recorded:2Audit report linked:YesRubric:v2.0 · verified 9 Aug 2026
Kayla PetersonKayla PetersonDeFi Research Analyst· Last verified August 9, 2026
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
6.0
out of 10
Open account
Scorecard

How it rates

Counterparty & contract risk · 30%8.0
Cost transparency · 20%4.0
Market quality · 25%3.0
Transparency & track record · 15%8.0
Public documentation surface · 10%8.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
Cons
  • No documentation site found at a conventional address
  • Single-chain deployment
How this score was built

Each indicator scores 2, 1 or 0. A pillar is the points earned over the points available; the overall score is the weighted sum. Every source below is public — check any of them yourself.

Counterparty & contract risk · 30% weight8/10 points · 8.0/10
Cost transparency · 20% weight4/10 points · 4.0/10
Market quality · 25% weight3/10 points · 3.0/10
Transparency & track record · 15% weight8/10 points · 8.0/10
Public documentation surface · 10% weight8/10 points · 8.0/10

A single-chain perpetuals venue holding $33m, with two recorded audits and published reports supporting its contract-risk evidence.

Our assessment

GMTrade is a single-chain perpetuals venue holding $33m, with two recorded audits and reports linked. It is one of the smaller protocols in this comparison and one of the better-documented ones, which is an unusual combination.

Audited evidence at small scale

Most protocols in this category at this size publish nothing. Two audits with retrievable reports mean a prospective user can read what was reviewed and what was found before depositing — the single most useful piece of evidence available for a smart contract, and one that eight of the fifteen venues here do not provide.

What $33m means in practice

Depth constrains everything: maximum position size, slippage on entry and exit, and how the venue behaves when several traders need to exit at once. A liquidation cascade in a small pool moves prices far more than in a large one. Size positions on the assumption that exiting will be harder than entering.

The rest of the evidence

Beyond the audits, the transparency and documentation indicators are thin, which is what holds the score at 6.0. Publishing operator information, fee documentation and incident history at stable addresses would move this materially without changing the protocol.

Who it suits

GMTrade fits traders who prioritise audited contracts over depth and are trading modest size. Anyone needing liquidity for larger positions should use GMX, Hyperliquid or Jupiter.

Alternatives

How rivals compare

ServiceScoreBest for
GMX V2 Perps9.3audited, multi-chain deploymentRead →
Reference

Frequently asked

Does this score mean GMTrade is safe to use?

No. It measures what an outsider can verify: linked audits, published documentation and independently recorded market data. Contract behaviour is not tested by us.

Where does the TVL figure come from?

An independent public analytics platform, queried at the verification date. Anyone can re-run the same query.

Why do some protocols score zero on audits?

Because no audit report is linked in the public dataset. It records what a user can reach, not a claim that no audit was ever performed.