GMTrade
Best for documented on-chain trading
How it rates
- Audit report linked from a public dataset
- No documentation site found at a conventional address
- Single-chain deployment
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.
- MetIndependent audit published with a linked report
Audit report linked from the public protocol dataset.
github.com/gmsol-labs/gmx-solana-audits - Met
- MetProtocol tracked by an independent analytics platform
Listed with published TVL and history.
defillama.com/protocol/gmtrade - Not metTechnical documentation published
No documentation site found at a conventional address at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/gmtrade - Met
- Not metDocumentation published where fees are described
No documentation site found at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/gmtrade - Met
- MetIndependent dataset publishes protocol economics
TVL and change history published independently.
defillama.com/protocol/gmtrade - Not met
- Not metNo account required to read protocol documentation
Not available at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/gmtrade
- Met
- Not met
- Not met
- Not met
- PartialListed on the independent dataset for over a year
Listing date recorded in the dataset.
defillama.com/protocol/gmtrade
- MetIndependent analytics page published
Public protocol page with history.
defillama.com/protocol/gmtrade - Met
- Not met
- MetProtocol identity and chains disclosed
Chains and category published: Derivatives.
defillama.com/protocol/gmtrade - Met
- Met
- Not met
- Met
- Met
- Met
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.
How rivals compare
| Service | Score | Best for | |
|---|---|---|---|
| GMX V2 Perps | 9.3 | audited, multi-chain deployment | Read → |
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.