GMX V2 Perps
Best for audited, multi-chain deployment
How it rates
- Audit report linked from a public dataset
- Documentation published at a public address
- Deployed across 4 chains
- Several indicators could not be verified from public sources at this check
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/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/tree/main/audits - MetAudit count recorded in an independent dataset
2 audit(s) recorded.
defillama.com/protocol/gmx-v2-perps - MetProtocol tracked by an independent analytics platform
Listed with published TVL and history.
defillama.com/protocol/gmx-v2-perps - Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- MetIndependent dataset publishes protocol economics
TVL and change history published independently.
defillama.com/protocol/gmx-v2-perps - PartialFee model documented publicly
Documentation available; specific fee tiers not captured at this check.
docs.gmx.io/ - Met
- MetTracked with published total value locked
TVL $175m at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/gmx-v2-perps - Met
- Met
- Not met
- MetListed on the independent dataset for over a year
Listing date recorded in the dataset.
defillama.com/protocol/gmx-v2-perps
- MetIndependent analytics page published
Public protocol page with history.
defillama.com/protocol/gmx-v2-perps - MetAudit documentation linked publicly
Audit report linked.
github.com/gmx-io/gmx-synthetics/tree/main/audits - Met
- MetProtocol identity and chains disclosed
Chains and category published: Derivatives.
defillama.com/protocol/gmx-v2-perps - Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
An oracle-priced perpetuals protocol using isolated per-market liquidity pools, holding $175m across four chains with published audit reports.
Our assessment
GMX v2 is the highest-scoring perpetuals venue in this comparison: $175m across four chains, two recorded audits with reports linked, and a design that isolates each market's liquidity rather than pooling all risk together.
Oracle pricing instead of an order book
Trades execute at an oracle price rather than against resting orders, so there is no slippage from book depth and no need for market makers to quote. The trade-off is a direct dependency on the oracle: its latency, its sources and its failure modes become the protocol's failure modes, which is why oracle manipulation has been the recurring attack on designs of this kind.
Isolated GM pools contain the damage
In v1, one shared pool backed every market, so a loss on any one asset hit every liquidity provider. v2 gives each market its own pool. A provider chooses which exposures to underwrite, and a blow-up in a thin market does not reach the pools backing major ones. That is a direct response to how the first design actually failed.
Liquidity providers are the counterparty
Depositors take the other side of every trade in their pool. When traders are net profitable, providers lose — the yield is a payment for underwriting directional risk, not a fee for supplying capital. Anyone depositing should understand they are running a short-volatility book.
Who it suits
GMX fits traders wanting deep on-chain perps without an order book, and providers who understand they are the house. Traders who want order-book execution and price-time priority should compare dYdX or Hyperliquid.
Frequently asked
Does this score mean GMX V2 Perps 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.