Original GTON Exchange & OGXT


A series of crypto conferences took place in October and November where the technologies, the team and the narratives of the GTON project were showcased to the global web3 community. During these events, we were able to directly communicate with those who represent the audience of the project, the DAO, service users, market makers and investors in digital assets associated with the GTON technology. The networking results of these events will play their role in the near future and will reverberate for a long time in the form of new strategic partnerships, collaborations, and investments.

One of the key insights from these events is that the launch of the GTON Mainnet should be split into several steps, with each focusing on a subset of the associated products and their users. At the moment, GTON Labs and the partner teams are developing and preparing to launch the following products this year and early next year: a DEX, a synthetic assets protocol, an NFT marketplace, a prediction market game and a Learn2Earn game.

(Original) GTON Exchange

Launching each of the above projects is a stepping stone towards the launch of GTON mainnet. At the top of the list, as the project that is most ready to launch from the standpoint of usability, is the (original) decentralized exchange – GTON Exchange. The use-cases served by the DEX are long and short trading of synthetic assets, which will use an implementation of the Pathway protocol, a launchpad for new projects in the ecosystem, plus a special tokenomic mechanics where profit for LP providers is distributed not as the farming rewards, but through the buy-back & burn mechanism of the main Relay Token.

At the core of the exchange token functionality is its focus on the issuance and trading of synthetic assets linked to RWA (real world assets), such as gold, silver, oil, exchange or crypto-indices, ETFs, or stocks and even other cryptocurrencies. The principle for holding the peg is as follows: two pairs of assets are issued for long and short (described here), whereas the peg itself is supported by the Pathway protocol (research article, proofs article).

One of the key features of the DEX tokenomics is that the Relay Token (MoE), which also serves as the governance token of the exchange, is burned during each swap operation (0.3% fee), thus reducing the circulating supply.

OGXT Relay Token

The tokenomics of Ethereum after the adoption of EIP-1559 is designed to cause Ethereum to become deflationary through fee burning, as activity on the blockchain increases.

is quite simple and effective, as the value of the network grows with the growth of network usage. At the same time, the staking yield stays predictable and can be expressed in terms of APR (annual percentage rate). For example, if the APR is 10% but the network activity Annual Burn Rate (ABR) is higher than 10%, the native token becomes deflationary.

The current tokenomics of the GTON token does not allow for such mechanics to be implemented because the supply of the token is limited to 21 mln tokens and there is no possibility of minting more of it in the future.

The GTON Labs team proposes to reissue the token (by conducting a token swap) to implement an ABR-APR tokenomics in it:

  • 0.3% trading fees conversion to OGXT and burn
  • Staking APR 10%
  • 100 mln total supply during initial token release (4.761 OGXT for 1 GTON)
  • Max supply limited by ABR-APR ratio
  • Same proportional token distribution as GTON

The utility of the OGXT token is inherited from the utility of the GTON token:

  • Governance of OGX and all related products and services
  • Collateral for GTON Dollar
  • Fixed APR staking
  • Relay token
  • Value capture via Annual Burning Rate (burning fees)

That is, in fact, the same token with improved tokenomics for a native value capture and a focus on a real use-case as a Relay token in the token ecosystem.

We propose to time limit the tokenswap campaign for 2 months for December and January. All other issues will be resolved privately through support tickets in our Discord.

OG Exchange Token Use Cases

Summing up, the list of use-cases for the exchange token is:

  • Mirrored assets
  • Integrated launchpad
  • Leverage trading (derivatives)
  • Multichain support
  • Cross-chain swap

OGX and BNBChain

After completing extensive research on the economics of GTON Rollup & Dollar infrastructure, as well as user activity, we found that it makes more economic, technical, and marketing sense to release OGXT, Rollup and Stablecoin on Binance Smart Chain as the first L1. All funnel-based user engagement will also be refocused on BNBChain. Once the ecosystem reaches economic profitability and is able to efficiently cover gas and system transaction costs, the team will introduce the integration with Ethereum mainnet. Therefore, the GTON L2 ecosystem is designed as a multichain L2, while keeping GCD as a gas token in all rollups.


Sounds interesting, but too many proposals in one.

  1. Update token
  2. Move to other chain on short term (economical reason)
  3. OGX

In general, I agree.

  1. Current system of GTON doesn’t allow to wide ecosystem and token.
  2. Store and send data from L2 → L1 costs extremely expensive.
    Optimism pay huge amount, but txn fee ( which more than our) cover it. Smaller ETH L2s can’t afford the fees, lazy load and storing of data on Memo allow spend less, but it not secure.
  3. Totally agree. As a first native dApp it should be included all modern financial tools to be individual and modern exchange

Now questions:

  1. How long we will stay on BSC? Which goals and milestones make us return to the Ethereum?
  2. Swap GTON → OGX. Will be a lock period for holders after swap to hold price against sellers, panikers, arbitrages e.t.c on some period?
  3. I guess will be cool to see on mini-roadmap of OGX, because as community said you have good goals, but they are not finished yet

Let`s discuss…


I think the team is actually pushing multiple things at exactly the same time to speed up the process with the official beta releases of dApps on the GTON chain.

I have more questions about what kind of mirrored assets (synths) the team is going to display. How the new token governance will be part of it. My favorites are longBTC, shortBTC, longETH, shortETH, longBNB, shortBNB, longSOL, shortSOL, longTESLA, shortTESLA, longMETA, shortMETA, longTWTR, shortTWTR.

What I like best about OGX is that we can basically provide LP in the form of a stake. You can keep LP long LP short at the same time and remain beta neutral. At the same time, more trading volumes we have gives us a higher burn rate for OGXT.


I have an interesting question: can I also shorten OGXT somehow, be absolutely delta neutral?
How this could work: shortOGXT/GCD pair.

Why this might work? You promised to release the CANDY protocol with tokenomics ve(3,3). I think this is the best case for it. Delta Neutral Synthetic Exchange Yield Forex Strategy.


The team wants to change direction two time for the last year! Where are the last promises and goals?

My short answer…

“One of the key insights from these events is that the launch of the GTON Mainnet should be split into several steps, with each focusing on a subset of the associated products and their users.”

Please just do everything to release the mainnet as soon as possible, other products can follow.

“The GTON Labs team proposes to reissue the token (by conducting a token swap) to implement an ABR-APR tokenomics in it.”

No, just no.
GTON will and should stay.
It should not become a governance token of a small exchange (that can have its own token)…

No it should stay as the governance token of the whole GTON ecosystem and should get additional utility.

“After completing extensive research on the economics of GTON Rollup & Dollar infrastructure, as well as user activity, we found that it makes more economic, technical, and marketing sense to release OGXT, Rollup and Stablecoin on Binance Smart Chain as the first L1.”

No, no more switching.

You already switched from Fantom to Ethereum.

No we need no more experiments and strange changes anymore. We need consistency.

Also it doesn’t add up to be a L2 on Binance Smartchain, because there are the fees anyway pretty cheap.

When we have a succesful Ethereum L2 we can also go in addition to that to other chains.


It seems like I will only be able to post on the telegram channel 55 minutes again? Strange? Too many postings in a row, so I got a timeout?

No, it is not adding utility to the GTON token.
It is totally degrading it… Like before, it was a token, that could represent a whole ecosystem of dApps…

After this proposal GTON will just be a unimportant Token of a unknown and small DEX…

So’ it’s a total DOWNGRADE…
And it is unfair.

I invested one year, because I believed this token will represent a network and ecosystem. And now, after I invested more than one year in this project you tell me all of the sudden…

It’s now something completely different, in which I would have never invested?

1 Like

Like really please, please, please make some changes to this proposal…

Here is what I beg you to do…

Split this proposal in two proposals…

Make a proposal, where we are asked if GTON Network should first be launched on ETH or BSC.
Explain in detail, like in the Telegram Chat the economic reasons for the launch on BSC, namely transaction fees, that you would have to pay if we stay on ETH (etc.).
If it would make us bankrupt to launch directly on ETH - it would actually also make sense to me, to launch on BSC first.

So to launch first on BSC an then become multichain and ETH compatible is okay IMO…

But please let us vote about this as a single issue.

Make a proposal, where we get two options…
1.) GTON should stay as it is, namely as a governance token that represents the whole GTON Network and GTON Ecosystem… Plus possible additional utilities; like giving people the option to pay their transaction fees either with GTON or GCD. That could actually work, similar how BNB and BUSD work together as a team. Additionally, later on there should be a new seperate OPX token launched.


2.) GTON should be changed to OPXT, and become a Governance Token for this DEX alone, plus burning mechanism and so on…

If this proposal goes through, like it is presented… Like that is just devestating to me…

Like I invested so much in this project.
Not only money, but also following this project; time and energy…
Because I believed in the idea that GTON will later on represent a whole network and ecosystem… Just to hear now suddenly…
“Eh, actually GTON will become just a DEX token”…

At the moment that is really just devestating to me.

So, please make some changes to that proposal.


Hi everybody,

well, i have a couple of questions towards all this.

First of all, i think the ones mentioning that there are way too many decisions for one vote in this proposal are perfectly right. Please split this up in single votes for different topics.

In general, i think this is a very strategic and important decision. That being said, i would really love to see some argumentation and numbers to reason about it:

  1. Why is the APR fixed to 10%? Was that calculated somehow?
  2. Why do we need an APR anyway? Wouldn’t it be enough if the conversion to OGXT and burn generates enough buy pressure to increase the price? Why running the risk that OGXT gets inflationary in situations where ABR is smaller than APR?
  3. Are there any simulations/estimations about how much liquidity we need to see on the exchange in order to burn a certain percentage of OGXT over the period of a year? Calculated for, let’s say the next 3 years and set in relation to the circulating supply of OGXT?
  4. What is the strategy to get users on the exchange?

And furthermore:

  1. I would really like to see some timeline for the products to start.
  2. Will the new token have vesting?
  3. Which exchanges will it be listed on and when?

Sorry, but i really have to say that for a decision that is this important, i can not understand why the above questions are not answered in the original post.



(answering 1-2-3)
Let me first provide some simple simulation around the numbers and ABR-APR ratio example.

I. Let’s assume that:

  • the relay token (OGXT) price is fixed and equal 1$ during the simulation period
  • we have 10% APR for staked tokens
  • we have 0.3% relay token burning rate from each trade
  • we have total 5mln tokens staked for one year

the pic-1 shows that with those assumptions it’s enough to have 500k$ daily volume to be absolutely deflationary relay currency.

II. Let’s assume that:

  • the relay token (OGXT) price is fixed and equal 1$ during the simulation period
  • we have total 50mln tokens staked for one year [10x more tokens staked than (I)]
  • rest params are from (I)

The pic-2 shows that we need 10x more daily volume to stay deflationary after the staking boost 10x (which can’t happen without positive influence to the relay token price).

III. Let’s assume that:

  • price of relay token surged to 10$
  • rest params are from (I)

The pic-3 shows that in both cases it’s enough to have 5mln$ daily volume to be absolutely deflationary relay currency even after staking supply or relay token price surge.

(link to the model)

This is not comprehensive simulation which shows why and how ABR-APR model works in favor of making relay token as deflationary token and thus make it value capturing token for the GTON Exchange.


q4: user aq strategy to the exchange

after FTX collapse we will see huge customer demand on DeFi/transparent derivatives markets where ppl will able to short assets

I think we have to collaborate with another project in our ecosystem: Issuaa to pitch such narratives and attract users to the gton exchange and Issuaa’s protocol.

Also, we have seen something like a “great depression” in the crypto rn. So, more speculative assets on the market pegged to the real world assets will bring some changes to the industry and all new early explorers of such cases will be our initial loyal user base.

Also, it hasn’t been discussed yet. But once we have mirrored assets there will be lending protocol to let users do leverage trades with mirrored assets.



once proposal is accepted we have no blockers to launch OGX on GTONChain
rn it’s very expensive in terms of eth fees to maintain the sequencer, oracles and in-house MM for the OGX and GCD protocol liquidations/collateralizations.


6 - no, this token will not have vesting
imagine it as renamed better economy version of gton token itself

7 - no comments or promises from the team side about the listings,
one CEX where we already have gton is LBank atm they can support the tokenswap

regarding dexes ofc major DEXes will support it as well as OGX itself (biggest POL from our side)


unfortunately it’s impossible technically:

we need L1 to launch L2
we need GCD to launch L2
we need L1 to launch GCD
we have to solve with tokenswap before issuing gcd on l1 and launch l2

so, this is technically one proposal

I agree with @hawky what there must be some reason to make separate proposals about APR, but according to the simulation it’s ok to start with 10% and change it later higher or lower

Thanks everyone for your comments and suggestions! Looking for an AMA next week.


Sorry if my posting yesterday was a little bit too emotional.

However, I have invested in this project since some time and maybe more than I should have… With the idea, that this token will play a certain role in the GTON ecosystem… And now you tell me without warning, that all of that isn’t true any longer?

Crypto is a really strange world…

If you compare it with the real world…

It’s like investing for several thousands in an expensive car, letting it ship to you, it arrives and it’s turns out it’s just a bicycle.

Like how would you feel?

Betrayed and shocked?

Well, yes that’s how I felt.
And still feel.

However, after sleeping about it, maybe I can give a more constructive feedback.

And maybe we can find a compromise, where both sides can be happy about it.

If you just launch GTON Network for economic reasons on Binance, to bootstrap it and later on make it multichain compatible and add Ethereum to it, I’am okay with that.

Also I have nothing against the fact of using GTON as a relay token…

Similar to this, I also have nothing against updated tokenomics. Actually I would like to have a burning mechanism.

The main thing, that I’am totally against, is that you want to downgrade GTON from an important Network and Ecosystem token to a DEX token.

Again, I would have never invested in a DEX token.

So IMO, I would rightfully feel betrayed if you make the transformation of GTON to OGXT.

However, there is actually a pretty simple solution to this.

Make GTON a relay token for OG Exchange and change the tokenomics…

BUT still let GTON be GTON…
Simply, don’t rename it to OGXT and don’t make it to a governance token of a DEX, but still let it be the governance token of the GTON ecosystem.

IMO that would be a very fair compromise…
Again, all can be happy with that.
Team, with this compromise you get de facto everything you propose…

  • release of the L2 on Binance
  • newly issued GTON token with relay functionality
  • updated tokenomics with burning mechanism

While it is still fair to these investors, that bought GTON with the idea that they would buy a network and ecosystem token; and not a simple DEX token.


Really appreciate your feedback sir! Let me answer one by one:

1 Like

It’s not downgrade at all. The main token for GTON Ecosystem will be GCD anyway. But it’s stablecoin right? So, it’s pure utility as tx fees token. So, the MAIN utility for the ecosystem asset is being collateral for GCD. OGXT (former GTON token) is exactly about that.

But the goal is to bring users to the dApps on GTON Chain, so here we have to suggest simple and powerful token economy which is relay+burn utility.

I hope this aspect will be more obvious now. Again:

GCD is a main ecosystem utility token, right?
OGXT (prev GTON) is its collateral
so, OGXT is the main ecosystem utility token also, because of transitive relation.


precisely that
the only diff is a name of the token have to be different from GTON
(due to reg reasons, marketing rules and policies)


There are also questions from @Denuser in telegram chat:

I will be honest - It looks a little bit" strange. You set up goals, represent the roadmaps, and for the last couple of months make a bunch of announcements about mainnet. Suddenly, we know that the devs can’t resolve problems with the price of transactions on L2 And you offer to change almost all (network, tokenomic)!
I have a bunch of questions:
1) What about partnerships that were announced?
2) How much time will development take related to OGS on BSC?
3) Why the team can’t find investments for GTON mainnet if it is almost ready for launching? We all know the L2 for Eth is the biggest narrative in crypto now.
4) What is the point proposal? I mean we don’t have a choice actually. If we chose “disagree” what will the next? Bankruptcy?
5) How many users or what volume must l2 have to it will be affordable?


1 Like

“Really appreciate your feedback sir!”

Thank you sir! I appreciate that you and the team listen to the community :). Sorry, if my feedback seems to be sometimes somewhat harsh. I just prefer it to talk openly.

“It’s not downgrade at all. The main token for GTON Ecosystem will be GCD anyway. But it’s stablecoin right? So, it’s pure utility as tx fees token. So, the MAIN utility for the ecosystem asset is being collateral for GCD. OGXT (former GTON token) is exactly about that.”

“GCD is a main ecosystem utility token, right?
OGXT (prev GTON) is its collateral
so, OGXT is the main ecosystem utility token also, because of transitive relation.”

Well GCD will be rightfully a multicollateralized stable coin. Nobody will need to buy OGXT, if they can also use PAX Gold or many other tokens. Therefor there also won’t be a transitive relation between GCD and OGXT tokens. Or at least not more, than between GCD and PAX Gold…

And if GTON is no longer a network and ecosystem token, it is at least to me a downgrade.

Nonetheless we should move forward and make a decision in which direction we want to move. Because it’s time to finally release a product.

There has to be at least something ready and useable till the beginning of Q1, so only a few weeks; everything else would be very draining for investor trust.

As mentioned, there are some parts of the proposal that are understandable and good.

Releasing the GTON Network on BNB instead of Ethereum and bootstrapping the ecosystem there… Well it’s not optimal, but if we can save with this move 30000 USD per month in transaction fees for there the sequencer… Well I guess that is still a better choice then.

Also, releasing a new GTON token with better tokenomics, that is automatically deflationary… Hm, yeah actually that could be a good choice too.

The only thing that is still questionable is the role that this token will play in the ecosystem…
But there are solutions to this…

Let’s find the best solution and update the proposal a little bit…

For example please give us an updated timeline; when do you expect to release finally the network?, when OG Exchange?, when the new tokens?; and please keep it realistic; it doesn’t help when you say december and then delay it again; like that is so demotivating and gives so much FUD to investors; I can’t press that enough; under promise - and over archieve; not the other way around; for example, if you are sure that you will be able to release GTON Net in December, tell us it will be ready in February and make us excited, when you already release it so early in January…

And then, let’s make a decicion and move on as fast as possible. We need some results now, aka useable products.