GIP-79 Add two new market makers

Proposals
1

Summary

This proposal seeks community approval to engage two additional market makers to support GFI token liquidity across three centralized exchanges over a 12-month period. The goal is to enhance market liquidity, facilitate healthier trading activity, and support broader access to GFI.

Motivation

As the Goldfinch ecosystem continues to expand, improving secondary market liquidity for GFI is an important step toward broader accessibility and ecosystem health. Currently, trading activity is concentrated across a limited set of venues, and existing liquidity levels can result in slippage, wide spreads, and inconsistent price discovery—barriers to both retail and institutional participation.

By onboarding two additional experienced market makers to support three exchanges, we aim to ensure deeper and more consistent liquidity across venues, and enable more efficient trading and onboarding for new users.

Specification and Requirements

We propose that the Goldfinch Foundation enters into 12-month service agreements with two professional market makers to provide liquidity on a total of three centralized exchanges. The Goldfinch Foundation will select these market makers based on their track record, reputation, and ability to execute effective liquidity programs across major venues.

Budget:

  • USDC: $280,000 allocated as follows:
    • $140,000 provided as liquidity capital (to be deployed as inventory on exchanges), which will be returned at the end of the engagement
    • $140,000 in retainer and operational fees (non-returnable)
  • GFI: Up to 300,000 GFI depending on market rates, provided as liquidity capital, and will be returned at the end of the engagement

Structure

  • This arrangement uses a retainer model rather than the call option model used with the current market maker Velar. This ensures the liquidity is returned back to the community at the end of the engagement rather than potentially sold into the markets.
  • If the community wants to add more exchanges later, the agreements will make it easy for the community to approve additional budget and expand operations with the market makers.

Next Steps

  • If the community agrees to this proposal, the Goldfinch Foundation will enter into service agreements with two market makers and begin service immediately.

Benefits

  • Improve GFI liquidity and tighten spreads across more exchanges
  • Increase accessibility of GFI for a broader user base
  • Add diversification of liquidity across more market makers, and across market makers with different agreement structures

Downside

  • Uses current treasury funds, including $140,000 of USDC that will be spent on market maker retainer fees
  • There could be some impermanent loss on the funds used for liquidity as is typical for providing market-making liquidity

Voting

  • “Yes” - Approve budget and add 2 new market makers
  • “No” - Do not at 2 market makers
5 Likes
2

This proposal also has my support, because right now with only one market maker, the liquidity depth isn’t that great. Not long ago, I was averaging into my positions and experienced noticeable slippage. I had to spend quite some time building my position on Coinbase. Hopefully, the situation will improve

3

I completely support this proposal!

4

Deeper and more consistent liquidity will benefit both new and existing users, while the retainer model ensures responsible treasury management. A clear step forward for the health and growth of the Goldfinch ecosystem.

Yes!

5

I support the proposal and will vote in favor.

6

I fully support this proposal. Adding more market makers is a smart move to reduce slippage and provide deeper liquidity

7

This makes total sense fr. Right now the liquidity thin af and slippage brutal even on medium size buys. Bringing in more MMs is the move. Let’s send it :full_moon:

8

In my opinion, increasing the liquidity of the GFI token on as many exchanges as possible will only have a positive effect on expanding the user base and the popularity of the token. Probably, $140,000 is an adequate price for providing liquidity on three exchanges (of course, I would like these to be the top 10 exchanges :).

9

I agree with the points raised above and will also be voting “Yes”

10

The downsides appear acceptable, and the costs are reasonably aligned with market standards. I’ll vote “yes” on this GIP.

// Yes.