Side by side

Continuum vs GMX V1: Cross-Chain Synthetic Comparison

Same idea, different chain, and a very different answer on who takes the other side.

GMX V1 priced trades off a shared liquidity pool with no price impact and charged a borrow fee for the privilege. Continuum quotes against a keeper-run bin book at NAV and charges nothing to hold a long. Different chains, different bills. This page compares against GMX V1 and its GLP pool, not GMX V2 — and V1 itself stopped taking positions after the July 2025 exploit, so read it as a comparison of two designs rather than a pick between two open venues.

Continuum

Solana

Paired L/S Token Protocol

Chain
Solanaexcellent
Fee Model
Spread on the book, no borrow feeexcellent
Liquidity Model
Keeper-quoted bin book per leggood
Position Type
Transferable tokensexcellent
Funding/Borrow
None (shorts pay a volatility decay)good
Oracle
Pyth feeds, pushed on-chain by the keeperexcellent
Composability
Full ecosystemexcellent

Pros

  • Solana settlement, so a round trip is under a second
  • Fees small enough to ignore on most sizes
  • Nothing accrues against a long: no funding, no borrow fee
  • The position is a token, usable anywhere on Solana

Cons

  • Solana only
  • Young protocol
  • Thinner liquidity than GMX at size

GMX V1

Arbitrum / Avalanche

Perpetual DEX with GLP (V1)

Chain
Arbitrum / Avalanchegood
Fee Model
0.1% position + borrowfair
Liquidity Model
GLP pool for all assetsgood
Position Type
Non-transferable contractsfair
Funding/Borrow
Hourly borrow feefair
Oracle
Chainlink + keepergood
Composability
Limitedfair

Pros

  • Ran from 2021, with a long public operating history to read
  • GLP was deep enough to absorb size
  • Trades executed at oracle price with no impact
  • Deployed on more than one chain

Cons

  • The hourly borrow fee is the real cost of a long hold
  • Positions cannot leave the platform
  • GLP holders are the counterparty to every trader

The verdict

GMX V1 ran for years and its GLP pool took size that Continuum's book still cannot. That was the real concession on this page, and it survives as one: V1 stopped taking positions after the July 2025 exploit, so what is left to compare is two designs, only one of which is open. On the design, the borrow fee and the no-impact fill are the same fact seen twice — GLP was being paid to stand opposite the trader, and the fee was the payment. Continuum charges nothing to hold a long because no one is standing there, and the position is an ordinary SPL token rather than a contract locked to one venue, though no lending market has listed one yet.

Which one fits your case

Solana-native DeFi users

Continuum

Same chain as the rest of your positions, with tokens any Solana venue can route

EVM chain preference

Neither

Continuum is Solana-only, and GMX V1 no longer takes positions. GMX V2 is the live EVM product and is not what this page measures

Large position sizes

Neither

GLP was the answer here and it no longer quotes. Continuum's book is thin at size, which is the concession in the verdict

Cost-sensitive trading

Continuum

No borrow fee, and Solana fees round to nothing

Yield on liquidity

Neither

GLP paid trading fees to holders until V1 was stopped. GMX V2's GM pools are the live equivalent and sit outside this comparison

Other comparisons

See how it trades

Comparisons only go so far. Get early access and put a small position on.