Derivatives · GMX · $0.22B TVL. Screen grades as of November 12, 2026: Solvency BBB, Legitimacy BBB, Growth B. Jul 2025 V1 exploit $42M with $40M returned — reflected in risk score, no cap.
| Input / Grade | July 27, 2026 | November 12, 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| TVL | $0.5B | $0.22B |
| 12-month TVL change | -40% | -50% |
| Worst 90-day drawdown | 40% | 11% |
| Drawdown scored | 40% (90-day only, v1.0) | 50% (worse of 90-day and 12-month, v1.1) |
| Solvency (credit grade) | BBB · 64.8 | BBB · 64.8 |
| Growth | B · 31.3 | B · 31.3 |
TVL figures: DefiLlama, parent-level listing. The July 27, 2026 TVL was an analyst estimate and may have used a narrower definition, so part of the TVL difference can be definitional. Only these three inputs were refreshed in the re-screen; sustainability, unlocks, risk, audits, team, delivery, governance, category share and momentum were left as the July 27, 2026 estimates.
Solvency screens at BBB (64.8 / 100), unchanged from the July 27, 2026 screen. The worst 90-day TVL drawdown is 11% and 12-month TVL change is -50%. TVL stability is scored on the 12-month decline of 50%, because it is worse than the latest 90 days. Sustainability ratio (3x), unlock pressure (2%) and risk quality (6 / 10) are carried over from July 27, 2026.
Legitimacy screens at BBB (64 / 100). No Legitimacy input was refreshed in the November 12, 2026 re-screen, so the grade is unchanged from July 27, 2026.
Growth screens at B (31.3 / 100), unchanged from the July 27, 2026 screen. TVL is $0.22B, -50% over twelve months (it was -40% at the previous screen). Category share (7%) and momentum (3 / 10) are carried over from July 27, 2026.
The credit grade is Solvency BBB. Legitimacy is BBB and the Growth outlook is B; the weakest axis is Growth. These grades use TVL data as of November 12, 2026 and qualitative inputs from July 27, 2026.
The credit grade answers one question: can GMX survive stress and pay its users back. Legitimacy (BBB) and the Growth outlook (B) are published beside it and are never averaged into it. Weakest axis: Growth.
| Protocol | Solvency | Legitimacy | Growth |
|---|---|---|---|
| GMX (this page) | BBB | BBB | B |
| Hyperliquid | A | A | AAA |
| Drift | BB | BBB | B |
| dYdX | BB | A | CCC |
GMX pioneered the pooled-liquidity perpetuals model that defined on-chain derivatives before order-book venues took over. Its July 2025 V1 exploit — $42M drained, roughly $40M returned by the attacker after a negotiated bounty — is the instructive counterpoint to Balancer in this screen: near-complete restitution means the framework reflects the event in the risk score without triggering a notching cap.
Solvency screens at BBB. Real fee coverage (~3x) from trading volume, minimal unlock pressure on a mature token, and a 40% drawdown. The 6/10 risk score is where the exploit lives — the flaw was real and reached user funds, but recovery was substantially complete and V2 was unaffected, so the framework prices it as damage rather than as an open wound.
Legitimacy screens at BBB. The pseudonymous team handled the incident with fast disclosure and successful recovery negotiation — creditable exploit-response quality. Audits (7/10) and delivery are adequate; governance is functional if low-participation.
Growth screens at B: 7% share and 3/10 momentum as Hyperliquid absorbed the derivatives category's growth. GLP-style pooled liquidity is losing the design argument to order books.
Composite B. A protocol whose technology thesis is being outcompeted rather than one whose credit is impaired. The contrast with Balancer is the cleanest illustration in this screen of what restitution does to a rating.
