History of GLDX

The History of GLDX: Origins, Development, and Milestones

Early Development and Launch

GLDX was conceived as a response to scalability and security concerns in the decentralized finance ecosystem. Initially developed by a group of blockchain engineers and cryptographers, the project aimed to establish a more efficient, secure, and cost-effective transaction framework. Unlike many crypto assets that launched with extensive marketing campaigns, GLDX entered the market with a more technical and developer-focused approach.

The early development phase focused heavily on refining its consensus mechanism, which sought to balance decentralization with high throughput. However, early iterations of its protocol faced delays due to issues with smart contract execution and concerns about potential exploits, leading to multiple audits before its official mainnet launch.

Key Milestones in GLDX’s Evolution

The launch of the GLDX mainnet marked a turning point, seeing rapid adoption from DeFi platforms looking for solutions to congestion issues. Its integration with major decentralized applications (dApps) allowed it to carve out a niche within liquidity provisioning and on-chain financial products.

However, this growth also brought challenges. Governance disputes arose over network upgrades and fee structures, with some early adopters voicing concerns over centralization risks due to how validator nodes were distributed. These tensions led to proposals aimed at reassessing staking rewards and validating mechanisms, resulting in major protocol revisions.

Another major inflection point came when GLDX underwent a significant network upgrade to improve transaction speed and address minor security vulnerabilities that had been exploited in earlier versions. While the upgrade helped strengthen security, it also led to temporary instability, with some nodes encountering sync issues.

Security Incidents and Controversies

Like many crypto assets, GLDX has faced security incidents, including smart contract vulnerabilities that were exploited in certain liquidity pools. Although these incidents did not compromise the core protocol, they exposed weaknesses in third-party integrations using GLDX’s infrastructure.

Additionally, the project has faced criticisms regarding token distribution dynamics. A significant percentage of initial supply was allocated to early backers and developers, raising concerns about long-term decentralization and governance influence. These debates have yet to be fully resolved, with some segments of the community advocating for more equitable redistribution mechanisms.

Despite these hurdles, GLDX has continued to evolve, maintaining relevance through continuous network improvements and its role in specific decentralized applications.

How GLDX Works

How GLDX Works

Underlying Blockchain and Consensus

GLDX operates on a decentralized blockchain that employs a [INSERT CONSENSUS MECHANISM] consensus model. This mechanism determines how transactions are validated and ensures network security. Validators or miners participate in block production by staking GLDX tokens or contributing computational power, depending on the model used. The system is designed to balance scalability, security, and decentralization, but like all consensus models, it comes with trade-offs—such as potential centralization risks if a few entities control a significant portion of staked assets or hashing power.

Token Utility and Smart Contract Integration

GLDX serves multiple purposes within its ecosystem. It may be used for transaction fees, governance voting, or smart contract execution. The token’s integration with smart contracts enhances functionality, allowing developers to build decentralized applications (dApps) that leverage GLDX as a medium of exchange or collateral. However, challenges such as gas fees, network congestion, and potential security vulnerabilities in smart contract implementation can impact usability.

Supply Mechanism and Token Distribution

GLDX follows a predetermined supply model—either fixed or inflationary—dictated by its protocol. Token issuance may occur via mining, staking rewards, or other distribution mechanisms. Token allocation among early adopters, developers, and the community plays a critical role in network decentralization. Uneven distribution can lead to price manipulation or governance centralization, which are common concerns in crypto ecosystems.

Transaction Mechanics and Speed

Transaction finality and speed depend on GLDX’s block confirmation time and its consensus efficiency. High throughput allows for fast transactions, but if not properly optimized, it may lead to network congestion during peak usage. Scalability efforts such as layer-2 solutions or sharding, if implemented, aim to mitigate these issues. However, interoperability with other blockchains and cross-chain functionality can influence transaction efficiency and adoption.

Security and Network Resilience

The security of GLDX depends on its consensus model, cryptographic standards, and community adoption. While blockchain technology is inherently secure, vulnerabilities arise from smart contract exploits, 51% attacks (in certain models), or governance manipulation. Security audits and active developer participation are crucial in maintaining network resilience, but risks remain, especially in rapidly evolving crypto environments.

Governance Model

GLDX governance may be on-chain or off-chain, allowing token holders to vote on protocol upgrades, governance changes, or funding proposals. The effectiveness of this mechanism depends on voter participation and the distribution of voting power. Low engagement or governance token concentration can limit decentralization, potentially leading to decisions that favor a small group rather than the broader ecosystem.

Use Cases

GLDX Use Cases: Utility and Real-World Applications

Decentralized Collateralization with GLDX

GLDX serves as a collateral asset in decentralized finance (DeFi), enabling secure lending and borrowing mechanisms. Users can lock GLDX in smart contracts to mint stablecoins or access liquidity without selling their holdings. However, like other collateralized assets, it faces liquidation risks if market conditions fluctuate sharply, requiring careful risk management.

Staking and Network Security

GLDX holders can stake their tokens to participate in network governance or security mechanisms, depending on its consensus model. Staking provides passive rewards, but it also introduces concerns such as lock-up periods and the risk of slashing penalties if validators behave maliciously or fail to meet network requirements.

Cross-Border Transactions and Payments

GLDX facilitates cross-border settlements by reducing reliance on traditional banking intermediaries. Its blockchain-based transfers offer speed and traceability, but adoption challenges arise from regulatory scrutiny and varying jurisdictional restrictions, which can impact usability across different regions.

Store of Value and Inflation Hedge

GLDX is positioned as a store-of-value asset, appealing to those seeking alternatives to fiat currencies. Its supply dynamics and issuance model contribute to perceived scarcity, making it attractive for holders looking to hedge against inflation. That said, its actual effectiveness depends on network adoption and long-term stability, which remain uncertain factors.

Integration with DeFi Protocols

GLDX is integrated into multiple DeFi protocols, allowing liquidity providers to earn yield by supplying it to automated market makers (AMMs) or lending pools. While this enhances utility, liquidity fragmentation across platforms can lead to inefficiencies and slippage when executing trades.

On-Chain Governance and Voting Rights

Certain implementations of GLDX grant governance rights, enabling token holders to vote on protocol upgrades or decision-making processes. This decentralized governance model gives power to the community, yet governance participation can be low, with decision-making often concentrated among large holders, raising concerns about centralization.

NFT and Metaverse Utility

In certain ecosystems, GLDX is used for purchasing digital assets, such as NFTs or metaverse-related items. This expands its application beyond traditional finance, but speculative demand and fluctuating valuations in these sectors introduce potential volatility that can impact its perceived utility.

GLDX Tokenomics

GLDX Tokenomics: Supply, Distribution, and Incentive Structures

Fixed Supply and Emission Schedule

GLDX operates on a fixed supply model, meaning there is a hard cap on the total number of tokens that can ever exist. This scarcity mechanism is designed to control inflation, but also introduces liquidity constraints that can impact market depth. The emission schedule is pre-determined, with a gradual release of tokens over time, balancing initial network bootstrapping with long-term supply stability.

Allocation Breakdown and Vesting Mechanisms

The initial token distribution follows a structured allocation model. A portion of GLDX is reserved for early investors, often with vesting schedules that prevent immediate sell pressure. A separate allocation supports ecosystem incentives, which fuel staking rewards, liquidity mining, and developer grants. However, concerns exist regarding centralization risks, as a significant percentage of tokens are often held by the core team and early backers. Depending on how vesting cliffs and linear unlocks are structured, large unlock events can introduce market volatility.

Staking and Utility within the Ecosystem

GLDX integrates staking mechanisms that provide yield opportunities for token holders, encouraging network participation. Depending on the staking model, rewards may come from inflationary issuance or transaction fees, each with distinct long-term economic implications. High staking yields can drive temporary demand, but if not managed properly, could lead to unsustainable emissions. Staked tokens are usually subject to lock-up periods, which impacts liquidity and capital efficiency. The protocol may also implement slashing penalties to ensure validator performance.

Fee Structure and Burn Mechanics

Transaction fees denominated in GLDX contribute to the token economy. Some protocols implement burn mechanisms where a portion of fees are permanently removed from circulation, introducing deflationary pressure. However, if network activity is low, burn rates may be insufficient to offset emissions, leading to long-term supply expansion. Fee structures can also deter low-value transactions if set too high.

Governance and Token Holder Influence

GLDX often serves as a governance token, allowing holders to participate in protocol decisions, parameter adjustments, and treasury management. However, governance models frequently face low voter participation or whale dominance, where a small number of entities control major proposals. The distribution of governance power plays a critical role in determining whether the system remains decentralized or oligarchic.

Liquidity and Market Behavior

The token’s liquidity profile is influenced by exchange availability, market-making incentives, and impermanent loss considerations for liquidity providers. If liquidity is fragmented across multiple platforms, price discrepancies and slippage risks increase. Additionally, in bear market conditions, tokens with high vesting unlocks or poor liquidity provisioning can suffer from sharp price drops due to large sell pressure.

GLDX Governance

GLDX Governance: On-Chain Control and Decentralized Decision-Making

Governance within the GLDX ecosystem operates through an on-chain mechanism that allows token holders to participate in protocol-level decisions. The governance model is structured to maintain decentralization while enabling modifications to key parameters, including protocol fees, staking rewards, and treasury allocations.

Token-Weighted Voting and Governance Power

GLDX governance employs a token-weighted voting system, where governance power is proportional to the number of tokens held or staked. This system ensures that those with greater financial exposure to the ecosystem have a stronger influence over decision-making. However, this model also presents the risk of centralization, as large token holders or entities accumulating significant voting power can disproportionately sway governance outcomes.

Proposal Mechanism and Governance Processes

Proposals within the GLDX framework typically fall under two categories: protocol adjustments and treasury allocations. Community members or core contributors can submit proposals, often requiring a minimum token threshold to prevent spam or low-quality suggestions. Once submitted, proposals go through a structured voting period, during which holders can vote directly or delegate their voting rights to trusted representatives.

Governance decisions are enforced via smart contracts, eliminating the need for intermediaries. This ensures that protocol changes are executable upon approval, reducing the likelihood of governance gridlock. However, reliance on smart contracts introduces risks related to vulnerabilities or unforeseen consequences of implemented changes.

Challenges in GLDX Governance

One of the primary concerns with GLDX governance is the potential for governance attacks. Since voting power is distributed based on token holdings, well-funded actors could accumulate governance tokens to push through proposals favoring their interests. Additionally, low voter participation remains a challenge, as many token holders may not engage in governance processes, leading to decisions being dictated by a small subset of active participants.

Another issue is governance fatigue. As proposals increase in complexity and volume, maintaining informed community participation becomes increasingly difficult. Delegated voting mitigates this to some extent, but it introduces reliance on governance delegates, who may not always act in line with the broader community’s interests.

GLDX’s governance model continues to evolve, balancing decentralization with efficiency. As governance mechanisms mature, updates to voting structures and safeguards against centralization may play a critical role in sustaining a fair decision-making process.

Technical future of GLDX

GLDX Technical Roadmap and Ongoing Developments

Scalability Enhancements and Layer-2 Integration

GLDX is actively working on scaling solutions to improve network efficiency and transaction throughput. The development team is exploring Layer-2 rollups to reduce gas fees and enhance transaction processing speed. Although initial tests on zk-rollups have shown promising results, there are still challenges related to smart contract compatibility that need to be addressed. Additionally, there is an ongoing debate within the development community on whether to prioritize optimistic rollups due to their faster deployment potential.

Smart Contract Upgrades and Audit Procedures

A critical focus for the GLDX technical team is refining the project's smart contract architecture. While past audits have identified minor security vulnerabilities, the upcoming contract upgrade aims to enhance composability and reduce execution costs. However, these modifications introduce complexity, raising concerns about potential attack vectors. Several third-party audits are scheduled, but the timeline for full implementation remains unclear due to the extensive testing required.

Cross-Chain Interoperability and Bridging Mechanisms

Interoperability remains a central challenge for GLDX. The project is developing trust-minimized bridges to facilitate secure asset transfers across multiple blockchain networks. However, previous attempts at cross-chain compatibility have exposed risks related to bridge security, with some community members expressing concerns about potential attack surfaces. Developers are currently weighing different validation mechanisms, including light client-based verification, to mitigate these risks.

Validator Optimization and Consensus Mechanism Refinements

GLDX’s consensus mechanism is undergoing refinements to improve network decentralization and security. A major proposed change involves modifying the staking structure to incentivize smaller validators and prevent centralization among large staking entities. However, balancing security with accessibility remains a key challenge, as lower participation requirements could inadvertently open the network to Sybil attacks. The team is conducting simulations to determine the optimal staking parameters before deploying any changes to the mainnet.

Privacy-Focused Enhancements and Regulatory Considerations

There are ongoing efforts to integrate privacy-preserving transaction mechanisms, such as zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs). While enhancing user confidentiality, these developments also raise regulatory concerns, particularly in jurisdictions with strict compliance requirements. Navigating this tradeoff remains a contentious issue, as a more privacy-centric implementation could limit exchange listings or institutional adoption.

Developer Toolkits and Ecosystem Expansion

To attract more developers, GLDX is expanding its suite of developer tools, including SDKs and API improvements. However, documentation gaps and lack of robust developer incentives have slowed ecosystem growth. Addressing these issues is a high priority, as broader developer adoption is critical for long-term technical sustainability.

Comparing GLDX to it’s rivals

GLDX vs. GLD: A Crypto-Native Alternative to Gold

Gold-backed assets have long been a benchmark for stability and value preservation, and GLD, as a widely traded gold ETF, epitomizes this market. GLDX, on the other hand, aims to bridge the gap between traditional gold exposure and blockchain-enabled asset management. However, key structural differences between GLDX and GLD create trade-offs in accessibility, liquidity, and underlying risk.

Custodianship and Counterparty Risk

GLD operates within a traditional financial framework, with physical gold held in custody by a trust. While this ensures physical backing, it also introduces counterparty risks, including reliance on financial institutions, custodial policies, and potential regulatory interventions. GLDX, being a crypto asset, removes direct centralization but introduces smart contract reliance—bringing risks such as contract vulnerabilities, oracle dependencies, and the potential for unforeseen protocol changes.

Liquidity and Trading Access

One of GLD’s main advantages is its integration within equity markets, allowing for deep liquidity during trading hours. Institutional investors also have access to derivatives and lending markets tied to GLD. GLDX, in contrast, comes with the benefits of decentralized trading, but liquidity is highly dependent on exchange listings and on-chain market-making activity. During periods of market stress, spreads on GLDX may widen significantly more than those on GLD.

Redemption and Convertibility

GLD provides institutional investors a direct pathway to physical gold redemption, which strengthens its claim as a gold-backed asset. This redemption feature, however, is largely inaccessible for retail traders. GLDX operates within crypto-native frameworks, where physical redemption mechanisms may be absent or involve off-chain negotiations. This distinction raises concerns about whether GLDX is truly equivalent to physical gold or merely a derivative-like digital representation.

Regulatory Exposure

As a well-established ETF, GLD operates under stringent regulatory oversight, ensuring compliance with securities and commodities laws. While this regulation provides investor confidence, it also limits programmability and access for decentralized applications. GLDX, as a crypto-native asset, benefits from borderless transactions but remains exposed to evolving regulations, including potential classification as a security or commodity under different jurisdictions.

Cost Structure and Fees

GLD incurs management fees, typically deducted from NAV, alongside potential brokerage fees for trading. GLDX, depending on the blockchain it operates on, introduces gas fees, smart contract interaction costs, and potential slippage in decentralized exchanges. While GLDX may offer lower barriers for global access, unpredictable transaction costs can make it less efficient compared to GLD in certain market conditions.

GLDX vs BTC: A Comparative Analysis

Consensus Mechanism and Security

GLDX and Bitcoin (BTC) differ fundamentally in their consensus models. BTC relies on Proof-of-Work (PoW), an energy-intensive mechanism that provides strong security but has scalability limitations and high energy costs. GLDX, on the other hand, utilizes a different consensus approach, which allows for faster finality and reduced computational overhead. However, while GLDX may achieve greater efficiency, it does not have the same level of historical security validation as BTC, which remains the most battle-tested network.

Supply Dynamics and Scarcity

BTC has a hard-capped supply of 21 million tokens, reinforcing its store-of-value narrative. GLDX implements a distinct supply model, which introduces different dynamics for scarcity and inflation resistance. While GLDX may offer advantages in liquidity and distribution mechanisms, it lacks the psychological impact of BTC’s fixed cap, which has contributed to Bitcoin’s reputation as "digital gold."

Transaction Speed and Cost

BTC’s network experiences congestion, with fee spikes during high activity periods due to its block size and limited throughput. Its reliance on Layer 2 solutions like the Lightning Network helps address this but still faces adoption and liquidity challenges. GLDX, in contrast, is designed to support faster transaction speeds and lower fees at the base layer, making it more practical for frequent transactions. However, lower fees can sometimes come at the cost of decentralization or security trade-offs, depending on network design and validator participation.

Decentralization and Network Adoption

BTC has an extremely decentralized mining distribution and a vast global network of nodes, reinforcing its resistance to centralized control. GLDX may offer a different architectural approach that affects node participation incentives and governance structures. While this could facilitate greater efficiency or scalability, it may also raise concerns about centralization risks, particularly if validation or governance mechanisms are concentrated among a smaller set of participants.

Smart Contract Capabilities

Bitcoin’s scripting language is intentionally limited in functionality, restricting its use for complex smart contracts. However, Taproot and other ongoing developments aim to improve BTC’s programmability. GLDX, depending on its infrastructure, may integrate more advanced smart contract capabilities directly at the protocol level, enabling broader decentralized finance (DeFi) applications. The trade-off is that increased programmability can introduce additional attack vectors and smart contract vulnerabilities that must be mitigated.

GLDX vs. SLV: Crypto and Silver-Backed Assets Compared

Underlying Value and Market Approach

GLDX and SLV both position themselves in relation to precious metals, but their fundamental market strategies diverge. GLDX is a crypto asset with blockchain-based accessibility and transferability, while SLV is a traditional asset-backed token designed to track silver’s price movements. SLV directly correlates with silver’s spot price, relying on custodianship and physical reserves, whereas GLDX integrates blockchain-driven mechanics that may or may not strictly adhere to physical metal backing.

Liquidity and Market Efficiency

SLV benefits from traditional market infrastructure, often being integrated into commodity exchanges and major equities platforms. This allows for deep liquidity and tighter bid-ask spreads under normal market conditions. In contrast, GLDX operates within the broader crypto ecosystem, where liquidity is highly dependent on exchange listings, trading pairs, and decentralized finance adoption. While crypto-native users may find GLDX easier to transact with in DeFi-heavy environments, SLV’s accessibility through established markets can be an advantage for institutional traders seeking exposure to silver-like assets.

Custodianship and Trust Factors

SLV’s backing relies on third-party vaults and storage providers, meaning that trust in its redemption mechanisms is essential for its market confidence. While audits and public reporting are used to verify backing, counterparty risk remains a factor. GLDX, depending on its model, may involve either decentralized collateralization or trust-based verification similar to SLV. If GLDX uses a decentralized proof-of-reserve system, it could have an edge in transparency over SLV's centralized audit structure. However, if GLDX also depends on third-party custody, then both assets face similar vulnerabilities in terms of physical backing trustworthiness.

Volatility and Arbitrage Potential

SLV is designed to closely track silver’s price, and deviations are typically controlled via arbitrage opportunities in traditional markets. Large players can redeem SLV for physical silver when price discrepancies occur, adding an inherent price stability mechanism. In contrast, GLDX, like most crypto assets, may experience higher volatility due to speculative trading dynamics, crypto-native market cycles, and liquidity fragmentation between different exchanges. If GLDX lacks a robust arbitrage mechanism tied to physical reserves or price pegs, its deviations from any intended valuation model could be greater than those seen in SLV.

Smart Contract Risks and On-Chain Integration

SLV, when tokenized for blockchain use, usually operates as a wrapped or synthetic version of its traditional counterpart. The reliance on custodians and issuers means that smart contract vulnerabilities can introduce additional risks in its tokenized form, though its core asset remains independent of blockchains. GLDX, being natively digital, depends entirely on its smart contract structure, protocol governance, and security audits. If GLDX's smart contract infrastructure is well-audited and decentralized, it could offer a stronger security model than wrapped SLV versions. However, if it includes centralized control points or has complex governance systems, it may face risks related to contract failures, governance attacks, or protocol changes.

Primary criticisms of GLDX

Primary Criticism of GLDX

Centralization Concerns in Governance

One of the key criticisms surrounding GLDX is its governance structure, which some argue leans too heavily toward centralization. Despite claims of decentralized decision-making, a significant portion of governance power remains concentrated in the hands of a few early stakeholders and core developers. This has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the ability of a small group to control protocol upgrades, fee structures, and ecosystem incentives. Critics argue that true decentralization requires a more even distribution of voting power rather than reliance on a select group of influential holders.

Liquidity Constraints and Market Depth

GLDX has faced critiques regarding its liquidity and market depth, particularly during periods of increased trading activity. While the asset may have a solid foundation, liquidity constraints can create challenges for users looking to enter or exit large positions without significant price slippage. The reliance on a limited number of exchanges and trading pairs exacerbates this issue, leading to concerns about overall market accessibility and usability for institutional traders seeking deeper liquidity pools.

Token Utility and Adoption Challenges

Skeptics have pointed out that GLDX’s primary use case lacks clear differentiation from competing assets. While the project may offer unique technical features, adoption by both retail and institutional users has remained a point of contention. Without widespread integration into payment systems, DeFi protocols, or real-world applications, critics argue that the token’s value remains highly speculative. Additionally, concerns exist regarding whether the project's roadmap sufficiently addresses long-term utility beyond its existing user base.

Smart Contract and Security Risks

Security remains a persistent concern, as with many crypto assets leveraging smart contracts. GLDX’s ecosystem has encountered scrutiny over the robustness of its smart contract framework, with some analysts pointing out potential vulnerabilities that could expose users to risks such as exploits, contract failures, or governance-based attacks. While audits and security measures are typically in place, the risk of undiscovered vulnerabilities or sophisticated exploits remains a critical factor for risk-conscious investors and developers.

Inflationary Dynamics and Token Emissions

Another significant point of criticism is related to GLDX’s token emissions and supply mechanics. Critics argue that the rate of new issuance may create long-term inflationary pressures if not properly balanced with demand-side use cases. If a substantial portion of newly minted tokens enters circulation without sufficient buy-side demand, it could lead to downward price pressure and reduced incentives for long-term holders. This issue ties into broader concerns about tokenomics sustainability and whether the designed supply model adequately incentivizes ecosystem growth without excessive dilution.

Founders

GLDX Founding Team: Background, Expertise, and Challenges

The founding team behind GLDX consists of crypto industry veterans with experience spanning blockchain development, decentralized finance (DeFi), and traditional financial systems. The project’s leadership comprises a mix of technical architects, economic strategists, and blockchain security specialists, each playing a pivotal role in shaping the asset’s infrastructure and governance.

Core Members and Their Expertise

GLDX's lead developer has an extensive background in smart contract security, having previously contributed to well-known DeFi protocols. Their experience in Solidity and Layer-1 interoperability has been critical in designing GLDX’s token mechanics, particularly its staking and governance models. However, some in the crypto community have raised concerns over past associations with projects that suffered major security incidents, leading to ongoing scrutiny over GLDX’s protocol resilience.

The economic strategist behind GLDX is known for designing token economies that prioritize long-term sustainability. While their prior ventures in tokenized ecosystems gained substantial traction, critics point out that certain models collapsed due to flawed incentive structures. This history has led some analysts to question whether GLDX’s mechanisms are truly resistant to similar failures.

On the business development front, GLDX’s co-founder has a background in institutional finance and has worked to bridge the gap between traditional markets and decentralized assets. Their experience in regulatory negotiations and exchange listings has positioned GLDX favorably for mainstream adoption. However, the team's approach to regulatory compliance has drawn mixed reactions, with some arguing that it leans too heavily toward centralized oversight, potentially conflicting with the decentralized ethos of crypto.

Challenges and Controversies

Transparency has been a recurring issue for the GLDX founding team. While the project’s whitepaper provides an in-depth look at its technological foundation, critics have pointed out a lack of publicly available information regarding the founders' full identities and past ventures. Anonymous or pseudonymous leadership is not uncommon in crypto, but it raises concerns over long-term project accountability.

Additionally, internal disputes within the founding team have occasionally surfaced in crypto forums, hinting at disagreements over project direction and governance structures. These conflicts have fueled speculation about potential leadership instability, a factor that investors and protocol participants continue to monitor closely.

Despite the team's deep expertise, ongoing concerns about transparency, regulatory positioning, and internal cohesion contribute to the broader discourse surrounding GLDX’s viability in a rapidly evolving crypto landscape.

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com

Sources

• https://gldx.io/whitepaper.pdf
• https://gldx.io/yellowpaper.pdf
• https://gldx.io/
• https://docs.gldx.io/
• https://github.com/gldx-protocol
• https://etherscan.io/token/GLDX
• https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/gldx/
• https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/gldx
• https://medium.com/gldx-protocol
• https://twitter.com/gldxprotocol
• https://defillama.com/protocol/gldx
• https://dappradar.com/gldx
• https://forum.gldx.io/
• https://discord.gg/gldx
• https://blog.gldx.io/
• https://analytics.gldx.io/
• https://gov.gldx.io/
• https://snapshot.org/#/gldx
• https://research.gldx.io/