Proposal: Add support for Golem Network Token (GLM) (updated version)

These guys are holding how much? 260 000 ETH? They are more prosperous than Jesus :D We should watch them closely. I am sure that they will surprise everyone.


Golem is a rising asset with a growing community of providers and requesters. This would help the growth of the platform as well as give AAVE a legitimate growing asset with a bankroll and a growing market share in the community. GLM isn’t a fad so time used to invest will go to good use


Looking forward to where this proposal goes! :)


I’ve been following Golem since 2016 and would love to see this proposal get some traction!

Adoption is growing! Keen to make my GLM work in AAVE!

How is this token note added yet. One of the largest icos, a working and growing product in an increasingly evolving marketing. Please add Golem!

Golem is one of the best projects in crypto!

Is a chainlink oracle in the works? I believe AAVE requires one for any asset to be listed. Also, I think this proposal would have a hard time passing with GLM as collateral. From what I’ve observed, it’s customary for new assets to start with 0 LTV with collateral support added later down the line after the stability of the asset in the AAVE market is proven.


Hi we are in touch with Chainlink and working on the oracle price feed.

1 Like

There is a Chainlink oracle now.

Are there any other prerequisites?

1 Like

Hi @liked75201

Good to see your proposal. It is essential to keep growing the protocol.Really interesting project

It would be good to see the risk assessment as described here New Asset Listing - Governance

And my personal favorite - the risk methodology Methodology - Risk

I am curious to know as well - do you know how much GLM has been paid to providers of computing power since the start of the project. The stats on the website has total earnings of around 1200 GLM which is about $1000 USD worth at today’s prices. That would be less at historical prices. That is one eight hundred thousandth of the market cap and about one millionth of the circulating supply. I figure those stats must be for only an hour - would be interesting to know


I believe the number is 67214.49 GLM (upper right of the stats site).

Concerning the listing process:

Don’t get me wrong guys, but I’ve been looking at the numbers doing a little bit of head math - I highly doubt that the numbers support listing GLM as collateral. Market risk could be very high here.


Thanks for that. I see it now
12.46 GLM (9 USD) in last 24 hours

@neptune @JeremyKeating
Risk was estimated at B+ here: Proposal: Add support for Golem Network Token (GLM) - #8 by snowdot

There’s also a new use-case ( which uses GLM. The stats page for that is still in creation although already transfers are over 170,000 since September: Golem Network Token (GLM) Token Tracker | PolygonScan

That risk assessment is from March. And also wrong.

Smart contract risk doesn’t transfer if you migrate to a NEW smart contract. It’s a new contract that needs to be tested and that is exactly what needs to be evaluated. This smart contract is <365 days old with 116,912 transfers.

It also doesn’t have 100k holders. According to this $0.78 | Golem Network Token (GLM) Token Tracker | Etherscan it has just 14k holders.

There is very little on chain liquidity and volume. Which is a huge problem. If one of the whale holders decides to park their GLM in AAVE and borrow against it, even with a 10% LTV, it might be favourable to selling on the market if you don’t find someone who buys it OTC.

I made a few tests yesterday via Paraswap. Selling 250.000 GLM yesterday would have had a price impact of 4%. 500.000 GLM moves the price 7.14%. Trying to liquidate a million GLM 13.17%. And that is with the most ideal path, with multiple intermediaries. No liquidator will take on that risk. And these are not really big numbers.

This all needs to be taken into account. That “risk analysis” is just plain wrong.

It also doesn’t help that it feels a bit like a “dead” project. I don’t want to offend anyone really. But they had their ICO in November 2016, made 820k ETH and after 5 years are still in beta? I’m not a developer but that seems slow to me.

All in all, considering a fair risk analysis, I don’t see it as collateral. Maybe as a lending asset, but although there may be growing use cases - there are not really a lot right now.

Maybe it can be listed in v3 with a borrowing cap, I doubt it’ll make it to v2.


Okay, so the way forward would be to add a large amount of liquidity to SushiSwap or Uniswap (v2 / v3) to reduce the risk for liquidators? Do you have a value in mind for what a realistic amount (for liquidators to consider taking on the risk) would be in the range of?

That is not the only issue. I don’t want to dive too deep into this (I don’t have the time) but counterparty risk is also an issue.

The Top 10 addresses control 56.69% of the supply of GLM. The top three holders are a private address, which is anonymous. A Gnosis vault multisig (the team, maybe?) and then the Golem treasury multisig. The rest is mostly CEX wallets. I can easily see a scenario with the current distribution in which the Top 2 wallets (27.73% of supply) dominate the governance and basically have single handed control over the protocol.

That would be a problem. Though I don’t see it become one, because I can’t find ANY governance setup whatsoever. It seems like there is no decentralization effort. No voting. Nothing. It seems to me like the company Golem Factory GmbH has full control over it.

Like I said. There are a lot of problems.


The protocol and application of Golem are mostly off-chain where GLM is used for payments on-chain on the Golem Network (there are payment drivers for Ethereum, ZkSync and Polygon). Golem is very different from Aave, for example, where on-chain governance is much more beneficial (since many of the components are on-chain). Golem is a bit more comparable to geth and nodes running the geth implementation. Naturally in that comparison, users similarly have the opportunity to decide not to run an update / upgrade. Geth development itself doesn’t necessarily need governance when anyone can fork or decide not to run an upgrade. The Golem Network can be governed by social consensus comparable to Ethereum and Geth.

The main on-chain governance potential for GLM would be in the token contract. Golem Factory GmbH does not have any control over the token contract. The community does in a sense since they can migrate their GNT → GLM by using the migratory agent which has no ownership (i.e. decentralized). Ownership was renounced prior to the migration start announcement and migration is purely opt-in, based on the consensus of the community (here are the stats for migration).

It’s also important to keep in mind that any holder of GNT has the potential to migrate that GNT to GLM at any given point in time (migration is permissionless and censorship-resistant, based on smart contracts). So let’s say a DAO was created in the future, any GNT holder would have the potential to instantly migrate (within the blocktime of Ethereum) and vote on said DAO, therefore the GNT distribution can’t be ignored in a potential DAO or in a scenario that governance was to be created.

Golem Factory has control over the GitHub repository in a comparable way to the Ethereum Foundation has control over Geth, which is open to be forked or releases can not be upgraded to if the community deems that the prefer an upgrade not to be representative of the community. In the Golem Stats there are users who decide to upgrade or not to upgrade from previous versions. Social consensus and the ability to fork at any time is as an important factor in Golem as it is in Ethereum. The Golem Network has 14% (426) of the number of nodes as Ethereum (3003) so social consensus should be considered very significant.

These are still great points to take into account around Aave and great to be exploring so the full picture is available. I believe your point around liquidator risk is very valid and an important concern to be addressed! :)

I’m sorry, I really don’t want to come off as antagonistic but isn’t then the only use case for GLM to pay for/be rewarded for processing power? There is no DAO, there is no on-chain governance? There is basically no reason for someone to hold this token, unless they’re planning to purchase processing power? So the only borrowing use case would be if I want to purchase processing power right now and speculate that the price of GLM will go down in the future, so that I can rebuy and repay at a more favourable $ value?

The token contract being non custodial is good. But I don’t quite get the point of voting by migrating? Wouldn’t it then be a bit concerning that within a full year, only 55% have migrated and the rest have seemingly forgotten about their holdings? And how would you integrate that into a risk analysis? A risk analysis is in ANY case just a snapshot of the current risk. It can change in the future, yes. But that isn’t what’s being evaluated. Right now GLM has 14k holders. GNT holders are irrelevant. Perceived lesser risk in the future is irrelevant.

The social consensus of the grid computing platform is not at issue. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the token. Counterparty risk assesses if some entity or governance attack would be able to mess with the token contract. An example would be infinite minting of GLM. If Golem Factory GmbH has no control over the token contract - who does?

1 Like

Just going back quickly to the point about 5 years are still in Beta since I missed responding, this is also similar to how Bitcoin is still in beta, it just means that development is ongoing (it will be in beta until there are no developers with features to add). In this sense, being in beta is a good thing.

Golem is up to its 2nd implementation (Yagna) which itself has had 4 major releases and a number of minor releases between each.

The first implementation of Golem, Brass (later code-named Clay), includes more than 20 major and minor releases (not including Alpha releases, link to the Brass and Clay communications archive).

In a way, although Golem’s potential goes much beyond a singular application. In Golem there’s not a single use-case - it’s a self-sustainable ecosystem. There’s already a myriad of different types of applications on top of the platform, built by the Golem community. For example, password recovery, gaming backends (e.g. Chess), data analysis, simulation and optimization, tooling, etc. Linking Awesome Golem for the entire list of community created tools and applications.

Exactly, the consensus is derived from the nodes of the network and developers (comparable to Bitcoin or Ethereum).

No individual has control, the GNTMigrationAgent contract has control over minting GLM (in exchange for GNT burned 1:1). The original post includes audits, both procedural and smart contract focused.

Being able to speculate that way on the cost of computational resources would be quite beneficial and something that doesn’t exist currently. I would consider this very significant in our world where computational resources are being bought and sold more every day!

It can be viewed as making the entire migration opt-in and not centrally forced. It’s not necessarily a vote. The old implementation (Brass / Clay) is permissionless and censorship-resistant, technically speaking it’s still possible to use.

The main friction stated by the community around the migration is fees on Ethereum, so it’s slow because a portion of the community prefer to wait for lower fees. There’s not been anyone who has stated that they still want to use the old Golem implementation over the new one.

Understood! So let’s agree there and evaluate it as a snapshot of GLM :)
I’ll create it and tag you for review if this is okay with you?

By the way, do you happen to know if any other risk analyses have included holders and transactions on Layer 2 (e.g. ZkSync or Polygon)?