Gains Network Review
Per-asset fees and liquidation thresholds published in full
of 10
Gains Network scores 5.8 among perpetual DEXs. It publishes one of the most complete fee schedules in the category and a full liquidation-threshold table, but its core contracts are not public and its funding rate has no formula. Only one named audit, by Pashov Audit Group, can be reached from its docs, according to desk research checked November 1, 2026.
Overall score
5.8 = (9 + 7 + 3 + 5 + 5) / 5; eighth of nine, tied with Jupiter Perps
Crypto fees
0.035% BTC/ETH, 0.05% core, 0.06% non-core, each way on leveraged size
Liquidation threshold
Loss of 89.84% of collateral at 2x down to 63% at 150x (crypto)
Vault backstop
GNS minted and sold below 100% collateralization; max 0.05% supply/day
Audits linked
Pashov Audit Group (gTrade-contracts modules); Halborn link returns 404
Evidence checked
Gains docs and GitHub, November 1, 2026; desk research only
Scores
Each criterion carries equal weight. The overall score is the average of these 5 scores — (9.0 + 7.0 + 3.0 + 5.0 + 5.0) ÷ 5 = 5.8.
Pros
- Opening and closing fees listed per asset class, from 0.012% forex majors to 0.06% non-core crypto (fee mark 9)
- Liquidation thresholds tabled by leverage and asset class, with a liquidation-price formula and example
- Borrowing fee published as an explicit per-block formula
- Vault upgrades that could affect funds pass through a 14-day timelock
Cons
- Core gTrade-contracts repository is not public; only SDKs and tooling are open (licence mark 3)
- No audits page; the one reachable review (Pashov) is undated, and the Halborn link returns 404 (audit mark 5)
- Funding rate described without a formula or parameters
- Backstop relies on minting GNS, capped at 0.05% of supply a day, with no insurance fund or circuit breaker
How Gains Network scores in perpetual DEXs
This entry rates Gains, the leveraged trading platform formerly branded gTrade, in our perpetual DEX ranking. Gains is synthetic. Traders open positions against pooled gToken vaults at oracle prices rather than against an order book, and that design shapes several of the marks below. The basis is desk research of the Gains documentation, the GainsNetwork-org GitHub organization and the published audit material, checked on November 1, 2026. No trades were placed. The category's five criteria are marked 0 to 10 and weighted equally, as set out in our ratings methodology.
| Criterion | What the documentation shows | Mark |
|---|---|---|
| Fee transparency | Opening and closing fees are listed per asset class, from 0.012% on major forex to 0.06% on non-core crypto. Spreads and price impact are explained. | 9 |
| Funding & liquidation clarity | The borrowing-fee formula and a full liquidation-threshold table are published. Funding is described only in words, with no formula. | 7 |
| Licence & code openness | The core trading contracts repository (gTrade-contracts) is not public. Only SDKs and tooling are open, mostly under MIT. | 3 |
| Audit disclosure | No audits page. The staking page links a Pashov Audit Group review of gTrade-contracts modules at stated commits. The gToken vault page's Halborn link returns a 404 error. | 5 |
| Risk documentation | Explains the vault's overcollateralization buffer and the GNS mint-and-sell backstop, capped at 0.05% of supply a day. There is no insurance fund and no circuit breaker. | 5 |
The overall score is the plain average: (9 + 7 + 3 + 5 + 5) ÷ 5 = 29 ÷ 5 = 5.8. On the current peer scores, that places Gains Network eighth of nine in the category. Jupiter Perps also scores 5.8 and is listed after it under the alphabetical tie rule. One mark changed at this check. Audit disclosure rose from 2 to 5 because a named review of the trading contracts, by Pashov Audit Group, is now linked from the documentation.
Strongest criterion: a detailed fee schedule
Fee transparency (9)
The fees and spread page charges an opening and a closing fee on total position size, collateral times leverage. Each fee is 0.035% on BTC and ETH, 0.05% on core crypto, 0.06% on non-core crypto and 0.02% on the 500x pairs. Forex is cheapest, at 0.012% for majors. Stocks and commodities have per-pair rates, for example 0.035% on gold and 0.04% on WTI oil. Fixed spreads are listed alongside, such as 0.005% per side on BTC and ETH. The page also explains price impact and the "protection close factor" that applies to very short profitable trades, with worked examples. Because the fee is charged on leveraged size, a 250 USDC position at 10x on a non-core pair pays 0.06% of 2,500 USDC, or 1.5 USDC, to open. The schedule is about as complete as this rubric asks for. It falls short of 10 because price impact on most crypto pairs is dynamic and cannot be known exactly in advance.
Funding & liquidation clarity (7)
The liquidation side is very well documented. A position is liquidated when its loss reaches a threshold share of collateral, and the page tables that share by leverage for each asset class. On crypto it runs from 89.84% at 2x to 67% at 100x and 63% at 150x. A liquidation-price formula follows, with a worked BTC example, and borrowing fees paid move the liquidation price closer over time. The borrowing fee is given as a formula, feePerBlock = baseFeePerBlock × (effectiveOi ÷ maxOi) raised to an exponent, with the clamp on effective open interest explained. Funding is different. The page says it is charged per second on position size and accelerates with the size and duration of an imbalance, but it gives no formula and no parameters. That gap is the reason for the 7.
Weakest criteria: code, audits and backstop
Licence & code openness (3): a deficiency
The public GainsNetwork-org repositories are SDKs, subgraphs, adapters and tooling. Most are under MIT, a few under GPL-3.0 or Apache-2.0, and several carry no licence. The repository that a third-party audit names as the trading code, GainsNetwork-org/gTrade-contracts, does not resolve publicly. Under the rubric, an open SDK around closed core contracts scores low.
Audit disclosure (5): one reachable named review
There is still no audits or security page, but the documentation now links named reviews from product pages. The GNS staking page links a Pashov Audit Group review of the GainsNetwork-org/gTrade-contracts repository at two stated commit hashes. Its scope covers GNSStaking, TradingCommonUtils, the GNS price aggregator and liquidity-pool utilities across versions 8.0.1 and 9.1. This named review of core trading code lifts the mark off the absent-record floor of 2. The gToken vaults page also has an "Audit" section linking a Halborn report, but that link returned a 404 error on November 1, 2026. Under the rubric, an unreachable report counts as absent. The mark stops at 5 for three reasons. Only one review can be read, the Gains pages give it no date, and no index ties audits to the deployed version.
Risk documentation (5)
The gToken vault page explains who stands behind a winning trade. Trader profits are paid first from the vault's overcollateralization layer, the portion above 100%. If the vault falls below 100%, GNS is minted and sold for the collateral asset, with at most 0.05% of GNS supply minted every 24 hours. Upgrades that could affect vault funds pass through a 14-day timelock. The weaker points are also documented. The backstop depends on the market value of Gains' own token, there is no separate insurance fund, and the docs say the contracts have no circuit breaker. On stocks, forex and commodities, stop losses and liquidations do not execute while markets are closed. A trader can read all of this, but the backstop itself is thin, and that keeps the mark at 5.
What the score does not cover
- Execution and oracle behavior. Fill quality, oracle latency and order timeouts were not measured.
- Vault returns. gToken vault yields and the GNS token are not scored.
- Access. The terms exclude US persons. Availability is not a criterion.
For how leverage changes the distance to liquidation, see our guide to crypto risk management.
Gains Network vs Aevo, Jupiter Perps and GMX
Gains Network sits just below Aevo, which scores 6.0 after its own re-scoring, and level with Jupiter Perps at 5.8. Against Aevo it marks higher on fees (9 against 8) and licence (3 against 2), the same on audits (5), and lower on funding and liquidation (7 against 8) and risk documentation (5 against 7). Jupiter Perps, re-scored at the same time, matches Gains on funding and liquidation (7). It trails on fees (8 against 9) and licence (1 against 3) but leads on audits (7 against 5) and risk documentation (6 against 5). GMX, another pool-based design, scores 8.4 after its re-scoring. It matches Gains on fees (9) but is well ahead on audits (9 against 5) and licence (8 against 3).
Who this rating suits
The score suits traders who want exact per-asset costs and liquidation thresholds before trading crypto, forex or commodities in one place. It is a weaker match for anyone who wants to inspect the trading contracts or rely on a large independent backstop. The rating covers published documentation and is not a recommendation to use high leverage.
How it compares
dYdX
Open AGPL core with fee and liquidation rules in numbers
Ostium
Audited, MIT-licensed contracts with no criterion below 8
GMX
Documented fees and funding, with a long named audit record
Orderly Network
Funding and margin rules in full, backed by 17 public audit reports
Paradex
Fee, funding and liquidation rules published as figures
Hyperliquid
Funding and liquidation terms documented to the exact formula
Aevo
Fees, funding and liquidation terms published as figures
Jupiter Perps
Itemized trading costs and a named audit record for the program
Sources
Scored from published primary sources rather than hands-on use. Every figure above comes from one of the pages below, on the date shown. Manufacturers change prices and specifications without notice — if something here no longer matches the source, tell us and we will correct it.
- 1.Gains docs: fees and spread — checked
- 2.Gains docs: gToken vaults (Halborn link, 404 on check) — checked
- 3.Gains docs: upgrades, updates and timelocks — checked
- 4.Gains docs: GNS staking (Pashov review link) — checked
- 5.Gains docs: how orders execute — checked
- 6.Pashov Audit Group: Gains Network security review — checked
- 7.GitHub: GainsNetwork-org organization repositories — checked
- 8.Gains: terms of service — checked
Frequently asked questions
Why does Gains Network score 5.8?
It is the plain average of five equal marks: 9 for fee transparency, 7 for funding and liquidation clarity, 3 for licence and code openness, 5 for audit disclosure and 5 for risk documentation. They total 29, and 29 divided by 5 is 5.8.
What holds Gains Network back?
Mainly code openness, marked 3, because the core trading contracts are not in a public repository. Audit disclosure and risk documentation, both at 5, also weigh on it. There is no audits page, and the backstop depends on minting the GNS token, with no insurance fund.
What changed since the previous scoring?
Audit disclosure rose from 2 to 5, lifting the overall score from 5.2 to 5.8. The GNS staking page links a Pashov Audit Group review of gTrade-contracts modules at stated commits. A Halborn report linked from the vault page could not be reached, so it does not count.
How does Gains Network compare with GMX?
Both use pooled liquidity instead of an order book, and both mark 9 for fees. GMX scores 8.4 overall, mainly because of its 9 for audit disclosure and 8 for licence, against 5 and 3 for Gains Network.
Who is the Gains Network rating most useful for?
Traders who want to check exact opening and closing fees and liquidation thresholds by asset class before trading. It is less useful for anyone who needs open core code or a large independent backstop.
Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.