Overview
Mummy Finance is a perpetual futures protocol on Fantom that forked GMX's codebase with minimal modifications. The protocol replicates GMX's core model: a multi-asset liquidity pool (MLP) where LPs earn fees from leveraged trading, swap activity, and borrowing costs. Traders can open up to 50x leveraged positions on major crypto assets against the MLP pool.
The protocol launched during the 2022-2023 period when GMX forks proliferated across multiple chains. The thesis was straightforward: GMX's model worked well on Arbitrum, so deploying it on Fantom (which had a growing DeFi ecosystem at the time) could capture local demand for perpetual trading. Mummy added minor features like referral programs and fee structures but the core product is functionally identical to GMX.
Mummy's trajectory has followed Fantom's ecosystem health. When Fantom DeFi was growing (driven by Andre Cronje's ecosystem development), Mummy attracted users and TVL. As Fantom's ecosystem contracted — with key developers leaving, TVL declining, and user activity migrating to other chains — Mummy's adoption declined correspondingly.
The protocol represents the broader challenge of fork-based DeFi projects: without meaningful innovation, the value proposition depends entirely on ecosystem context, and when that context changes, the fork has no inherent advantages to retain users.
Smart Contracts
Mummy's smart contracts are largely unmodified GMX forks. The core contracts — Router, Vault, PositionManager, GLP-equivalent MLP — are functionally identical to GMX's V1 architecture. The minimal modifications include branding changes, fee parameter adjustments, and Fantom-specific oracle integrations.
The advantage of forking well-tested contracts is inherited security — GMX's contracts have been battle-tested with billions in TVL. The disadvantage is that any modifications, however minor, could introduce vulnerabilities not present in the original. The Fantom-specific oracle configurations and any custom fee logic represent the primary areas where fork-specific bugs could exist.
The contracts have not undergone independent audits comparable to GMX's multiple audit rounds. The assumed security relies on the similarity to the audited original rather than independent verification.
Security
Security is inherited from GMX's codebase but diminished by lower scrutiny. The fork has not undergone rigorous independent auditing — the security model relies on the assumption that minimal code changes preserve GMX's security properties. This assumption is generally reasonable but not guaranteed.
The Fantom deployment introduces chain-specific risks. Fantom's validator set is smaller than Ethereum/Arbitrum, and the chain has experienced periods of degraded performance. Oracle reliability on Fantom has historically been less robust than on Ethereum mainnet, and the pool's dependency on accurate price feeds for liquidation and trading is critical.
The low TVL reduces the economic incentive for attacks but also means less security researcher attention. The protocol has not experienced major exploits, though this is at least partly attributable to the limited value available to extract.
Trading
The trading experience mirrors GMX V1 — users can open long or short leveraged positions on major crypto assets, with the MLP pool serving as counterparty. The interface, order types, and trading mechanics are functionally identical to GMX's experience.
The key difference is liquidity depth. MLP has significantly less capital than GMX's GLP/GM, meaning larger trades face more price impact and the protocol can support fewer simultaneous large positions. The asset selection is limited to major pairs available on Fantom with reliable oracle feeds.
Trading volume has declined substantially from peak levels. The Fantom ecosystem migration (with the chain rebranding to Sonic and undergoing architectural changes) has further disrupted trading activity.
Adoption
Adoption peaked during Fantom's DeFi growth period and has declined since. Current TVL, trading volume, and user counts are minimal. The protocol faces a structural problem: users who want GMX-style trading can use the original GMX on Arbitrum with better liquidity, more assets, and greater ecosystem integration.
The Fantom-specific value proposition (lower fees, different chain community) has weakened as Fantom's ecosystem contracted. Users have migrated to chains with more active ecosystems and better infrastructure. Mummy has attempted expansion to other chains but has not achieved meaningful traction elsewhere.
Tokenomics
MMY is the protocol's utility and governance token, modeled after GMX's token economics. MMY holders earn a share of platform fees (in Fantom's native FTM and stablecoins) through staking. The esMMY (escrowed MMY) vesting mechanism mirrors GMX's esGMX design.
With declining trading volume, fee revenue distributed to MMY stakers has fallen dramatically. The token has lost the vast majority of its value, and the declining ecosystem context makes recovery unlikely without a significant catalyst. The tokenomics are well-designed (inherited from GMX) but dysfunctional at current adoption levels.
Risk Factors
- Fork without innovation: No meaningful differentiation from the original GMX
- Fantom ecosystem decline: The host chain's ecosystem has contracted significantly
- Declining TVL and volume: Platform activity has decreased dramatically from peaks
- Insufficient auditing: Fork-specific changes have not been rigorously audited
- Liquidity inadequacy: MLP is too small for meaningful perpetual trading
- Competition: Original GMX and other perp platforms offer superior experiences
Conclusion
Mummy Finance illustrates the limitations of fork-based DeFi strategies. The protocol faithfully replicated GMX's proven model, but without meaningful innovation, its success was entirely dependent on the host ecosystem's health. As Fantom's DeFi ecosystem contracted, Mummy's adoption followed.
The 2.6 score reflects a protocol that works technically (the GMX model is sound) but has no compelling reason to exist alongside the original. The declining Fantom ecosystem, insufficient liquidity, minimal innovation, and absent competitive moat make Mummy a cautionary example of how forking great code does not guarantee a great protocol.