Nash is in a strange place at the moment because it’s less convenient than Coinbase, doesn’t have the volume of established players like Bitfinex/Binance and doesn’t offer advanced (dangerous?) derivatives and leverage like FTX and Bitmex.
Being non-custodial doesn’t seem to be a draw for the regular crowd based on the complaints about KYC we’ve been consistently getting. That being the case the only advantage is that institutions can’t use Bitfinex, Binance etc… so in theory Nash is the only place for them to go but then there’s Fidelity, Bakkt, Coinbase Custody, BitGo and Grayscale so until we can offer competitive volume I don’t see institutions rushing over to Nash.
The early hypothesis for Nash was that stakers would drive volume as they’re incentivised to do so and this would bring non-stakers to further drive volume, so far that hasn’t proven to be the case…
We’re all banking on the introduction of BTC + MPC API keys to get all the market-makers, bots, algo traders and liquidity providers driving volume and bringing eyeballs to Nash. Marketing will be improving once that happens but what’s Nash’s Edge if the market doesn’t care about non-custodial exchange where KYC is required?
I understand the advantages of KYC and legal compliance, what I’m asking is without the advantage of being non-custodial what’s Nash’s edge?
Binance stole Bittrex’s edge in 2017 by having the newest tokens first, Coinbase has kept heir first mover advantage along with class leading UI, Bittrex and FTX has their leverage and derivatives you cant find elsewhere, Bitfinex still has tether I guess…
Nash pay won’t start bringing volume for at least 12 months even if it is industry leading and better than Cash app, PayPal and Visa combined so that doesn’t count (yet).
No wrong answers here just trying to figure out what Nash’s selling point is if you remove good UI (still in progress) and being non-custodial from the equation?