Hello everyone! Excited as you are, when do you all feel that NEX will get a banking license? Does anyone have any experience or have knowledge of this banking license thing? Please feel free to share it here!!
i think NEX can buy holdings of an already licensed bank. Token Pay did that.
Just my two cents;
The fact that they already succesfully jumped all the hoops required to qualify NEX as a security enstills great confidence in @fabwa and his team of consultants.
I guess the first hurdle is always the biggest, starting from scratch, especially given the fact that it is uncharted territory, even to the world’s biggest advisory firms… Now that they know what regulators are looking for and have succesfully taken the first steps, steps 2, 3 and 4 should be easier and faster?
2 Likes
I am personally wondering how likely it is to get a Securities Trading License. I think when it comes to banking license a 3rd party Service with a Banking License can be easily integrated
How does a security trading license differ from a license to issue a security, I guess issuing a security is not that far off from trading it right?
I am not sure if this can be answered comprehensive in that community chat. This will required a full study of financial market regulation laws, rules and policies. If you are interested in all this I would recommend to start reading books. In Amazon you will find tons of books you can start reading about it.
haha indeed, very nice!
Is Nash trying to get a banking license & become something similar to N26, Bunq or Revolut?!
That would be amazing but i have not read anything about this yet…
yes they are. eventually
I assume this will take a couple of years though! I am only aware of these 3 fintech banks.
keep in mind that Nash aim to remain non-custodial. so this hugely benefits them with gaining licences in some areas. not sure about decentralised banking though
man Im thinking more and more we should offer a custodial product or “Vault” alongside “trading” and “personal” accounts …
I mean the anal lvl of compliance and no rekt history ( we have a clean slate)
Id like our odds at applying for a Wyoming state lvl Banking licence … would give us
Broker dealers
legal clearance to operate in all states inc NY
ability to Custody any flavor of crypto
certainly would make on-ramps more stable in US dollar fiat- derisk
Lending
issuance/custody of collateral for stablecoins would be more solid
I could go on …
pull me up if im wrong on any of above points
oh and one last thing … YES there is a huge demand for custody and if we can we should provide the option to those that want it
edit : wont be able to apply until after 3 years of company operating … so whenever that is … prob end of this year ?
actually why bother going for a broker dealer and ATS via Fincen… just go for Wyoming SPDI…
In the mean time crack on with the FMA and get in to the EEA
any takers ?
“edit : wont be able to apply until after 3 years of company operating … so whenever that is … prob end of this year ?”
in the EU (including Lichtenstein) it is the case that you need € 5ml as a deposit and the managing director must have 3 years of experience (in the management of a bank, this must be proven). I think this is meant by the 3 years, believe the conditions in the USA are quite the same (so if they hire a new ceo, you know about it 
)
oh there are two types of banking licenses. Full bank and sub-bank license. the second is enough for securities trading
1 Like
without reading all the replies…
nash is a non-custodial exchange. that means its nearly impossible to hack(unless there is a exploit in the code somewhere of the trading wallets and interfaces)
Introducing a vault or a banking partner makes nash a custodial exchange. Let’s stick to being unhackable and non-custodial as primary selling point on using nash.
3 Likes
appreciate the reply and ur thoughts
Everything can be hacked. It’s just much harder to attack multiple accounts with a non-custodial exchange. If there is a hack, it will probably either be an API hack or an individual’s account that gets compromised.
1 Like
basically he said nothing 
lets stick to being custodial because … erm … nothing
its a product … if people demand it … its kinda our job to provide it me thinks … now if it gets in the way of other ambitions due to legal … fine.
at some point i think we need to do away (or have the option) to do away with all custody of keys on the user. basically a future iteration of MPC
they shouldnt even really know theyre using crypto … just see the new products the tech can provide
2 Likes
“everything can be hacked”. well…technically and on theory this is true, but hacking nash is almost like hacking bitcoin and ethereum wallets. It’s near impossible, unless you have a way to combine all computing power to brute force wallet passwords or guess at pass phrases.
Nash is non custodial. This means that the points of weakness are with transferring funds from your blockchain wallets(just as unhackable as btc and ethereum etc) towards the trading contract. However this isn’t extreme amounts of code, and nash performed -multiple- security audits to make sure that the code here has no security vulnerability’s.
Also note that while your funds are in the trading contract, they are stored on those smart contracts and are STILL -NOT- in custody by Nash.
Furthermore, nash already claimed that if there is a breach in the matching engine, all that can happen is for your trade to be executed. it cannot be withdrawn to a hacker’s address. And again, a smart contract is just as secure as other smart contracts in the space. It will only do what it’s coded to do. It can not be fooled into something else or be changed/hacked.
The only exploitable way is the way you deposit from your main wallet to the trading contract.
And with even red4sec conducting an audit on security with a company with their reputation, you can rest assured that it’s basicly inpenetrable, unless a founder/developer goes corrupt and builds in exploits in this code, and with that ruins there own company since they are registered and open themselfs up for lawsuits and prison. But in that case we’d have no way of knowing there is a exploit build in because the code source is closed.
TL;DR:
Saying “everything can be hacked” is a bit silly. Try going to a bitcoin community and preach there how everything can be hacked. But it does seem like people still need to trust nash, not just themselves.