Because of Nash I go through my life inspired!

In moments like this, when the whole crypto is going crazy, I just wish NASH to be successful.
I have started my self-education journey 5 years ago and, today when the whole world is going bananas, I am trying to make sense of why Nash is intentionally overlooked by people that seem to be well educated :thinking: and aware of Nash products.
Somehow being well intentioned is rewarded last :flushed:

Any ideas on how the investment psychology works in our case?
Why NEX is not fairly priced?
Why building honestly is considered ill?

Probably I should stop trying to make sense of what is happening and, just enjoy the ride, along with my only project that I trust :handshake: NASH

Stay strong :muscle: Nash Family :wink:

Replying to questions above is highly appreciated :handshake:


Those are great questions that I’ve asked myself many times - not only for Nash. I will try to convey a summary of my personal understanding and opinion. The reality is not black and white but lots of shades of grey.

I think the issue starts with how to define “fairly priced”, and that is related with your second question if “building honestly is considered ill”. The reality is that most tokens are born and die in 2 to 3 years, so things go from promising to delivering or sub-delivering and the price rides along not tied to product usage or real market fit, but as discourse around the product and excitement bubbles together with the behavior of a dozen of large holders around the tokens.

The possibility of early liquidity and broad market access changes everything in entrepreneurship. Traditionally, people would sign early equity deals and be issued company stock that, to be sold, has to wait for a restricted liquid secondary market, that only exists if the startup becomes successful; or for a IPO, both of those things are 5 to 10 years away. Look at all recent well known names: AirBnB, Grubhub, Facebook, Snapchat, Uber and even Coinbase.

In this scenario entrepreneurs try to grow their business focusing on product and users, while investors are looking at company metrics around those - the equity has no value if not for early financing and both founders and early investors get very little if the company is not successful.

Now with tokens and early liquidity there is a perverse incentive. Founders and early investors can get very large rewards by selling their tokens in the market while there is lots of promise, and the power of idea drives speculation - the product and company can fail but those still be well. It depends on the team and investors if they think would be best for the company to succeed - are they ready for half a decade of hard work and low liquidity? What is the motivation for this common enterprise? Do they care about who is buying the tokens?

So greed, which is the driving force of the free enterprise system, receives a new component and this is what you see with the “crypto hype” and the dubious behavior of large accounts around price discovery of projects. Pressure is to push prices high and only hold it on its way up. It is pressure on VCs, investors and teams to do it regardless of actual product. Even more when you put an industry benchmark such as Bitcoin - an active manager has to beat the returns of just buying and holding Bitcoin.

See this query ( ) it shows the number of unique addresses trading on the week on Ethereum’s most popular DEXs. If those are individual traders it’s questionable (a tree analysis suggest much lower numbers), but it allows one to see there that Loopring, as of this post, has 9 addresses trading on it, Bancor 267, Balancer 289 and Synthetix 614 - all of those valued more than Nash which has at this moment 648 active traders in the past week - not unique addresses, actual individual accounts with individual signins.

So how one price fairly these projects? Certainly none has any real market fit so far, with maybe the exception of Uniswap, but even that is just 105416 unique addresses past week. Price becomes another thing entirely. It is disconnected from actual product and usage. This has been the last 3 to 4 years of crypto industry - if your intention is to maximize personal gain (which is not an unfair cause) it is good to understand those cycles of value. The “mainnet effect”, “partnership pump”, “Coinbase listing” are all pieces of it.

Is building honestly considered ill? I would say no, it is not considered at all - projects will thrive in short term price are they well intentioned (here I refer to projects that do want to provide a product and service for users) or not (projects that exist only to ride a trend).

How all this relate to Nash? I believe it is important that our community to understand this, you called “Nash Family” - this type of informal branding are important and the community should organize itself at the margin of the company if they want to extract value from this. To trade in Nash and help us bootstrap.

As I said this is a personal view, I myself want to solve the issues Nash has in its mission - so I am dedicated to built and this has driven my decisions - I am not Nash, there is a lot more to it and 4 other founders.



This is an amazingly clear way of expressing yourself. Thank you so much for taking the time. I now have the answers for people that are short term price oriented :handshake:
A big part of me educating myself, is because I want to be a valuable community member for Nash :wink:


Until the herd turns guys :slight_smile:

It was asked why Nash is not fairly priced.
In my opinion it is even overpriced, still.
The value of the token is inevitably linked to the returns it creates for the investor. For 1000 NEX staked at the Nash Exchange, an investor received approximately 5 USD in return in 1 year. That is approximately 0.5% interest/year assuming a token price of 1 USD. Would you now invest 1000 USD to receive a return of 5 USD?

I am pretty convinced that as long as interest returns are that low, i.e. as long as the exchange does not create high volume, the NEX token remains cheap.

There is also pressure from competitors such as PayPal considering to allow Bitcoin payments, which seems to threaten Nash pay model.

Just my opinion for an open discussion.


If anything it is the other way around. Nash threatens the traditional payment model in two ways;

  • fiat ramp with 0% fees
  • converting crypto to fiat for extremely low fee via Nash Link

Also, Nash is introducing a radical new approach - non custodial hold of assets


That might be but PayPal is an established player, which would be difficult to beat because of its dominant market position.

Furthermore, Nash wants to be regarded as established Crypto Exchange. But if an investor can only trade a handful of coins, he/she is inevitably forced to use other exchanges, which is inconvenient of course.

The best example for the complexity this creates is the NEX token itself. To trade NEX from the Nash Exchange, I have to transfer from my bank account Euro to USDC, which I then have to exchange to NEO, then transfer the NEO to Switcheo. Then to buy NEX for NEO at Switcheo and transfer back NEX to Nash account. How inconvenient is that? Not to talk about transfering back and forth from Nash Exchange to personal Nash account… Just an example for the complexity the non-listing of tokens creates.

Btw: Nash asks for 10000 USD to list tokens. Is it possible that the community would cover these costs just to speed up things as not many players seem to be interested in investing 10000 USD to be listed on Nash.

I am anyway wondering why the Nash Exchange does not allow for trading its own NEX token. Imagine Binance had no trading option for its own token. Just wondering.

This non-listing NEX conandrum at Nash Exchange remains a mystery to me. :thinking: Maybe someone can explain that to me?

For Nash to succeed it doesn’t need to beat Coinbase, but just needs to get a % of the market.

Nash doesn’t ask for 10000 USD to list a token. If the needed legal document/review is present, there is no need for 10000 USD. I think in some cases they also require the team to add liquidity upon listing.

Also the Nash token is a registered security token. This means that ‘you’ as a holder are also protected from certain ‘shady’ activities. As seen in the recent legal activities against ‘XRP’, it took a long time before some sort of action is taken. At this point in time, Nash is somewhat stuck between ‘no regulation’ - ‘regulation’. What I know, is that adoption comes with regulation 100%. To be future robust, Nash took the regulation road with its advantages and disadvantages.


Quote from website: “We do not make profits with listing fees. If we choose to list a project, we charge a one-off fee of ca. 10,000 USD to cover legal costs.”

It does not say “we may charge a one-off fee” depending on this or that.

1 Like

@canesin Thank you for sharing those user insights on active traders in the past week.

Breaking it down, each trader averaged $19,174 (est). In comparison to Coinbase, each user of the platform averaged $400 (see chart below):

Traders Users Trading Pairs Volume Avg estimated volume by trader
Nash 678 3,606 9 $13,728,973 $19,174
Coinbase 35,000,000 129 $14,081,000,000 $400

I’m making a few assumptions about Coinbase’s userbase (not all of their users are trading) so the chart isn’t perfect, but I just want to help visualize the impact a user can have on volume.

@Ingbic I agree that one NEX token is still currently “overvalued” based on current annual rate of return, but as Nash and the community continue it’s crypto-proselytizing for existing and new markets I think the volume will grow exponentially.

1 Like

The statement “If we choose to list a project” is already a dependency. If the legal part is already provided by the team of the project, then of course there is no need to cover it.

What if we take not only based on returns?
What if we take everything that is achieved in consideration?
What is the right way to evaluate company value in market place? Definitely not by only one metric :face_with_monocle:

I believe that Fabio alone is worth more then current evaluation and, if we take Nash all together then we definitely should be into hundreds of millions at this stage.


How do you know?
If you were correct, the info on the website should be corrected.

1 Like

Indeed, I think we agree. The token has a return in annual interest of 0.5% which cannot explain its valuation of around 1 USD. A big part of its current evaluation is future expectation and trust in the team, so far.

Having said that, I am less and less convinced that the “compliance” argument is a good seller any longer. At least I cannot sense pressure from regulatory on other exchanges which would keep investors from trading there. I think Nash needs to regularly re-evaluate it’s position and direct its marketing accordingly.

For example, with the new highs in BTC and ETH, Nash seems to miss out although it’s a very good time for exchanges with respect to volume and returns. Why is Nash not able to participate accordingly? Token is down to 0.8 USD and daily volume on the exchange drops back. Somehow counterintuitive.

1 Like

I believe that this quote from Fabio explains it:

Let’s see what will happen in the next 5 years :thinking: ( success!!! )
My plan is to contribute as much as I can :handshake:

Somehow I have zero doubt that Nash will achieve massive success. ( fresh minds are entering the crypto market, improvements of the products, new products, brand recognition, bigger community… We definitely have what it takes :muscle: )



I admire your optimism. I just doubt that Nash is moving fast enough to defend its “novelty”.


I think that the current price of Nex token is fair. Btc is breaking ath, we have a trading competition in place and the volume is still low. However, all this can turn around in a matter of weeks and that is why the price is still several times higher compare to regular rate of return on capital of 2%.

I know we’re all NEX moonboys but I’d like to add a realistic opinion here.

Consider if you had $2000. You could just buy ETH and stake it on various platforms for 10% APY vs. buying NEX which is has higher risk, lower %APY currently, and might actually underperform ETH. Even staking DAI-USDT is higher APY at the moment I think. Better options for lower risk is why the market is not buying NEX at the moment. Hopefully that flips and really hope Nash gains good traction. Also this is investing and honestly most people are here for the gains.

NEX value is probably “too clear” i.e. dividend. Needs more of that “question mark” value otherwise ppl just do the math and its obvious (e.g. I have no idea how much an elrond token is actually worth but I’m holding it lol).

Sorry I don’t want to sound like FUD, sometimes feel like I have to hold back any negative perspectives (already been banned from Telegram lol). Hope this is ok. P.S. I hold NEX in a 24 month stake.


Do the staking methods you talk about scale like Nash’s?


I’m not saying its impossible, just saying needs time to prove itself. Opportunity is there, but dunno what the probabilities are.

Say in 12 months conservatively bitcoin becomes at least $100k USD fair value, that’s a 3x from here (I think bitcoin will overshoot as it always does, but we’re guessing here). Assume Nash holds the same crypto user base, then volume will 3x just from BTC going up, to like $6m/day. So to reach today’s Gemini trading volume, need to 10x users/volume in bitcoin from todays amounts. Given adoption usually is like S curve shaped, and we’re early stages, it’s not impossible. If you assume like a stable 10% APY then maybe NEX would be worth like $8, provided 10x usage in bitcoin volume?

Without assessing other risks I guess you could start pricing it in like that but if the guess is wrong the opportunity cost is high. Also a 24 month stake lockup is pretty long (24 months - I feel the world has done a 180° since then) but there is potential to go even higher value in future cycles. But then again crypto markets think in investment timeframes of 1 month duration shrugs.