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 ( https://duneanalytics.com/queries/4321/8416 ) 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.