In Nash’s last medium post, they had this to say about payments:
We have approached numerous businesses regarding our payments solution (a market worth more than 1 trillion USD)
That $1 trillion figure is a lot lower than I’ve read for mobile POS payments + digital commerce, but let’s use it for now.
Here’s my understanding of traditional payments vs Nash Pay.
User completes a transaction via payment processor (PP) and vendor receives funds. The biggest issues for vendors:
- Potential fraud
- Speed of funds deposited to vendor accounts
- Processing Fees by PPs
User completes a transaction using crypto (XYZ) as source of funds. There are no processing fees if X is the form of crypto vendor accepts, but if user has YZ funds that will be routed through the matching engine (ME). Pros for using Nash Pay:
- No fees if accepted asset is direct (X > X)
If a vendor decides to convert their crypto to fiat, they will likely incur a conversion fee.
User completes a transaction using crypto (XYZ) as source of funds. However, vendor only accepts fiat currencies so the crypto is processed through banking partners (BP). Pros for using Nash Pay:
Conversion fee by BPs (from crypto to fiat) might mitigate the pros in this example.
After thinking about this for some time I’m not sure I see how Nash Pay will benefit NEX holders; perhaps that is not the effort and intention behind it. Yes, it potentially addresses pain points from vendors if they go with “Nash A,” but they will be hit with conversion fees (converting back to fiat) similar to the standard set by payment processors. If anyone has other perspectives about the matching engine being utilized ini payments,please share.