I think whales will be skeptical to deposit mass amounts of money (and stake it) without the protection of a hardware wallet, has there been any word from the ledger team? I’m even nervous that my money will be stolen and I’m pretty careful on my pc. Could you address this during your Q2 q&a please?
2 Likes
So you trust an electronic device more than a smart contract? 
Whales are not even afraid to use a CEX which they dont hold the keys to…
what makes you think they will be more afraid of an exchange that has gone fully and rigorously checked by security firms such as NCC Group?
Nash security use can be improved overtime and i think they have been looking into this too since security is one of their main goals.
I trust using a hardware wallet to access my funds, I’m not sure what you mean but it sounds like you don’t understand how the wallets work.
If at any point a whales pc gets infected they will lose their bankroll, I’m just saying I cannot see a whale sending $1,000,000-> $1,000,000,000 into an extension and hoping it stays safe. My opinion, but even a little fishy like me knows a lot can go wrong in the digital world and is nervous to send too much to a hot wallet.
Whales use CEXs everyday unsecured more than they use a ledger. A self-custody exchange means something and if you can’t manage risk and your keys you probably shouldn’t be managing a large value of assets. With all due respect, the argument you are making is pretty narrow sighted.
Expanding on this the team has stated that they have better ideas to make the extension and key management even more secure than a hardware wallet but it requires testing and could come in the future.
Binance already enabled logging in using a hardware wallet, and the 2fa adds an extra level of security to the CEXs, also to withdraw from them you need to have the 2fa and access to the email (that is usually also guarded by a 2fa) not to mention some CEXs have insurance policies for their users.
This being said, your points are valid, I believe what I stated has merit though.
This is valid, except Nash isn’t Binance. Just because it works for Binance doesn’t make it the right solution for Nash. Nash will be using 2FA on the exchange and the extension is secure against antiphishing developed by some of the most proven and talented developers in crypto, pretty sure they have it under control. The whole purpose of the extension is to allow login from anywhere and use any of Nash’s suite of products all while allowing self-custody. You can’t do that currently with a Ledger. Let the team continue to innovate, they have met with many “whales” and have done thorough testing. If this was a concern they will have a solution but atm there has been 0 evidence to suggest it and they will continue to innovate going forwards to implement safer solutions as they are developed.
1 Like
If a whale has 1 million… im sure he has the right tools to deter being hacked… he should be smart enough to be responsible for his own funds… your point is youre afraid whales are scared to use nash even though nash can be one of the safest exchange to use…putting 1 mil in a CEX is more risky. Have u heard a CEX stopping u from withdrawing funds as and when they like? Thats how risky it is. Not your keys, not your assets…
If whales really are concern with hardware wallets u will see switcheo or APH getting lots of volume but you dont. So your point is subjective and pointing to individual on what they like to use. Not everyone. If nash can be friendly to use and safe to use, people will switch in for nash. My opinion
So you’re telling me you’d feel safe with 100million dollars on your extension hot wallet when a keylogger software and browser sniffing tool can get your encrypted key and password? It’s already been said that the browser logs your encrypted key so wouldn’t you just need a key-logger for the password? and then you have access? This is what I want protection from… and I feel like whales would want that safety net too. I am asking politely for them to mention it in their ama, I know they have said in the past they know how to do it but ledger doesn’t support their code, so I asked if there has been any new news from the team.
You’re seriously telling me you see no merit in what I’m saying? It’s still a hot wallet my dude.
All I’m saying is that the people that will bring the huge liquidity to the exchange will most likely want an added layer of security that is separate from their machine. I’m not even pressuring the team as they have stated they already know how to do it but ledger doesn’t support their code yet, this is why I asked if there was any update from the ledger team
Dont think u need to worry bout that…nash will most likely have this figured it out. Nash will have their own security if im not wrong.
This is why they also want users to have enabled 2FA during sign up. Security is a main priority for nash im sure they have some good things coming up… lets see if they have more updates…
Do you know if 2fa is needed for withdrawal? I have no doubt their architecture is top notch, it’s malicious programmatic attacks on the users end I’m thinking about. Sometimes even having java out of date can cause a temporary vulnerability if I am not mistaken.
Thats a good point that u brought up… we didnt test on withdrawal process yet since we cant withdraw for test tokens.
But since security is top priority im sure there’s some kind of security to go thru before any withdrawal. And thats dependent on individual since nash cant control whether you want 2fa or not as its your own asset.
Didnt notice the withdrawal part. @canesin
1 Like
I do, actually. However, I did make the mistake in assuming you didn’t trust having your funds on the platform staking. But it seems you mean to just have it stored on the account for trading purposes. My bad.
lol that is not at all what I said but these concerns you are raising aren’t much of a concern currently since this risk is still associated with CEX use which nearly all “whales” currently engage in since we have 0 current DEXs with the needed liquidity to support them. In this instance that’s possible just like with using a CEX hot wallet but in this instance you have at least another layer of security in that you hold your keys. Sure everyone wants more security but its a trade-off. Truth is the majority of users Nash is aiming at don’t own a ledger but everyone owns an internet browser and phone so the decision to not support it because in order to do so means changing the code which means not being able to have usability is a good decision.
CEX hot wallets should only hold a fraction of the total CEX’s worth, and the nash team already knows how to support a hardware wallet, the issue is on the ledger teams end, that’s why I’m asking them if there is any new word from the ledger team… Also, I’m not talking about the majority of people, I am talking about whales as the exchange will need the liquidity.
Really, I am just asking for an update from the nash team, not your opinion on whether whales will feel safe with hundreds of millions in a hot wallet, it is my belief that more liquidity would come with hardware wallet support.
Also, just a side-note, my dad is the type of person who gets pop ups on his phone and women selling him vaccum cleaners on his laptop because he got phished on a site xD he’s so malware prone. He owns some nex and I don’t want to handle the staking for him, he owns a ledger nano s so I could let him stake his own coins if it was compatible. Just an example of some of the audience.
If he gets phished so easily i guess he can easily get phished too on his government login websites that he uses to check his personal stuff and also on a CEX.
Even if he uses a hardware wallet, he can also get phished too if he is not careful with his seeds.
All im saying is:
It all comes to whether nash can bring a small learning curve to allow new users to come in and trade.pay.invest. If the learning curve here and Overall UX is just so minimal effort compared to the benefits users are going to receive, nash will be successful. So far, i can say roughly 99% of testers have no issues in signing up and logging in to nash during Beta.
Phishing is a hard problem and indeed I agree it is a success challenge for self-custodial solutions like Nash. We don’t believe current generation of hardware wallets are the solution due to several issues, like the problem of physical security and costs. Currently large holders (“whales”) use all custodial services to secure their assets, like OnChain custody, BitGo and others. We have been researching and prototyping a software solution for some time now that will be a default offering on the platform but unfortunately will not be present in the MVP. You can search “hardware wallet” in this forum to see several other moments other users asked this very same question in slightly different ways, if hardware wallets become a ubiquitous tool we will support the winning platform. For now we trust we can offer an alternative that is cheaper and more powerful in time for the market need.
5 Likes