On there I break down the three types of competitors:
Centralized exchanges: your current day to day crypto exchange
Fake DEX: solutions built on centralized infrastructure that don’t solve the fundamental security issue.
Jury-rig DEX (or MacGyver DEX): solutions made with scrap pieces laying around and assembled to deliver fast to market alternatives but cannot sustain the performance needed or the experience required by users.
We already have an article about this topic coming next week.
@Peter We don’t talk about names directly here - also: unfortunately the boxes are not fit it all, that list contain a couple of formidable competitors.
This is a great thread. I was going to post something similar just now. But it is probably best added as a comment in this thread:
I have found two decentralised exchanges that include bitcoin trading pairs. They are;
Waves and
Halo DEX.
Does anybody in the community know what solutions they have come up with to enable bitcoin trading, whether it is custodial or not and what other compromises the solutions have (are they considered Fake DEXs or MacGyver DEX? – as some have described existing DEX solutions)
Also, what other DEXs are people aware of that offer cross chain trading and how is it achieved?
@John_Nash I talked about Waves in the TG group yesterday. Their solution is to wrap other non-native assets e.g. BTC, XMR, LTC etc into a native token on the chain that the DEX is built on. So basically there’s a fake token representing the underlying asset 1:1 and you have to trust the third-party/issuer to send the actual asset when you withdraw. It gives the illusion of decentralized trading.
A very poor solution that only adds more steps making it probably less secure than a regular centralized exchange. Stellarx was another project that was getting lots of hype not long ago but this was their solution as well.
I watched CZ’s livestream yesterday about the Binance DEX and it makes me cringe the amount of hype that garbage is getting.
Not only is their listing fee $100k but it’s built on their Neo tendermint fork copy ripoff blockchainy thing only much more centralized. Bragging about 1 sec finality when all your nodes are connected and it doesn’t even have simple smart contracts is ridiculous.
Their garbage of a DEX doesn’t pose a threat to Nash as only native tokens on Binance chain can get listed so no BTC, XRP etc.
Obviously all the articles Nash has produced to date have been important in their own ways but in many ways, this forthcoming article might be the most important piece and best marketing material that will be produced (certainly will add more value than a bison walking through a bar and a crypto moron spouting crypto nonsense).
A huge problem with CEX and especially DEXs research/reviews/articles available online is the lack of technical specifics and clarity regarding how they work and the difference between the DEXs, creating huge confusion about which one is better and in what way (non custodial, more secure, faster etc). I read a lot about this stuff and I still cant properly/fully understand it. When Nash is released, crypto pundits and youtube reviewers will have various (and many) opinions about which DEX is better, but its unlikely they will have a self developed, full technical understanding of the difference. Basically, most opinions will not be fully informed and this is where the problem will arise. The need for simplicity and clarity from an informed technical authority is essential, including hopefully a comparison of the main DEXs/CEX on a side by side basis.
Fact of the matter is there are probably only about 10-20 people in the world right now with the current and full in depth technical understanding of the differences between the various DEX solutions offered at the moment - everyone else’s understanding is second hand from reading about it.
This article will form the basis of how non technical people (like me) will come to appreciate that difference and it will likely form the knowledge basis of many people decision to try (and recommend to others) the Nash platform and many youtube reviewers understanding. It will be like an episode of Top Gear but for DEXs done by some of the only people who’s opinion can be considered the technical authority on the subject. While obviously it cant be all encompassing, it will hopefully give Nash’s detractors (other DEX communities) less room to argue of the merits of their platform over Nash.
It will be interesting to see how, not only the benefits of Nash are described, but the significant shortcoming of existing DEX are highlighted in detail because I think there will be considerable debates from many people across several communities about it and this article will become the original reference (the go-to article) for settling many of the debates - so we can argue
against misinformation with facts from a reliable reference - and hopefully the prove that Nash is superior.
Hey Alex,
Fabio’s classifications are apt. I don’t see any reason to fiddle with them. This seems kind of petty and time could be better spend doing other stuff.
Cheers
No problem at all Alex. I appreciate your points. The idea is not to over-analyse things. I am quite confident in the team’s ability to communicate effectively to a diverse audience, judging from several articles they’ve written.
Yeah Chico is amazing.
He also said in one of the Telegram groups that he’s in for an interview with one of the guys from Nash. Soooo, @canesin, @ethan, @fabwa, would be cool to make that happen
@anon73805886 Obviously holding all the nodes for a blockchain and then building an exchange on top of it and claiming it to be decentralized is very different than holding all the nodes for a matching engine. Nash team can never access your funds despite them holding all the nodes, they can only block trades in the case that you might be laundering money or doing some other illegal activity. And they plan on allowing others to run nodes very soon making the system more decentralized.
@anon73805886 when a order is put in Nash it is not a simple API request, it is a signed order by the trader - that enters a communication layer (were we broadcast data from). The idea of provably fair is that since the matching engine is deterministic you will be able to get the data from the communication layer and recompute the current status of the order book and match history.
To do this verification you will need a single process FIFO bot (as concurrency is a major issue with determinism and one of the reasons for our complexity), we plan to provide a reference implementation for this after the MVP is online.
The communication layer is to be decentralized in the future and have its own clock, one of the functions of a consensus is that it maintains a network clock.
