Nash and the competition

exchange
products
security

(FCC) #1

I have seen this asked a lot this last two days, so just to remember a section we had on the Q4 update:

See in video the explanation: https://youtu.be/Dt7I8p4iIn0?t=1953

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.


(Neogasrpx) #2

Very much looking forward to the article on this topic, makes it easy for us to share and spread awareness! Keep up the good work!


(Peter) #3

Thanks Fabio.

Just curious how you or the team @ethan @localhuman @fabwa would categorise the following based on the information you know:

  • IDEX,
  • Forkdelta,
  • Aphelion,
  • Switcheo
  • Binance DEX,
  • 0x Relayers e.g. RadarRelay,
  • StellarX,
  • Bitshares,
  • Bancor,
  • BarterDEX
  • WavesDEX
  • OmiseGO/Tendermint Dex

Having this information helps in discussions with others.
Thank you!


(FCC) #4

@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.


(Peter) #5

I respect your code of conduct. Thanks for the reply anyway, Fabio.


(John Nash) #6

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?


(Mange) #7

@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.


(Mange) #8

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.


(John Nash) #9

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.


(Alex Forward) #10

Fake DEX, Silver Tie dex, Jury rig dex, MacGyver,…
I never got the clue with the namings (last two columns) Find it very subjective/biased namings… your definition of ‘fake’ might be different from mine etc.
‘Jury-Rig’ ? I had to look this one up to know what it means.

Anyone knows better descriptive names?

Fake DEX --> Anchored DEX, Trusted issuers DEX,…
Jury-Rig --> Secrets exposed DEX, DIY DEX,…

Or add an illustration for each,… maybe that helps too :wink:


(Olu ) #11

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


(Alex Forward) #12

I didn’t mean to go personal. ‘Fabio’s classification’ is fine if you already know what a DEX is and know there are a wide variety of dexes. Else this is confusing. It was fine for Q4 presentation and technical Mainframe audience.

In an article targeting broader audience it’ll be confusing . It might be even better to have three columns only; not diversifying DEXes. just do; Nash, centralised exchange, decentralised exchange.

Because of the judging and subjective wording it appears like Nash is triing to redefine decentralised exchanges. Thats not what Nash want in my undererstanding. Nash is facilitating the same needs with its own unique system.

We don’t want users comparing Nash with DEXes while deciding how they exchange/obtain digital assets. We want users to discover this new and better way to accomplish their exchange needs. (in consideration phase, Nash should be the only option on the table)

When comparing with competition you want to make sure users understand Nash is different and not simply patching the DEX, CEX systems available today.

Whats the value of this post ? Not much. I was hoping somebody else might feel the same and maybe has good suggestion…


Ideas / Recommendations for Nash
(Olu ) #13

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.


(EC) #14

Aphelion never fails to disappoint. I don’t even know which category this exchange fits into. A class of its own…

https://link.medium.com/9jC03hoHaU


(Mange) #15

(Crypto King) #16

LOVE LOVE LOVE Chico heated on the head. This is when one can give more time to nash to make all arrangements before laughing.


(Nick) #17

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 :slight_smile:


(FCC) #18

yeap, in contact.


(Alex Forward) #19

Good opportunity to explain this ‘provably fair protocol’. I have no idea what that practically means.

Because this youtuber was raging about Binance owning validators, but from what I know Nash team also holds all the nodes at this time. (Big ups for Nash for beiing more transparent about his tho) Both Nash and Binance are ‘planning’ to give away control ‘in the future’.

So this ‘provably fail protocol’ is hopefully more unique and the differentiating factor worth explaining.


(Mange) #20

@Alex 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.