Nash is updating our fee schedule! Maker fees remain 0%, while taker fees will be based only on individual user volume, not relative to the exchange total.
The 0% are highly likely the maker fees. Is the nash fees page going to be updated soon?
In my opinion the higher tiers get too much of a discount, but I hope they can be reviewed again in a next year if nash takes off. We are far off getting a individual with such volume, anyway.
Team, could you tell us if the volume counter resets every month? Meaning that for a whale to accumulate 500m trading volume, they first pay higher fees? Or do they keep the trading fees in the month following their 500m?
Could you provide facts on what gives you this impression?
30-volume usually means volume made in the last 30 days, regardless of what day of the month it is.
why do you ask for facts? it is a opinion as I stated.
Here are some facts, though.
500 million dollar is a lot for a lot of individuals. However if a individual keeps up the 500 million volume, every NEX holder gets 0,00225 dollar dividends per nex, per month.
So holding 1000 nex, you get 2,25 dollar for a whopping volume of 500 million dollar, if its from a single individual. (if you stake 2 years)
Not much difference for the 250m volume.
EDIT: I hope this fee structure is made to attract the big fish and hope to attract the fish while doing so, but I can’t help to be sad about the extreme discounts offered to the real big whales.
EDIT2: made a accurate calculation, thanks oldsport for showing its even less then i thought.
The high discount could be ok if the counter trader will also pay fee but with 0% maker it really makes the total becomes negligible fee for whales.
Actually you forgot to factor in the 75%, so it would be $2.25.
A quick analysis of competitors’ fee structure shows this is in the vicinity of Binance. FYI, being on par with Coinbase Pro’s 0.05% fee would grant someone holding 1000 NEX $3.75 per month.
At this point, Nash is most interested in bringing volume (which would snowball into various positive effects) rather than maintaining a high return on staked tokens. So I’m glad Nash team was able to conclude that this fee structure is viable in the short term, it is very attractive!
Lol, 10 days after @canesin s poll (which, in my opinion, was a farce the way it presented anyway), where they were ‘considering’ and ‘exploring’ changes to the fee table, we now have it official. If Nash would always be that fast from ‘considering/exploring’ to publishing, well than hallelujah ! 
and i agree with @Konijntje. A change from a minimum of 0.13 to 0.03 / 0.04 % fees for the 500M / 250M traders is a lot. Like really a lot. That’s paying minus ~77% / 69% compares to what it was before.
Yeah, now we can have all this fancy volumes (as the people bringing it for the most part can do it much cheaper) we were told to expect, just that it will give a lot less dividends than we expected.
edit:typo
Yes, the highest tiers enjoy very low taker fees, but I’m not sure if it’s that bad. Maybe actually a good thing. To reach the highest tier, they have to do A LOT of volume.
Many people look at volume before using an exchange (even when liquidity is good), thus having a few very high volume traders, makes the exchange much more attractive for newcomers.
Newcomers might also use services like Nash pay. Which if there’s a conversion involved, yields 0.25% fee for the low volume users.
All in all, I don’t think it’s a bad thing to give such high volume traders very competitive rates.
Very happy with the new approach to fees. We need to attack the market and be super aggressive to win new high-volume traders as well as those at the other end of the spectrum. Let’s go!
apologise for calculation mistakes, not the best in math.
For those of you who think this is ‘good’ or ‘okay’, let me put this into perspective;
Will you be excited by a possible future headline of ‘Revolut now Using Nash for Crypto Payments’??
Well, now we have a big fuc**** issue because, Revolut customer payments will be made through the Revolut API / Revolut Account where it will be that full organisation acting as the one account on Nash. Therefore, this massive organisation will be paying basically nothing towards NEX holders since it and its customers will be collectively trading more than $500 million per month.
And big organisations WILL operate in this manner in order to save fees for their users.
I am now selling the majority of my NEX holdings to replicate and compensate for the reduction in potential revenue for what would have been a great opportunity.
A real shame and to be honest, this is the first indication that Nash Business Model is not working.
yes, but it seems likely to assume that if a trader keeps this 500m monthly volume, that it isn’t reset/downgraded anymore. Meaning NEX holder get only 75% of 0.03% trading fees.
Wait! Let me put a buy order first 
Kidding aside, having Revolut as a Nash client would be incredible, even with those fees, because it would in turn attract other users.
I just made a quick model to show this, where every trader attracts 3 traders of the category below:
This is a big approximation, but attracting big players will never be an issue IMO. Also as some said, this could change later when Nash is among top exchanges by volume and is in a better position to negotiate.
If you’re assumption that every trader attracts three traders holds true, I would certainly not complain, haha
Idunno, the adjustment of the fee structure went a bit by me. Would appreciate it if the team would elaborate a bit more on this decission
This solves the chicken or the egg issue (regarding volume) -
What’s the issue with this strategy?
As @Oldsport just posted, we do not know the market segmentation for potential Nash users (retail vs institutional), but there is likely a cascading effect as shown in his chart.
Here’s a visual representation of his analysis - the .03% taker only takes up 6% of the aggregate volume.
I can get behind this. I’d rather see $0.00225 per 1 NEX in dividends than $0.00000, the latter being what we’d receive from large volume traders if the discount was bad (which apparently it was previously).
This makes adoption easier, but requires more volume to achieve the same dividend as before; how much exactly, I’m not sure, but I don’t think it’ll be nearly as bad as it might seem.
I was thinking of offering people who sign up a 50% discount for the first month, to get the large volume traders there quicker, but perhaps it would be easier to offer them a rebate based on their first month of trading, or something like that. I’d really try to cater to and reward those high vol. traders, for taking the time and the risk of switching their business to a new platform.
I’d agree with @Oldsport
From my part I did a estimation based on the percentile Nex traders will be part of depending on their contributed volume. Dividends are still fine with 1000 NEX staked and a total volume of roughly 7 billion.
That’s assuming a business like Revolut would use Nash even with the old fee structure. If they wouldn’t with the old fee structure and they would with the new structure, then it’s obviously a good move. If they would use Nash anyway, then it could potentionally be a bad move.
getting to coinbase volume… just saying that 7 billion is a lot of money. If we think to beat coinbase any time soon would be foolish, even though our non-custodial factor is worth gold.
And then for that whopping amount of money that puts us in the top exchanges, only earn 100 dollar per 1000 nex monthly for 7b…I mean its something, still a okay return.
But we used to play with the calculator and dreaming on the huge potential of NEX. Now, this potential has been downgraded to my opinion.
Nash could ofcource increase the fee’s at a later stage again, but they don’t want to lose the big players if we managed to attract them. Meaning that going from 0.03% to 0.04% is a huge change already, and already seems unlikely for the future.
Thanks for making the chart together with oldsport, though.
