Our new 2020 fee schedule

What increase in volume? It’s still in your head not in reality. Let’s vote and see how many people approve this decision. Holders staked their NEX for 2 years and now they’ve been backstabbed IMO.

1 Like

Well if the volume increase is not coming, the average fee is going to be higher than we currently have with the percentage based tiers…

1 Like

This made me hella bullish on nex bois. This fee structure will attract big players, big players attract small players. In the end we will sit at 0,13 % fee Which is fine for me!
Go get those retail traders Nash!

4 Likes

@roel.b That’s a okay return indeed. But i used to keep the calculation of NEX at an average of 0.21%. I have also put it at 0.13% now, I think that’s a fair average to keep now. That’s a big downgrade in the potential of NEX, however.

But for potential volume you look at volumes of other exchanges which used to have more competitive fee structures. How realistic is that?

The potential volume got much bigger by this move.

1 Like

And for a 0.13% average fee, we would have to be at pretty big volumes already. It’s 25m 30-day volume for a single trader to even reach 0.13%…

Great move! This is very important to attract large customers to the platform and to compete with everyone else out there! The prior fee structure was just not attractive to any large players and would have never gained big volumes. I take $500m in volume at 0.03% at 1m in volume that we currently hit at 0.25% any day.

4 Likes

I don’t know why you saw them as “Far too cocky”. I think you had an idea stuck in your head and you are upset now. The team has always had a large vision and they have finally achieved the product they have been dreaming of and working so hard towards. The issue arose that they realised that big volume traders/institutions were not interested in trading on the platform as the fees were too high, thus they had to reduce it. In the end this will result in more volume and more revenue for the exchange and it’s token holders, not less. We will see if you still feel this way a year from now, I bet you don’t.

2 Likes

seeing the response when fees change was discussed 10 days back , i think only a few will downvote this decision. We want volume and if fees is not competitive nash should be flexible to adjust fees.

2 Likes

This is probably not a bad descision to gain adoption.

NASH as many interesting products and value proposition, but what is it’s real value (price that most would pay for)?

Comparing to other exchanges, you can advertise the UX, the built in wallets, as well as the compliance, and of course the non-custodial trading with BTC.
But it is too early to assess the bullet proof aspect of this tech… And there is still some friction with having two accounts on the exchange (hopefully resolved tomorrow). Less coins than other big exchanges is also an issue…
Therefore, the team decided that they felt like downgrading the price of there products (by lowering the fees for high volume traders). And if in the future they feel like their products should be valued more, then they will raise the price. It is a simple strategy that could help volume to rise, and consequently add value to the exchange and be advertised!

I think the team is very open to community discussion, and remember that they are also incentived to take as much fees as users would pay for, cuz they staked their NEX.

7 Likes

I will remind you of this.

2 Likes

I think it’s a perfectly reasonable decision, and while it could have been made from day one I don’t see it as lack of clarity but a way to stay competitive. This new fee schedule is a great way to attract big volumes and bootstrap adoption.

1 Like

And do you also get that binance, with their BNB security (100% illegal btw), which is giving a discount on fees, made a 100x. With NASH you can trade with 0% fees, just need to make an order that will make the spread a bit tighter, that’s it. So if you get a bit less of dividend than what you through, remember that the value of NEX can still be out of this world if successful.

1 Like

All this means it’s better to hold BTC than NEX. Even 1 billion is unreachable within a year.

1 Like

You seem frustrated about the changes, so I might try to cheer you up with a salty joke:

Imagine there would be somebody having a really huge amount of NEX, let’s just say about 2M token.
Then even with the worst case fees, your picture would look like this:


I guess this person could very well live with ‘mediocre’ dividends per NEX token :slight_smile:

edit: was meant as a direct reply to @kazanchev, not sure it worked. so , name added

in that case it will be only 25 of them

1 Like

I do not really understand why such a dislike of this change. This is an equation with many variables, and you are trying to judge by one part of it (“depreciation” of 1 nex in terms of the number of dividends).
But if the increase in volume from this decision will be proportionally higher than the lost “value” in the amount of dividends for this very unit of volume, then this is a brilliant solution. Not to mention other variables, such as brand growth, brand recognition from user growth and volume (albeit not so valuable per unit of nex), and heaps of little things that grow like a snowball in one huge plus. And all this rests only on the fact that this decision really brings more volume and big guys … Although even if it does not, then there would be no dividends with both fees structures…
Win win situation in all cases
And why you wanted to hold NEX yesterday, and dont want to do it now - kinda question

6 Likes

Good decision, good team, look forward to introduction of more MM and liquidity so we can all trade more and more on the exchange. We are in our baby stage…can’t wait to grow over the next few years!

Let’s wait and see how many optimists will be here in a year. It’s 01/07/2020 and the volume is $18K. Switcheo has $237K, Kyber Netwotk - $4 million.

1 Like

I am supportive of this fee structure. This is not meant to make everyone happy, but we should learn how to disagree. It’s not really appropriate to accuse the team that they are playing purely for their own interests. That’s baseless and unrespectful. There is no such 100% agreement on such decisions. Everyone of us has their own experience, background, and motives. I think the vast majority of community is supporting this move.

3 Likes