Our new 2020 fee schedule

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

That’s just your opinion. And here’s a fact for you: the vast majority of the community don’t even trade here.

1 Like

@kazanchev we already understood you are unhappy, please stop spamming the tread, you are over 20% of the entries in the topic.

7 Likes

Well, not yesterday, but that’s kind of easy to answer. The value/potential was always measured based on the things that the team said / expected / hyped etc. So based on what the ‘community’ was talking in this forum in the past, you can very well assume that the personal token valuation and dividend expectations were based on statements like the volume expectations + the ‘hard’ facts of the fee structure. Now as the latter is changed, you would need the volume expectations increase accordingly in order to get the same value out of your token and for the token. (Well, if the team says, that -with the new fee structure- ,we should calculate with 2-3 times of what publicaly stated to be expected, well that it’s fine. But i doubt that.). If these volume goals stay the same and IF we reach them, you will have less dividends than before - thus the token value would decrease. (btw, i dont know if we already missed these goals as there was no reply to a question about this topic yet.
Of course, fee reduction is a suitable way to attract users and therefore volume and that’s a good thing. But there is always a danger. Your gods are humans too. And (I really didnt want to explain my previous joke before) as the team members hold a very large amount of tokens they can have a very nice income even if the dividends per token would be not that good and the NEX token value would further decrease. It’s a difference if you paid a fix USD amount for your NEX (1$). And no, I dont presume that the Team is thinking this way. Just dont want to be naive.
Ofc, if one was already thinking that we were failing the goals with the old structure, then everything what brings volume is probably good in order to not be a dead exchange.

Personally I neither think it’s very bad nor do I think it’s good. I just see some dangers and it doesnt look that rewarding as before for me. Edit: Plus i didnt like the way it was introduced with this ‘poll’
Kind regards,J

3 Likes

I will ask the same thing from you @JustUS, same way people respected your views you shouldn’t be downplaying others input.

The fee structure doesn’t necessarily change the NEX value downwards - is not because you are saying it that it is true. How much the token receives from dividends is dependent now on the volume profile of users, instead of relation to the exchange. So for example, currently dividends would be higher - not lower as the average fee has been lower than 0.25%.

There is very few players in the crypto industry that do >$1/2B in volume currently, so this is not a issue. Having one of them using us as a primary exchange would however have great impact on the majority of traders.

18 Likes

I support the change! Lets get some big fish on Nash, we had the current fee schedule since launch and I don’t see the small guys sending the volume up so let’s try something different. It only makes sense to highly reward big volume players as they will create the liquidity to attract the little guys. Makes sense! Also a reminder to people complaining, this isn’t all written in stone forever “2020” Fee Schedule :smirk:. Let’s focus on growth and getting more users, especially the big ones, we need people signing up and using Nash, we need them hooked! Also we’re still getting 75% of revenue, that has not changed!

3 Likes

I didn’t disrespect anyones views here and I am not sure where do you think I was ‘downplaying’ others input. I was just not the same opinion like some here. - But just in case sb felt ‘downplayed’ by me, that wasnt my intention.

For me this is a way of talking to ‘downplay’ someones input.
Even though I didnt say that the ‘fee structure […] necessarily change the NEX value downwards’, I might have made mistakes in my argumentation. But at least I wasnt moaning about sth I dont like and was trying to explain my argumentation in detail.

Anyway, this turned into a kind of discussion I dont appreciate, so I am out of here. Regards

While im not a fan for my own nex investment, this should attract traders and hopefully shift interest to nash soon. I’m still in for the global mission to make crypto as a whole non custodial. Crypto needs nash and this should help complete that mission.

1 Like

Yes because I literally can’t haha. Can’t wait for Nash to arrive in Canada!

I only have one question. Why the survey? You can leave something like that if it was already planned. I think it’s a mess what happens here …

Anyway, I now have the impression that everything that happens is only positive here in the community…

2 Likes

I’m really surprised. to see people complaining of the current fees structure. It goes further to show that a lot of people in crypto lives in a fantasy world. How on earth will you expect a new player is a vastly saturated space to enter the market with a fee model that is not competitive. Heavy traders are business people that leave their life off cryto trading. You expect them to just leave CEXs and move to Nash and then become less profitable? Who does that? The team has done excellently well and it is time to go all out marketing to attract traders. 10% of a full size elephant is bigger than 100% of a full size goat.

8 Likes

The survey was to feel what the community think about the change. Majority of people said they want the team to be as competitive as possible. So the survey was good

And you seriously believe if the community had been against it would that have changed anything?

Well that is an assumption and no one knows. The community is knowledgeable and reasonable. So many fully understand the importance of being competitive for a new business to gain adoption

There are way too many tiers, we’d be better off with fewer tiers, something like $1m $10m $50m $200m & $500m
$1m provides a good goal for the smaller traders to aspire to followed by $10m if they prove to be an effective player
$50m - $500m covers the medium - bigger players
Anything sub $1m is a waste…
That’s all we need, the rest are just arbitrary…

1 Like

I <3 the new fee structur. Great decision!

Selling is a marathon, not a 100m run. Now we are in every sense competitive. Its time to play our advantages and take the deserved marketshare. I wish you success.

1 Like

Been here since ICO, first time posting.
Why would the team change the fee structure if they didn’t believe it was the best thing for the company long term? They each stand to make large amounts of money if Nash is a success. There is so much speculation in this thread alone, I am happy to trust that the team (who are actually talking to these potential large clients) have made an informed decision with the best interests of the company in mind.

11 Likes

I support the new fee structure and also think it was a great decision by Nash!

This is an extremely competitive space! New exchanges are popping up often and quite a few with their own unique set of features including CEX’s, DEX’s and hybrid models…

In one hand we are joining the race a little late… not by much though, however, we need to put our very best foot forward coming out of MVP to attract the attention and volume every single NEX holder is craving!

I understand ‘some’ of the frustration that has been expressed by a few community members, however, I strongly believe that you have backed the right project and team!
Nash will be one of the leading fintech companies in the blockchain space in the coming decade!

Keep up the hard work guys!
I am very much looking forward to GA and Nash finally starting to advertise themselves more pushing with more energy for adoption and market share! :smiley: :heart:

The next 12 months will be an interesting time!

11 Likes

The amount of controversy around this issue is unsurprising, I’ve adjusted my model for future staking returns down by 50%, the previous valuation model I used for the NEX token needs to be adjusted significantly. Nash is probably exposed to legal risk in some sense as the whitepaper specified the fee structure and investors used that fee structure to evaluate the NEX token, measure the tokens possible future returns and establish a risk profile. The decision to change is likely to be correct however it doesn’t come without it’s own set of risks and drawbacks.

Also I don’t see the need to undercut Binance and Coinbase for the top tier traders $500m+
There’s no need for Nash to be cheaper, matching their fee’s/rate is more than enough.

Without volume, I’m sure your previous “model for future staking returns” said dividends are 0.

Lower fees will attract more traders and more traders will attract more traders, simple as that. Also bear in mind that, as the title says, this is the new 2020 fee schedule, so nothing indicates will stay like this indefinitely.

We should put this discussion to rest and look ahead.

11 Likes