Regardless of the ‘What If’s’; As an investment, the RR of NEX has weakened now. I have reduced my holdings / exposure as a result. This team were far too cocky heading into this venture. As NEX is a security, ICO investors should be refunded a portion of their capital as now NEX is not as valuable as it used to be.
3 Likes
That’s a nonsense statement. It’s definitely not the same. With the new fee structure, you potentially attract very high volume traders and in turn more average volume traders.
With suddenly more NEX you wouldnt have this increase in volume.
It means I have to atleast double my NEX holding.
2 Likes
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…
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!
3 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 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
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
edit: was meant as a direct reply to @kazanchev, not sure it worked. so , name added
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!
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
@kazanchev we already understood you are unhappy, please stop spamming the tread, you are over 20% of the entries in the topic.
8 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