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.
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 . 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!
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.
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.
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
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…
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.
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.
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!
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.
My primary criticism over the last two / three years has been the lack of commercial focus by the team (personal opinion - outside looking in). I guess that comes with the territory when you have PhDs in your leadership group - a good thing btw. Obviously the excellent R&D completed by the team to date has given Nash an edge over all other exchanges.
With this announcement I am encouraged that the team is thinking commercially.
We must transition to a high speed low drag battle rhythm of profit, innovation and timely delivery going forward, and in that order. Nash cannot remain an R&D project forever.
I am looking fwd to more hustle, timely delivery, volume, media engagement, mpc, nash cash, nash pay, nash protocol, nash collateral / hybrids / synthetics / leverage / margin and most importantly an ROI.
Happy to see steps are being taken to address Nash’s B2B position. As others have said, I think B2B needs to be firmly established before B2C can occur en force. I still wonder at how Nash will be able to attract users away from the conventional exchange model that exists now. Ferraris as trading prizes, “100k in USDT prizes” for top traders, etc. This seems to be all people care about without much mind to the security and privacy of the exchange itself.
This fee change is hopefully the first step of many that will begin the process of changing people’s mentality around exchanges. To those complaining about losing revenue, I’ll say this:
When Neon Exchange first launched their whitepaper, there were 100s of other projects doing the same. I would say 80-90% of those projects are now either nonexistent (exit scammed or zero development) or are struggling to make any meaningful progress. On the other hand, Nash is breaking new ground slowly but surely. If your kneejerk reaction is to sell NEX because of this fee change, I think you’re missing the big picture. There are times when selling a company should be heavily considered. If a company’s mission and core value is broken by a change, that is when selling should be considered. For example, if one day Nash made a statement announcing the non-custodial angle isn’t feasible and they’ll be moving towards a full CEX model, the original core mission of Nash has been broken and its value proposition is no longer attractive. That is an example of when you should consider selling.
This? Changing fees to attract whale players? That’s not mission breaking. It enables the mission.
We can match their fees once we’ve gained marketshare. But if undercutting to attract traders is a viable option for growth then why not do it? It’s not like the previous fee structure was doing anything for dividends or to attract traders since Nash launched.
This statement is in no way useful or constructive.
Volume has been > 0 for months now.
I have my doubts about high fees being the issue for smaller players, offering discounts for larger players is a valid strategy though. Hopefully the strategy is to increase fees over time as we gain market share.
. 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!
