Hi folks, two weekend questions for the community to learn about the perception of possible future changes around the fees table.
1: On market research and in interactions with partners (potential and current) one frequent critique is that while our fee structure is good, it is opaque - as the fees changes due to the relative trade of someone in relation to the volume of the exchange. Long story short, we are exploring changing the fees from being a % of the 30-day volume trade to be based on fixed numbers only related to oneself volume. Changing the fee table would affect running stakes. Important to note this change also has positive performance impact, as user fees can be computed in parallel and independently from the global volume, we could simplify the fee logic and add it to the same system that verify user Tier restrictions.
Q1) How do you feel about changing the fee from % to fixed values based on volumes?
Negative, I dislike any change in the fees table.
Positive, Nash should do what is best if investors are taken in consideration.
0voters
2: Nash has two sides, a costumer platform (B2C) and a business offering (B2B). On our B2B efforts we have been considered as an expensive platform - while Nash doesn’t seek to win by being cheaper - we are considering introducing new high volume levels to be competitive for B2B offerings such as brokers and other fintechs that might build on top of Nash platform. This usually is a non-issue for centralized exchanges, as they can do special deals with their clients, but Nash has a transparent fee policy due to the staking dividends.
Q2) After how much monthly volume should we introduce new lower fee levels?
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
0voters
Thanks!
8 Likes
canesin
(FCC)
made this a banner . It will appear at the top of every page until it is dismissed by the user.
#2
I am not sure whether we as NEX holders have enough information to answer the second question. When I thought about it, it felt like I have no clue, whether 100, 50 or 10 mil. volume is good number. We have no idea how much volume a B2B partners can make IMO. Ppl might be significantly influenced by the anchor bias in this case.
What kind of brokers and fintech are we looking at. It is something for future proofing or are we already in talk with some of them which can bring some serious volume?
I completely agree, as we do not know the B2B volume on average or what the competitive rate is, I trust in Nash’s judgement to make the right call for coinholders (which the founders are)
@Jammy, @D_Raky and @rahil the question is around ones individual perception. We are aware of potential numbers. If you want to see what lower levels could be visit competing exchanges and look at levels with low fees.
I would like to see competitive rates that will onboard and win over new B2B customers; trust the team’s judgment. Something worth evaluating is how much a non-custodial solution is worth to existing or prospective B2B customers? Otherwise, it becomes a battle of lowest fees.
Here’s an example from Coinbase Prime (Monthly volume on left - Taker Fee in middle column):
Our “individual perception” is we want Nash to generate as much dividends as possible, but with fees just low enough as to not dissuade institutions and co.
Whether the right threshold is at $10M or $100M, I must admit I have absolutely no idea.
Maybe adding a “I have no idea/No opinion” option would be nice. (I voted mechanically, cannot unvote now…)
P.S: Like everyone else is saying: we trust the team’s guidance, sorry if you expected guidance! Maybe those who consider they have valuable experience can step forward privately… or here.
I think, i would trust the teams judgement on that. The good thing is right from the start the incentives of founders & Nash team is completely aligned with the investors. With such a setup we cant go wrong!
There should be a response which could be: just bring us the most dividends
Also, I love the forum setup but I’m not sure in the long term we should be able to see who voted for what. Doesn’t encourage truthful voting / might end up with people being discouraged if they don’t want everyone to know how they think
Do you mean “only related to once-off voume” ?
Personally I think there is not really enough information here to cast a meaningful vote. Currently the poll is “do you trust us to make a good decision”?
If I am to answer I would need to have some indications of the number involved. How would this affect dividends for differing average volumes and volatile, fluctuating volumes?
I guess the poll is a good measure of sentiment but hopefully won’t be used as justification for a change. If user opinion is actually wanted in the decision, and not just wanted as a gauge of trust in the team, deeper explanation is necessary.
$50,000,000 should be the bare minimum, any less than that indicates that they’re not a big enough player to warrant worrying about. Having said that there’s not much difference between a third party that can generate 50 or 100 so maybe just make it 100.
i think our fee structure must be able to keep up with the competition. for large customers, this should be in line with the market (at least the same or better Coinbase Pro).
If I’m understanding #2 correctly, then I feel like somewhere between $20,000,000 and $35,000,000 would be a nice area to begin offering reduced trading fees (of 0.22-0.24% or something at that volume?).
Sounds like those are the types you’d really want to attract to the platform, and dividends taking a hit there to increase chances of Nash succeeding seems worthwhile to me. (e.g. if some other fintech group wanted to single-handedly generate 500 million monthly volume on Nash’s matching engine, I wouldn’t mind if their volume generated a monthly dividend as low as $1.875(0.025%) per 1000 NEX, instead of $18.75 (0.25%)
Based on that Coinbase Prime example, I’d say try to offer a more enticing price than all of the competitors. NEX investors will be far less disgruntled if you axe the trading fees now in a bid to get your foot in the door more easily, with the option of increasing fees later; as opposed to keeping them higher, seeing slower adoption due to high trading fees, and then possibly having to lower the fees later on anyway.
