I support the idea of adapting the fee based structure to be competitive with other exchanges (even if the return is lower for investors/stakers) and I am an early investor, now it’s completely understandable that stakers and investors want to maximize on their return. However while not being overly greedy Nash imo should seek the best balance between fair and competitive with other exchanges. A majority of people will trade on a platform purely based on usability, fee structure and ease of use.
So if fees are detrimental to volume then something obviously needs to change here, volume on the exchange will bring more users, thus investors will benefit from the added volume at a lower based fee.
As a side note I would recommend that Nash considers introducing a waiver to new users entering the exchange to attract users to actually sign-up and use the service. Something along the lines of providing new users with their first 5 trades completely free, or their first month of trading completely fee-less, this would need to accommodated with the right balance of coins available on the exchange along with a stable structure - so something like this should only be implemented when the team at Nash feels confident with their product to receive an on-onslaught of new users entering their ecosystem along with the readiness to market on multiple platforms (eg. Google, Facebook, Twitter etc).
Giving anyone Nex is shortsighted… (Nex is limited in supply vs there will always be other fintech companies to woo). In fact I think the team giving or even selling any nex at current prices is a complete waste). Nex tokens that the team has they should keep for future equity raises including an IPO when our valuation is sky high.
Those in the B2B space looking to partner today are special. They have found a diamond in the rough and they are willing to pounce and they want a sweetener. Id give it to them. Perhaps consider scaling into the discount as the deliver on volume or scale out ie renegotiate discount in x years.
I would look at the discount given like a marketing expenditure lol. From that perspective I would verify what volume levels they can “guarantee” or speak somewhat firmly about and give them the discount today (again with a scale in or scale out approach). If we want to get to IPO levels we need volume lots and lots of volume.
We need a catalyst to get us going. And we need it badly. I think this b2b option could be it.
Notice how Coinbase doesn’t even offer a discount for anything less than $500m.
The challenge here is we want to start getting traction/adoption which leads to votes for $50m (second largest number) however as token holders our interest is to gain the maximum possible from fees, so the difference between $50m and $100m is arbitrary you could ask $1b, $2b, $4b or $5b and users wold probably pick $4b as they understand the need to gain market share but want to gain more by larger fees.
As mentioned in my previous post we’ll have some form of regulatory capture when MPC is applied to wallet management making us the only option for existing institutions (with the exception of Coinbase Custody, Fidelity & Bakkt???) so maybe we can ask a higher price for fees…?
I don’t mind the idea of offering a low introductory rate though sine we need to crank the flywheel in the beginning just like Binance…
I am not answering both questions. Dont have insights and information and even than I think the team should make best decisions for the business and for its investors / token holders.
Team has proven robust and with integrity I belive they know best
I dont even care about nex so much here, as the primary point is to make nash attractive for people to use. When people trade, we get volume and nex dividends.
Now i want to say i voted for nash doing what they think what is best, but that IS for the future. Currently there is maybe 1 person that trades above 10 million per month and thats it. If we take away his cheap fees because he is the only whale on nash, he might move elsewhere. Nash is simply attractive for the big boys right now, And that should attract users. Then those users start to compete after a while by wanting to get the lowest fees and we would profit from that volume.
If we make it a fixed percentage, then we also remove that current attractive point about nash. You’d immediately tell whales they cannot profit anymore from being the only high volume traders on nash.
So i do like the idea of fixed points for when fees should become cheaper (and i think 10 million is already quite steep for that) but not for the moment. For nash being new, i’d really not like to see this change any time soon. And if it is implemented i think 10 million is too high.
It could also simply be in brackets. 5 million gives a bit discount, then 10, then 25 etc.
If I may add… I think that adding maker fees should be good for the future as well. Its currently zero fees because yeah- we need some market making. But if liquidity providers do their job in the future, we could also ask some fees for that in my opinion. Let’s say half of 1/3 of the taker fee.
Hope my 2 cents on this helps
Edit: ofcource everything is relative. Current high volume traders on nash are nothing compared to the coinbase traders for example. The point is that nash is new, and it might not be a good idea to lower fees after so much volume when no one traders that volume on nash.
offer highly competitive trading fees (get close to matching the cheapest competitor).
offer an additional discount (a further fee reduction of up to 50%) for the first 3-6 months following KYC verification.
Whether that discount should apply only to businesses or to all new users, I’m not sure, but something similar to that makes the most sense to me. You know you have the superior product, and this is about incentivizing people who are umming and ahing about giving it a try. Fees after the signup discount period expires are still highly competitive.
I think this would be good for a referal program, to temporarily get reduced fees, or get half of the referred user fees instead of it going to nex holders, but a x amount of months
Happy to see how agile Nash team is. I don’t think there is a one winning fee strategy, but there are rather winning strategies. What’s important is to be evaluating the market constantly and be ready to react quickly. From my side, I trust Nash team in what they decide to do. Competent team will always come up with winning solutions. Changing from % to fixed amounts is very necessary regardless of the cutoff limits.
I assume that the primary concern of “big players” are fees / a clear fee structure - therefore I fully support this move by the NASH team. Considering that NASH does not have a “first mover” advantage (besides being non custodial) and many trading pairs i think that it is of utmost importance to offer absolutely competitive fees (e.g. even lower than BINANCE).
Lets be honest - volume & adoption is everything and right now we are missing both.
I do not think that the “non-custodial” solution built by NASH will be enough to attract this kind of volume (don’t get me wrong - I am absolutely a fan of NASH) but combine highly competitive rates AND the non-custodial solution and it may be a game changer.
I would also change the marketing efforts so that they reflect this strategy (“only exchange with true non-custodial BTC trading AND best rates”).
I do not care too much how this will affect the dividends. Right now they are basically ZERO - better to have a smaller share of a MUCH bigger cake.
I found fee % depending on exchange volume very unattractive nor practical.
by introducing maker fee like @kazanchev suggested; then it doesnt matter if the big traders will pay less fee because on the other side of this deal is a small volume trader that pays the full fee or another large volume trader then its a trade that wouldn’t have happened if you dont offer low fees.
but this model has its own challenges although much easier to deral with.
Adjusting the trade to the amount the taker wants (x amount of the token to buy or buy tokens for x amount).
Fees from taker and maker should be collected from what the taker is “taking”. this way fees are collected in the prefered token of the market and not the one being dumped.
I think it is important to have an easy to understand fee structure. From my perspective, I like to compare it with the tax structure for the monthly earnings from my home country Austria.
There are several tiers. For the first 1066€ you don’t have to pay taxes. The difference to the next level (1516€ - 1066€ = 450€) are taxed by 25%. It is followed by the next difference (2600€ - 1516€ = 1084€) which is taxed by 35% and so on. (shown in the table below)
Monthly income:
income[€]
taxes[%]
€ 1.066,00
0 %
€ 1.516,00
25 %
€ 2.599,33
35 %
€ 5.016,00
42 %
€ 7.516,00
48 %
€ 83.349,33
50 %
>€ 83.349,33
55 %
Wrapping this system over to nash fees would mean that every trader has to pay the fee of 0.25% for their first traded 10.000€. The next tier would for example be from 10.000€ to 25.000€. Here the fee would decrease to 0.2% for the difference of 15.000€ and the decrease for fees would follow along form tier to tier. (Sample table with random values below)
trading volume[€]
fees[%]
€ 10.000
0.25 %
€ 25.000
0.2 %
€ 40.000
0.15 %
€ 75.000
0.125 %
€ 125.000
0.1 %
>€ 125.000
0.075 %
The counted volume will reset with the 1st of every month.
Maybe adding an extra of decreasing the fee in relation to the staked nex token as @Oldsport and @kazanchev have suggested and nash would have a solid fee structure from my perspective.
While staking nex could reduce trading fees as a new tokenomic function, it would therefore also give less dividends for nex holders.
I think it would be good if nex gives a trading discount as well, but it would make it complicated to advertise or promote this. And it shouldnt then be much.
I think its best if nex sticks to dividends only and add a maker fee. As kazan said, 0.1% maker fee is easy to market and promote and is almost nothing, yet adds big time to nash as a company and to the dividends.
I personally do not agree with the holding of Nex for a reduced fee. It would simply add another barrier to entry, make it to similar to other exchanges and the most important reason in my eyes.
It would directly contradict the initial goal of Nash when the Nex token was offered (1000 per person) with the goal of actually decentralizing profits.
Lower fees for staking would make a few large B2B users suck up Nex tokens, which while inflating the price, would have negative long term impacts.
Making it financially impractical for smaller players or normal investers to stake (for lower fees in the case of B2B, or for a chance to get a piece of the profits for average investors).
I think the fee structure should not depend on whether you stake NEX or not.
Why - two reasons:
If the team does so, then NASH is identical to many other exchanges (except the non custodial solution). “Stake our coin and enjoy reduced fees”. Why not build up a new “unique selling point” for NASH which does not need staked NEX => “Competitive fees, non custodial/secure, no staked NEX needed”.
NEX is a security token with quite small / not very liquid markets on DEXes. I am not an expert regarding compliance but organisations / professional market makers migh not even be allowed to buy such securities or the limited markets of NEX might pose an “entry barrier” which scares off some of these organisations.
Why not keep it simple - reduce the fees to a level which is competitive to the main rivals, highlight the fact that you do not even need to stake NEX to enjoy these rates (on the contrary to BNB etc.) and be sure that you funds are REALLY SAFU (non-custodial).
Thank you all for your opinions and comments, the main idea here was to listen so I will not reply further. Rest assured this was helpful to better serve the business and community.
21 Likes
canesin
(FCC)
removed this banner . It will no longer appear at the top of every page.
#47
