I like that idea Oldsport!
Especially as the second question really had me stumped!
Thanks for continuing to be transparent and open with the community guys!
If by monthly volume you mean all Nash volume combined, so these numbers are the same for me, if all the brokers and fintech that will be built on nash canāt do more than 100m. So any number will not change something big.
But Iām sure you are talking about volume generated by one business account. In this case they have to bring more than 100m if they want to reduce the fees. A 3 million daily volume is nothing for brokers already in business and wanting to use the non custodial services that you guys will offer.
If itās a fintech (startup) this is another story.
This question is a bit more than a question in my opinion, but I have to say that if nash could bring few brokers(like etoro) then the 100m is nothing compared to the general volume on etoro. Then a reduction in the fees for that type of broker is a must.
3 Likes
Hi Fabio - thank you for engaging the community on this.
My take on question 2 is: we are all well aware the first couple of years trading for any new business is the most critical.
Iām of the opinion that you must be super aggressive in winning new business; even at the sacrifice of potential dividends for token-holders. If this means undercutting the competition or providing a more attractive fee structure, Iām all for it.
Business first needs to come through the door. Once the have won the business, the next step is retention. But we need to achieve the former before we have a chance at the latter.
With regards to when we introduce a new lower fee level, if there is capacity in the team to implement a few level on a case-by-case basis to win the business in the first instance, that would be my approach. Yes this could mean different businesses have different fee structures at the beginning, but that could be reviewed after that initial introductory period, however long that is.
Cheers.
2 Likes
I refuse to answer these questions because the multiple choice answers are A) phrased in a highly manipulative way and B) there are missing options which questions the integrety of the outcome.
Question 1:
-
what if I dislike your suggestion but would be open to changes in general? Just because someone is against a %-based fee structure doesnāt mean he is against āanyā possible change in the fee table
-
āPositve, Nash should do what is best if investors are taken into considerationā - This already includes your personal opinion. A simple "Positiveā would have done the job. No one in their right mind would vote against the last part of your sentence. What if someone feels that this is bad for his investment, where is his 'āNegative, Nash should do what is best if investors are taken into considerationā option?
-
What was the reason for making the voting public? Itās unnecessary and could possibly change the voting behavior
-
With very limited answers, there should be a neutral / other option
Question 2:
- If your are only āconsideringā new fee levels, why is there no āno new fee levelā-option?
- missing āOtherā-option
(Accidently clicked on a vote (Q1) while trying to copy - canāt undo my voteā¦)
1 Like
Iām strongly in favor of fees being based on fixed levels instead of percentage of total trading volume on the platform.
.
On the thresholds I donāt really know. What is the fee of the new fee level you have in mind at the thresholds we can choose from? What volume in fixed numbers do you need to reach the current fee levels?
1 Like
The reason Iām strongly in favor of fee levels being based on fixed numbers, is because it is much easier for high volume traders to anticipate how much fees theyāll be paying.
When itās based on % of total trading volume, it is practically impossible to estimate what amount of fees you will be paying. Since you also have to estimate how much volume others will be doing. For that reason, the current fees based on % of total volume donāt make a lot of sense in my opinion.
2 Likes
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 itās 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).
Whatever is good for the business must be done. we are with you in every such decision which will help to grow the business.
3 Likes
-
Giving anyone Nex is shortsightedā¦ (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 āguaranteeā 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.
3 Likes
Notice how Coinbase doesnāt 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 weāll 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 feesā¦?
I donāt mind the idea of offering a low introductory rate though sine we need to crank the flywheel in the beginning just like Binanceā¦
5 Likes
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
3 Likes
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. Youād 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, iād 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 addā¦ 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. Letās 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.
I think a good move would be to:
- 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, Iām 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 donāt think there is a one winning fee strategy, but there are rather winning strategies. Whatās 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.
3 Likes
I assume that the primary concern of ābig playersā are fees / a clear fee structure - therefore I fully support this move by the NASH team. Considering that NASH does not have a āfirst moverā 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 ānon-custodialā solution built by NASH will be enough to attract this kind of volume (donāt 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 (āonly exchange with true non-custodial BTC trading AND best ratesā).
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 hope I didnāt offend anyone - have a nice day!
2 Likes
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 wouldnāt 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 ātakingā. this way fees are collected in the prefered token of the market and not the one being dumped.
1 Like
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 1066ā¬ you donāt have to pay taxes. The difference to the next level (1516ā¬ - 1066ā¬ = 450ā¬) are taxed by 25%. It is followed by the next difference (2600ā¬ - 1516ā¬ = 1084ā¬) which is taxed by 35% and so on. (shown in the table below)
Monthly income:
| income[ā¬] | taxes[%] |
|---|---|
| ā¬ 1.066,00 | 0 % |
| ā¬ 1.516,00 | 25 % |
| ā¬ 2.599,33 | 35 % |
| ā¬ 5.016,00 | 42 % |
| ā¬ 7.516,00 | 48 % |
| ā¬ 83.349,33 | 50 % |
| >ā¬ 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 10.000ā¬. The next tier would for example be from 10.000ā¬ to 25.000ā¬. Here the fee would decrease to 0.2% for the difference of 15.000ā¬ and the decrease for fees would follow along form tier to tier. (Sample table with random values below)
| trading volume[ā¬] | fees[%] |
|---|---|
| ā¬ 10.000 | 0.25 % |
| ā¬ 25.000 | 0.2 % |
| ā¬ 40.000 | 0.15 % |
| ā¬ 75.000 | 0.125 % |
| ā¬ 125.000 | 0.1 % |
| >ā¬ 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.
2 Likes
I agree, fees should be calculated from both monthly volume and staked NEX.
1 Like