I would be very happy to get $30 a month on 1k coins , if that is stable. Only 33 months to RIO , I would be over the moon.
Assuming that tokok volume is real, NEX tokens themselves are already causing 1 million in trading volume today. That’s a good start and close tot total poloniex volume. Hopefully we’ll be able to trade NEX on very soon.
Has someone already investigated the volume of Tokok by the way? They do have a suspicious amount of trades trading 20-30 nex.
could be bots, but both exchanges and the public have bots so it’s hard to know. I feel like if it was fake volume the price would stay more constant than it has been, or even go down for awhile
Yeah it’s fake. Just check the order history. About 95% is in the buy/sell spread
but nash can’t list their own token
Anyway, switcheo is having $325k NEX volume after a single day of trading. Hopefully the trading license will be available within the next months.
Nope, not yet, maybe NEX will be listed by the officila launch.
Hopium somewhere in June
Thanks @D_Raky I think that the Bitwise presentation is something that everyone that is serious about their investment in Nash should read. But just reminder that all the points @hypotheticalidentity have raised are true:
- The report is only concerned with BTC (Bitcoin) volumes, excluding all alts including ETH.
- The report excluded an enormous amount of exchanges with the 1M daily “real” volume. Not all volume on the exchange that have lots of “fake” volume is indeed fake.
- Separating what is “real” and “fake” volume is not an exact science. It is based on analysis of the trading data and assumptions. But specially on smaller exchanges you can have a different market dynamics that would make it look “fake” but it is not, for example it could be the preferred exchange for an OTC desk at that jurisdiction that executes large iceberg orders. That would change the trading pattern and attenuate market swings in relation to more liquid markets.
We try to communicate realistic volume goals for the exchange - our targets (that are very aggressive and we will be very pleased if we hit) are to be TOP100 on the first 3 months of operations of the exchange with general public access and TOP50 at the closing of 6 months.
Today those goals would be about ~3M and ~40M of aggregated total daily volume.
That is a really good and realistic goal, but with the price around $ 2,10 at the moment, we hit already the top75 on CMC.
Really really nice.
Nice and slow, up we go to the top 50 -> top 30 -> top 10 in 2020
The top 100 is based on trading volume. The NEX token is unique due to the high fee dividend to its owners. The price will be a result of the volume growth and probably be much higher in market cap ranking than in exchange volume ranking
Fabio means TOP100, TOP50 by trading volume, not by market cap.
I have a question about this statement which was well quoted in the past. I would like to know if you were referring to what is now called GA as the ‘starting point’ or did you actually have the exchange launch in mind? It’s hard to judge if we failed the initial expectations that hard OR if we are just dealing with initially wrong expectations based on expectations which features are published in this period OR is it just a wording issue. (I recently searched through the various older topics similar to this one and i never found the term general availibilty.)
What I am struggeling with is, that if we are referring to GA as starting point, I think it is very strange to have these more or less concrete goals for a specific time interval, but the starting point ‘GA’ itself is very vaguely formulated:
And yes, I am very well aware that whatever the answer is, it doesnt make a difference for valuing the current state of NASH, its potential or progress we see.
Kind regards, J
And to think Binance want to buy CMC, or atleast tried to
Didn’t they succeed?
They have succeeded in buying cmc…
That is how creating businesses work, it’s not a Nash invention. You need first to get to a match of market needs with the product before targeting growth. So the expectations of volumes I did above were realistic growth targets if there is fit, those expectations are KPIs for us to track if there is actually the market and our funnel strategy is working - so those still stand.
Discovering if the product has market fit is like playing sea battle - you go testing if the product is there. We did our best to explain how this works on the reports and introducing the actual business terminology MVP and GA, that I explained on the post you mentioned.
In all honesty like all startups we hoped the initial product was already in fit, it was not. People needed more in several ways and that is why we kept iterating on it, we have a view right now that people are fairly happy with the product with a few things missing - this itself can be shown to be false, and we might need to work harder and build things differently. Both product and market can change - we see products like NashCash and NashPay not only as pieces on a full platform, but also as possible attention pivots, if Nash has better traction on those we will focus more on them. But each thing at its time, let’s see if next iteration is what people love to use or not, either way we are everyday closer.
TLDR: Yes, those KPIs are still the ones we target to see in our growth trajectory.
Thanks for taking the time to answer this one!
Thanks for the detailed update. I cant wait for fiat ramps so i can finally stop using coinbase
Key thing for volume growth is implementing more trading pairs. I am 100% sure that if we have all CMC top50 tokens for trade, Nash daily volume would be 1 billion USD. I am patient to wait this to happen…
Heres a pivot . if they dont give us the damn licences … go rogue like the rest of the industry.
drop all KYC
these gatekeepers are now becoming a serious problem for us