Setting up rational volume expectations

[fabibi]

Fabio means TOP100, TOP50 by trading volume, not by market cap.

[JustUS]

@canesin

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.

Hello,
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:

@canesin

You will see we are in GA when you notice a significant increase on marketing campaigns and deployment of liquidity capital, it will not be a single day thing - but a ramp up .

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

[Sir_Nash]

And to think Binance want to buy CMC, or atleast tried to

[Nickstar007]

Didn’t they succeed?

[Konijntje]

They have succeeded in buying cmc…

[canesin (FCC)]

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.

[JustUS]

Thanks for taking the time to answer this one!

[Sir_Nash]

Thanks for the detailed update. I cant wait for fiat ramps so i can finally stop using coinbase

[cicbar]

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…

[redk (red)]

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