As a hardware-wallet user I’ve recently been using Kyber-Swap for day-to-day token swaps USDC-ETH etc… Assuming the computer/browser I’m using has been compromised I still think it’s safer and easier to use a hardware-wallet than Nash. That being said I’d prefer these trades go through Nash’s matching-engine than Idex or whoever’s providing the liquidity on Kyber.
Currently on KyberSwap you can complete an entire trade just by signing one transaction on your hardware wallet.
It’s much less convenient to;
Deposit to Nash
Deposit to Trading Contract
Make a trade
Withdraw from Trading Contact
Withdraw to Hardware wallet and spend
For an ETH to Erc20 trade the same thing can be achieved on Nash i.e. One signature to deposit, open channel, execute trade, close channels/withdraw. Correct me if I’m wrong but it should be possible to do this cross-chain with just 2-3 signatures.
Having a convenient + safe interface whereby a user can execute a swap without the need to login has been useful and is worth consideration from the team.
Looks like a complex feature to implement for $1k per user per day. Moreover, the end vision is to use Nash as your Funds manager (remember that an MPC security upgrade is planned at some point), so you can scratch steps 1 and 5. If you’re a frequent trader, it’s also safe to leave it in your trading contract, so you can scratch steps 2 and 4. Not sure what more you want
TLDR; if the complexity is low enough for the team to implement quickly (it is for same chain swaps), there’s definitely a market for this feature and anything that’ll bring volume is a bonus at this point.
Can’t scratch 1 and 5 because the computer I’m using is (theoretically) compromised so I don’t trust the account/wallet creation process (also takes too long, I just want to swap my tokens using the wallet I already have). The concept of funds manager is fine for the future with the assumption being that I’m working from a non-compromised machine but for now I just want to swap some tokens for daily use and transfer directly to a third party to spend (crypto.com, tenx or whatever). This use case isn’t designed for the frequent trader so 2 and 4 remain relevant but it will add some volume which encourages frequent traders to use the platform so there’s that.
The complexity is relatively low for single signature transactions (same chain swap ETH-ERC20, NEO-NEP5 etc…), for cross-chain swaps the complexity is not insignificant and the team would need to decide on the bang for buck in terms of putting this ahead of developing other features.
Kyber is crushing the Dex/non-custodial competition at this point and I believe part of it is to do with the simplicity of their one signature swap interface and the fact that you can use most third party wallets hardware or otherwise to interact with the platform. It’s not quite 1 click sign transaction and you’re done but it is close and definitely way easier than having to go through the whole account creation deposit, open-channel, withdraw process that you’re currently required to do with Nash.
I think the cost-benefit checks out but I don’t have insight into the upcoming developments for Nash so not sure where this kind of thing would fit in relative to other features waiting to be developed. Also $1000 bucks a user per day would be 9 users based on today’s volume, so if 9 people maxed out their daily quota with this feature that’d double our current volume…
I’m pretty sure the end vision is also to allow you to spend your tokens directly from your wallet (through Nash Pay - customer side).
In the meantime that’s not available and you make a good case, but I have no idea about the complexity of what you’re asking. All I know is it feels a bit aside from what Nash is trying to accomplish and development time is precious.
In this hypothetical, if the computer you are using is compromised, even the transactions being sent to your HSM for signing could be compromised (ie altered). Your HSM can’t tell the difference between a legitimate and a fraudulent transaction.
HSMs do a good job of securing private keys but do nothing to protect against fraudulent usage of those keys, whereas threshold signatures using MPC do.
The ability to verify a transaction on the screen of a hardware device mitigates most of the possible attack vectors. Threshold signatures using MPC is definitely an awesome piece of tech and Nash has built a great interface for using them. This particular use case is more about the convince and comfort of a single click secure signature from a hardware wallet to complete an entire swap without the need to login and perform multiple transfers.
Yes absolutely. I just wanted to highlight 1 of a number of issues with HSMs. It would be reasonable to expect a fair amount of external nitpicking/criticism once Nash is a little more mainstream and starts taking market share away from some of these services. The collective knowledge we have as a community will help with any future rebuttals we may have to make.
