Love seeing this kind of “what if” number crunching…sometimes tech advancements surprise us …here’s an early Apple Mac with a “whopping” 128K RAM !) 
=>
3 Likes
One of the reasons for focusing solely on the market cap / Bitcoin price is because it’s something that is easy to draw data from and compare Nash to other projects in the same space.
Margin trading will require licences so until those are acquired it’s not worth speculating on, although if you wanted to you could take a look at Bitmex’s reported volume and draw your own conclusions from there.
In terms of user adoption the bare minimum will be good UI/UX to draw users away from existing platforms and make on-boarding new users easy. However like you’ve stated the most important factor is liquidity, it’ll be really difficult to draw people away from existing platforms without significant depth to the order-books (here’s my take on how we go about addressing that). The users to get liquidity and liquidity to get users is the same chicken and egg problem that the rest of the exchanges are facing and in my opinion the reason for all the wash-trading and fake volume that’s going on.
This leaves us with potential markets that drive transactions through the matching engine the largest of which is payments/merchant adoption, the biggest player in this space is Visa.
So just for fun…
Visa processes ~$500 billion a month in debit based transactions. With the exception of Nexo, DAI and a few others we don’t really have credit yet in the crypto space yet so you can only really compare against Visa’s debit based transactions.
So if we were to capture the same market share as visa the max possible would be $500 billion a month however to receive dividends all of the transactions would have to go through the matching engine implying that customers never have the desired currency of the merchant. Since that’s unrealistic we could assume that 10% of transactions require conversion via the matching engine which would lead to an increase in transaction volume of $50 billion per month. This is still too optimistic since to take all of visa’s market share we’d need to see some crazy adoption and some serious issues with visa. So lets assume we can acquire 10% of visa’s market, that’d give a $5 billion dollar boost to monthly volume based on the same assumption that 10% of transactions require conversion via the matching engine. Which is still overly optimistic in my opinion and a little less than what’s possible just by taking market share away from the other exchanges.
Another interesting one to think about is Amazon, they did $232 billion in sales last year so approx $20 billion a month. Suppose all of the merchants on amazon wanted to use Nash to receive payments and 10% of transactions were required to go through the matching engine that’d give us an extra ~$2 billion in monthly volume. Again this is overly optimistic but you can see the potential that’s there in the e-commerce payments space.
1 Like
Amazing insight, so true, nothing left to say.
Great analysis, It all pivots on adoption.
Lets hope NASH can bring a wonderful UX, which rivals that of VISA et al, and can present a compelling reason to switch from a very well entrenched incumbent. Fees for merchants will be key.
1 Like
For a more in depth look at the beneficial effects of Staking checkout @RDB1983’s post
The Nash Effect, Get on Board!
1 Like
More on payments and the potential benefit to the platform in this post
1 Like
I let myself daydream a little and imagined what could be if a bull-run funneled into Nash. On January 4th, 2017, Binance had a 24hr trade volume of $10B.
It’s not the prettiest set of assets, but total marketcap (MC) was at $750B, and the projections for $T MC were pouring in. We all know what happened next, but it’s important to note that marketcap does play a sizeable roll in what levels of volume can be reached. Nobody could have predicted Binance handling that level of volume 6 months after launch.
I think $1.5T overall MC is achievable in the next few years as platforms mature and effectively fulfill their whitepaper visions. When it comes, it makes me wonder if we’re underestimating speculated returns.
3 Likes
I agree that 1.5T is definitely possible, just to re-iterate how I’d use the spreadsheet.
Assuming a 1.5T market cap;
- BTC would be at ~$50k (achievable by sometime during 2022 in my opinion)
- BTC’s market cap would be ~$800B (similar to Amazon’s & ~11% of Gold’s MC)
- A 1% market share in global monthly volume would equate to ~$23B (~1% of NASDAQ’s volume)
This would result in monthly dividends of ~$0.6 per token and a token price of $75-$150
When cherry picking the best numbers you can find like Binance’s one $10B day which if even possible/sustainable would result in $300B monthly volume, I like to calculate what would happen if Nash was only able to achieve 10% of that i.e. $20-30B in monthly volume.
Note: As mentioned above the entire spreadsheet is based on the premise that volume scales linearly with the total market cap and BTC market dominance remains at 50% which may not prove to be accurate.
1 Like
For more on fake/legitimate volume checkout the report mentioned in @D_Raky’s post Setting up rational volume expectations One thing worth noting is that the report only takes into account BTC volume as well as stable-coins i.e. all of the alt-coin volume is left out. The reason for omitting alt-coin volume is because the report was written with the aim of having a BTC ETF approved, therefore alt-coin trading volume is irrelevant in the context of their report.
1 Like
Have you aver taken in consideration the money that are going to be printed in the upcoming years and injected in the economy? 
Yes that’s why the latest spreadsheet goes all the way to a $1 quadrillion marketcap for Bitcoin. PlanB’s S2FX has Bitcoin over $90m after the 2028 halving, if that eventuality comes to bear it’ll be because the $USD has been hyperinflated to infinity more than Bitcoin becoming the global reserve currency and actually being worth that much (global wealth is only $360 trillion). The notional value of Global derivatives is ~$540 trillion (Gross market value is only $11.7 trillion) so there isn’t really anything that justifies a market of that size other than hyperinflation. Realistically Bitcoin is probably only worth 2-3x Gold in a world where fiat is dead ($20-$30 trillion marketcap or $1-2 million per BTC in today’s dollars).
1 Like
Just be sure to set reasonable targets for your complete portfolio and try to get your investment back. Keep te rest and set a few higher targets.
Write this on paper and stick to it.
I am already cashing out some of my crypto because you never know what the future brings. As for my NEX tokens, I will keep them and stake them each month over and over again.
I don’t pay much attention to these sheets. We will see how it goes.
The naive should start getting educated…
1 Like
Options are on the road-map
Part of Nash’s future vision is to be the worlds only (non)bank.
Maybe it’s possible that Nash is the platform at the centre of trade between everything that gets tokenised.
Nash’s mission is to empower more than one billion users to invest in, trade and manage digital assets by 2030. We aim to be the premier platform for decentralized financial tools and services.
The question isn’t where Nash is today (no Link-Bitcoin market), it’s where will Nash be at the end of the year or decade.
1 Like
No but Nash does have the first-mover advantage (first non-custodial + regulatory compliant platform with an off-chain matching engine that offers cross-chain trading using 2nd layer state channels)
I’ve simply outlined the possibility and some possible causes…
… if the naive can’t think for themselves that’s on them.
The body of the post also states
Not sure what more I could say to get them to think for themselves…
2 Likes
The four main outcomes are probably;
- Being wrong: maybe Nash fails like the other 99% of start-ups, if a user has failed to manage their risk through lack of diversification or seeking alternative investments then they may fail along with Nash.
- Being early: if a user can afford to be early this isn’t really an issue unless they’re worried about opportunity cost, however if they can’t afford to be early then the outcome is the same as being wrong.
- Being late: if a user has significant capital they may be able to afford being late however for the average person they’re probably better off not running the risk of being late.
- Being right: if a user has sized their portfolio allocation to NEX correctly they’ll most likely achieve at least a minimal level of financial freedom
So far it appears I’m in the early category, had I held Bitcoin instead of NEX over the last 2yrs I could afford 6x the amount of NEX I currently own, however I didn’t want to take the risk of GA going live (significant adoption / trading volume) and not owning NEX within an efficient tax structure before that happens. Fortunately I can afford to be early and wrong so it’s a non-issue. It’s for each user to determine their own risk profile, I’m just shedding some light on the landscape and future possibilities.
Believing something isn’t possible that is, is a risk in an of itself, I’d rather fail than die having missed opportunities.
(The probability of Nash’s success/failure is within my own risk tolerance, I can’t speak for the naive but if they’re to succeed they’ll need to develop their own understanding of their personal risk tolerance level.)
5 Likes
Probably what you are referring here is to almost everything today, doesn’t matter if it is a startup.
The world is so unstable that BIGGEST MONEY TRANSFER in history is not going to happen without pain.
Why should someone be bothered about how other people perceive their words?
If it’s true for myself and I express myself, does it mean that I have to worry for everyone reading what I say?
Why not to just let people see it as a point of view, getting their big boy pants, and start making decisions for themselves.
Nash will be a success, and nothing less then that. And when I make any statements, this means that it is my opinion, nobody is forced to take it 
All the speculation and hope in the project is a personal thing, and if people agreed with you it’s really everyone’s own choice. Every market comes with risks. Nothing guarantees that we will wake up in the morning. So let’s have fun and dream big.
NOTHING IN LIFE is worth while unless you take risks.
THERE IS NO PASSION to be found playing small, and settling for a life that is less then EXTRAORDINARY
Nash is my passion at the moment and if it means that there is risk involved, I will pay that price, in exchange of having the chance to be a part of a company that is striving to change the world 
Thank you
1 Like
In the same boat 
2 Likes
If everyone will think in terms of reasons, companies like Nash would not exist. Is not reasonable to fight against big boys, in order to give opportunities to everyone 
. Dreamers are those like Elon Musk, Nash and so many more.
Please refrain from discouraging words. I am fed up from Twitter, hearing from uninformed people that Nash is a bad quality project.
Just let us support each other and enjoy the ride ( what is true, only time will show)
1 Like