Ethan recently explained (on Nash telegram) that new listings will not be entertained without first having liquidity providers. I agree with this approach since no one likes to see “dead pairs” on the exchange. However, I am wondering if the team is open to providing wallet support for coins/tokens that have passed the “$10K legal process” but are not yet ready to be listed. Many people (myself included) just want to have a safe all-in-one place to store their coins, and I can think of no better place than Nash’s MPC wallets. If Nash were to enable staking (e.g. ADA, ELA) of unlisted (but supported) tokens within MPC wallets, all the better. I believe that expanded wallet support would result in an influx of new hodlers, some of whom may also become new traders for currently listed Nash pairs.
Nash wallet already supports over 3000 coins.
That’s true but the vast majority of those are little-known ERC-20 tokens.
Those are mostly ERC20s. It’s nice to have, but most of them aren’t very interesting.
I find @ca1ab1yau’s proposal very interesting. In fact, I messaged the somewhat same message to a Nash team member a couple weeks ago:
I didn’t get a clear answer, but my take on this is the following:
because of Nash’s technical architecture, it would take a non-negligeable amount of development time to add chains (or dags) that aren’t BTC, ETH or NEO related. And the result might seem appealing, but the return on investment isn’t clear: users would love having all their tokens in the same non-custodial account (soon to be called “Wallet”), but would it greatly increase trading volume? They are called “hodlers” for a reason…
In short, great idea in the mid/long term. But too much of a bet in the short term. IMHO.
I am sure that Nash is actively working on adding additional chains. This is one of the most asked features and it would do wonders for the volume even with the current userbase.
Yeah I realize that it’s a lot of work for Nash to integrate a new chain and it’s a big ask to expect a project to pay $10K for legal fees to get “only” Nash wallet support without immediate listing. Not surprised that someone has asked about this before (also not surprised that it was @Oldsport )
Actually, I’m now guessing that wallet support alone does not require a legal evaluation since so many ERC-20 tokens are supported. I’m assuming that adding wallet support for BTC-related chains wouldn’t be a major undertaking so that might be a good place to start. That might provide some small consolation to the community while we await additional listings.