The biggest complaints from people outside the community is KYC requirements, no-one seems to really care about custodial vs non-custodial if KYC is required. Why would anyone use Nash if they can just use https://renproject.io/ ?
If all the regular users migrate to Ren and FTX while the institutions stick with Bakkt and Fidelity does Nash still have an edge?
Nash’s guidelines are to stick to the regulations and make it a prestigious exchange, complying with legal regulations will save Nash a lot of headaches in the future. I invite you to find a way to make users join Nash for being a transparent DEX and aware that everything here is according to government regulations, and thus offer a high quality and trustworthy service. 
Nash was created with the Mission of bringing distributed finance to everyone, empowering the world to invest, trade and manage digital assets. Create good products, drive compliance so that finances are TRANSPARENT through decentralization.
We are all in the community to contribute to the growth of Nash, I invite you to read the Nash Compliance https://nash.io/company/compliance/
I understand the advantages of compliance (there’s an extremely low probability of institutions partnering with REN), the question I’m asking is if REN can compete with the speed and non-custodial aspects of Nash and can’t be shutdown or subpoenaed in the same way IDEX and Etherdelta were, why would the average user who doesn’t care about compliance and prefers not to deal with KYC requirements use Nash over REN?
I’m also trying to figure out if the technology behind REN can achieve the same level of performance as Nash’s state-channel based matching engine or if it’ll still have too much lag without the use of state-channels?
Thanks for the reply though.
I think you’re focusing too much on comparing Nash to other products. Nash is going to stand out based on its own merits. I have done zero research into REN. I’m focused on Nash and that’s my main concern at the moment.
People will be attracted to Nash based on its own merits and that includes its compliant, easy to use and non-custodial nature. KYC is not an issue in my opinion, as 99% of exchanges have some form of KYC. Nash only requires it if you trade above $1000, and that amount will be raised in the future. If you don’t want to have KYC, there are other options out there which most people will not seek or utilise.
Nash aims to grow its own userbase, not take away from the existing cryptocurrency userbase. The goal of 1 billion users by 2030 does not involve taking users from Coinbase and other platforms. It involves gaining new users everywhere, around the world, who will be attracted by its usability, its compliance, its staking for passive income, and its easy payment system, i.e. Nash Pay. Nash is somewhere to put your money and know its safe, to save safely, to pay safely, to stake and grow your investment portfolio in a safe and secure manner.
It is, moreover, based around the ethos of “Trust Yourselves”, and it is the only regulated, compliant exchange which really puts that ethos into action.
The point of asking was to see if anyone in the community has done some research and has thought about why Nash might be better than REN even though KYC is required, for example REN mentions wrapping BTC and maybe there are some serious drawbacks or technical trade-offs because of this.
KYC has been the main rebuttal from most of the crypto OG’s/idealists so its a relevant point of contention within the wider crypto community.
Nash needs to take some market share from the existing platforms if they’re to succeed, sure some of the first time retail normies that’ll come in after the halving will try Nash, but the bulk of the volume after the next peak will be generated by the same people who have carried on generating volume on exchanges and other platforms since the previous all time high in 2017 and the one before that. Suggesting that acquiring a billion users without taking market share from existing platforms comes across as naive, yes Nash will grow the crypto pie but that will most definitely involve existing users migrating over to Nash in addition to new users coming into the space.
bitcoinmarket.com -> mt.gox -> coinbase, bitfinex, bittrex -> binance -> Bitmex, FTX
Users will migrate as incentives change good or bad.
Nash has an advantage by seeking to be compliant with KYC AML laws from the start. If you’re in crypto and seek to “cash out” at all (which just about everyone seeks to do at some point), then you will probably need to go through KYC at some point to get money back into your actual bank account. Nash has said that their competition in their eyes is Coinbase and it makes more sense to worry about someone like that rather than cypherpunk wet dreams.
Fair enough, aside from being non-custodial does Nash have a significant edge over Coinbase?
I think revenue sharing + lower fees could be an edge over Coinbase, why trade on Coinbase and pay their high fees while getting nothing back when you can use Nash and get a little cash back for every trade that goes through the matching engine including future Nash Pay transactions? IMO however the benefits of being non-custodial cannot be understated. I’ve heard in the traditional finance realm all exchanges are non-custodial so when dealing with regulators Nash could be at a huge advantage over their competition by delivering cex performance + dex security and being noncustodial. It could be a game changer.
Non-custodial is definitely the biggest edge Nash has when it comes to traditional finance regulation, I’m just interest to try and see if there’s anything else Nash has when you take that aspect out of the equation.
I don’t think you should see it that closely. the crypto area is very very small. I don’t think that much will change. but what will change is the form of (hard) money and financial instruments (finally: post, taxi, hotels etc have already been changed by the internet) and with the form of money also the providers.
You should just be open that Nash is making enough crypto sales to be at the forefront of the new markets. But timing is everything, maybe they are too early.
(forex traiding only works 260 days a year. the new digital currencies (as just started in china) are also non-custodial 365 days a year.)
KYC has been the main rebuttal from most of the crypto OG’s/idealists so its a relevant point of contention within the wider crypto community.
They will never be satisfied. Nash’s focus is compliance.
Suggesting that acquiring a billion users without taking market share from existing platforms comes across as naive, yes Nash will grow the crypto pie but that will most definitely involve existing users migrating over to Nash in addition to new users coming into the space.
That’s your opinion. Nash Pay can be used by anyone, even people who aren’t interested in cryptocurrency and don’t have Nash accounts.
Users will migrate as incentives change good or bad.
Nash is not primarily a cryptocurrency company.
Fair enough, aside from being non-custodial does Nash have a significant edge over Coinbase?
You’ve been basically asking the same question several times. I don’t keep my cryptocurrency on Coinbase because it’s custodial. I only use it because it has a fiat ramp. If Nash has a fiat ramp, there is simply no reason to use Coinbase or any other platform. The key selling point for me is you can make passive income from Nash and then keep that non-custodially. It’s the perfect solution.
I’m just interest to try and see if there’s anything else Nash has when you take that aspect out of the equation.
How many times are you going to ask the same question?
More on my thought s about Nash Pay’s short to medium term impact can be found in this post Nash Exchange short to medium term & Nash Pay in the Long term
until there’s wider adoption of crypto in general
Nash Pay won’t be able to meaningfully compete with the closest existing analogues
It doesn’t matter where we are now. The goal is by 2030.
To get to 1 billion user by 2030 Nash will need to disrupt Coinbase, Binance, BitMex, FTX, Stripe, Paypal and probably NYSE, TYO, LSE and NASDAQ Global. My suspicion is that’s the teams goal which is why I created that post.
Products with a billion users Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Instagram, Whatsapp, Chrome all taking huge market-share from competitors and very disruptive, there doesn’t currently exist a fintech platform with a billion users, here’s hoping Nash is the first.
I think long term something like Nash would be looking to disrupt giants like Visa and Mastercard. They don’t have a billion users but it’s pretty close. Given the population increase, more people going cashless and more improved access to banking (hopefully via crypto) by 2030 it could be possible to have a Billion users if you’re the market leader. But at this moment I think we should definitely be more concerned with what’s right in front of us than what could happen 10 years from now.
I contemplated doing the Visa/Mastercard comparison but it doesn’t quite fit as NashPay wont be building payment rails, blockchains and payment channels themselves will become the payment rails. Nash Pay will act more like an aggregator of the different payment rails, therefore Stripe and PayPal are still the closest analogues.
State channels i think mate … but yeak B chains.
Think of the channels Libra etc will open up … being an exchange node in that network would be fairly valuable