Skip to main content

· 2 min read
NEST Protocol

Through’s NEST Price Page, you can now directly access NEST’s RSS news feed. This feature will enable users to obtain the latest news and updates on NEST. users can stay on top of the latest updates regarding NEST’s products and services in addition to access to the latest NEST price, trading volume, live charts and market capitalization data.

NEST Protocol is a decentralized pricing oracle network, which solves the on-chain pricing problem with decentralized incentive solutions. NEST oracle adopts the market game theory to synchronize the off-chain market price information onto the chain through miners’ quotations. And combined with the NEST mining mechanism to incentivize quotation miners, making it a logically closed-loop distributed quotation system. Currently, NEST Protocol is deployed on multi-chain including Ethereum/Polygon/MAP/KCC/BNB


Founded in 2016, has grown into a fully-fledged and well-known international cryptocurrency hub in just a few short years. Its crypto ecosystem consists of the App, Exchange, DeFi Wallet, DeFi Swap, Visa Cards, Crypto Earn, Crypto Credit, Price Page, NFT marketplace, Ethereum Gas Fees Tracker, and many other services. works with regulatory institutions all over the globe and aims to bring you the most convenient way to buy, sell, trade, and spend cryptocurrencies. The App allows users to buy over 100 top cryptocurrencies at true cost, to earn high interest on their crypto, to manage their Visa Card, and to easily make crypto payments, along with many other rewarding features. The company’s DeFi Wallet is non-custodial, so users can have full control of their private keys. is a highly secure and regulated crypto platform with numerous security certifications and assessments awarded by top security auditors. has obtained the following certificates:

  • ISO/IEC 27001:2013, ISO/IEC 27701:2019, PCI:DSS 3.2.1, Level 1 compliance and CCSS.

  • ISO/IEC 27701:2019 Certification for privacy risk management by SGS.

  • ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Certification for information security management by Bureau Veritas.

  • Level 1 (highest degree) PDC: DSS standard for complying with strict requirements in the payment card industry.

  • CCSS (Cryptocurrency Security Standard) — a series of strict security requirements for storing, accepting, and transacting cryptocurrencies.

  • Adaptive (Tier 4) rating — National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Privacy Framework

· 11 min read
NEST Protocol

Introduction: Vitalik, the founder of Ethereum, delivered something interesting on Twitter at the beginning of 2022. We made some comments on this not for any investment advice but for purely personal opinions.


In 2013, I wrote an article about “How Bitcoin Can Actually Help Iranians and Argentinians”.

Core point: The main advantages of Bitcoin are internationality and censorship resistance, not the limitation on 21 million amounts. I predict that stablecoin will continue to prosper, and I verified my predictions when I went to Argentina last week. At the current stage, the adoption rate of cryptocurrencies stays high, so is the stablecoin as many companies run with USDT. But, this situation may change, if the dollar itself starts to have more problems.


Internationality and censorship resistance are some of the benefits of Bitcoin, but I don’t think this is the most important benefit of Bitcoin, cause gold, silver, and more have the same features.

And, the 21 million upper limit takes the same position with other benefits (but not meaning the benefit of this figure, but the benefit from a fixed aggregate or limited inflation). Otherwise, imagine if each block is issued exponentially, the first 10, the second 20, the third 40… The whole system will collapse quickly and its quantitative characteristics are meaningless. The value of this system changes when we just gave different issuance amounts. So the fixed amount cannot simply be ignored.

The most important benefits of Bitcoin (in order of importance) are as follow: 1. A brand new asset is constructed through a non-cooperative game (algorithms and parameters determine its characteristics), which has a completely different risk-return structure from traditional assets. It boasts the value of investment or Hedge (hedging risk is what Vitalik referred to as Argentina’s value). 2. The asset has no credit risk, which is different from general equity and creditor’s rights that deeply rely on a specific organization; and its equilibrium will be continuously enhanced with technological progress for its game feature, and the assets itself be replaced by advances in physical technology, as the results of more stable risk-return structure.3. It is convenient to save and transfer anonymously without third parties. This is the meaning of anti-censorship, which is often used for some special needs, such as gray trading, tax avoidance, etc.


Published an article on the consequences of “regulated” Bitcoin services in 2013.

Core point: Bitcoin’s censorship resistance is created by its technical innovations and not found in the new legal category. In my opinion, Bitcoin’s decentralization can allow it to survive in a super hostile regulatory environment, but it cannot “thrive”. A successful censorship resistance strategy requires a combination of technical robustness and public legitimacy.


This is what was mentioned in Comment 1 above. Its thrives cannot rely on censorship resistance but rely on the demand from investment or hedging which is the universal pain point. Vitalik has consciousness on it but cannot accurately express it.


I predicted when PoS and sharding will be implemented in 2015, and share a screenshot of my 2015 speech, which seems to be very wrong and ridiculous from now:


What is the core error? In my opinion, I seriously underestimated the complexity of software development. But now, the Ethereum research team pays more attention to simplicity-whether it is the simplicity of the final design or the implementation path, which is more compromised to realize it. Dankrad’s latest sharding design fits this spirit very well.

Many people always make complaints about the slow development of Ethereum and think it is not as agile as Internet projects with the expression of turtle speed. We will clarify it on two deeper levels:

First, high requirements for the system. A small fault cost too much so complex solutions are not available. Concise solutions represent many trade-offs that may not be satisfactory, and disputes will consume decision and execution time. Secondly, the blockchain system is a game equilibrium. It is easy to change the code, but each change will form a new equilibrium, which will affect the interests and behaviors of all parties. Therefore, the real modification cannot ignore the existing history and needs to obtain approval from the community, which is much more difficult than Internet project company decision-making.


“The transaction fee on the Internet should not exceed 5 cents.” This was the goal in 2017, and it is still the goal. I still stick to my point of view 100%, which is why we spent a lot of time researching scalability.


It is useful to research scalability, but obviously in contradiction with the censorship resistance that you admire above when you mentioned “less than 5 cents of transaction fee”. At present, relying on technology cannot achieve censorship resistance, and it can only be completed by designing a certain game mechanism to effectively resist censorship when the system reaches equilibrium.

But, System equilibrium is often costly. As this non-cooperative game brings the increasing marginal cost of performing operations, How can it be controlled below a fixed average cost? And if the blockchain system does not have begged with fiat currency, how does the information of the U.S. dollar reflect on the chain? Even if the U.S. dollar is mapped on the chain according to the current guarantee mechanism, it cannot be effectively stabilized below 5 cents unless it sacrificed the part of “Censorship resistance” (that is centralization)


I should also add that the core concept of Sharding has been continued intact. Blockchain 1.0: Every node needs to download everything. if BitTorrent reaches a consensus, each node only downloads a few things, but there is no consensus with low efficiency. But the core consensus comes from the community, ZK- SNARK, and data availability sampling.


This is likely to be self-conflict, but what we can realize is to improve transmission and download efficiency while reducing costs as much as possible. At present, the blockchain is a non-cooperative game system, and there is no way to reduce the marginal cost of operations on the chain (calculated according to resource consumption). Under a given technological boundary, it is a logical paradox to improve efficiency and the level decentralized.


In 2012, I was a supporter of POW. Fortunately, I was excited about POS in 2013. In 2014, I changed my mind again. This reflects the evolution of my broader thinking: from “X is something I must defend, so everything that benefits X must be correct” to “I like X, but X is flawed and it seems that Y fixes them, I Now supports X+Y”. Soldier mentality → Scout mentality.


Compromises that have to be made when the goal is too ambitious. In fact, the production modeling of the non-cooperative game of blockchain can only be used to do one thing: “alchemy” called casting assets. General goods and services require diminishing marginal costs, which is contrary to this model leading to increasing marginal costs. You have to resort to some kind of cooperative game, as the result of taking some centralization risks.


In 2014, he published an article on smart contracts. Basically, it tries to prove that making the whole society more like a unit system is good. Through comprehensive research, I saw the limitations of this way of thinking: the system with more than two participants is vulnerable.


Precisely, any system based on a given algorithm is incomplete with some loopholes, and there is even no guarantee that there will be no relatively dominant participants!


I liked altcoins very much before they became popular. Browse my article published in September 2013 (2 months before the birth of Ethereum). Three core arguments:

  • Differential chain optimization for different targets

  • The lower cost of multichain co-existence

  • In case the core development team makes a mistake, an external force is needed

Do I still agree? The above parameters are not so important today, because (i) chain is more general, (ii) the application is more complex, so bridging is more dangerous, and (iii) the experiment is feasible in L2. Even so, I still think that there are some things that cannot be done in L2, and there is still room for different L1.


L2 will definitely sacrifice certain decentralization properties, and the demands for new L1 rely on the dependent level of certain indicators of L1 such as block height, time, etc.


I was particularly optimistic about Bitcoin Cash because I agree with the views of the big block rather than a small one in this scaling war. Today, I think BCH is a loser. In my opinion, the communities formed during the rebellion time usually have a long period of hardship, and value courage over ability, paying much attention to resistance instead of moving forward in unison.


It is easy to change the technology, but it is difficult to change the balance.


The posts are basically advocating the construction of Uniswap in 2016–2017. “Do something simple and stupid, even if it is sub-optimal.” Although this is the current concept, it took me a long time to find the basis for POS and Sharding design.


Well, simple and stupid.


The applications envisaged in the Ethereum whitepaper:

  • ERC20 standard token

  • Algorithmic Stablecoin

  • Domain name system (such as ENS)

  • Decentralized file storage and calculation

  • DAO

  • Wallets with withdrawal restrictions

  • Oracle

  • Forecast market

Although the incentive file storage and calculation have not yet been implemented, many of the above assumptions are correct (basically for DeFi). Of course, I completely ignored NFTs. What I want to mention is that the biggest problem is the collusion problem in DAO governance.


The two overlooked issues are actually related to centralization. Obviously, NFT requires off-chain laws to ensure the uniqueness of information (copying and misappropriation are very simple), not technology. Similarly, DAO’s collusion cannot be avoided in the algorithm. Things that exceed expectations are related to the “abuse” of the blockchain in a sense, and the so-called abandonment is essentially decentralization. Why is there such a contradiction? In fact, the above has been very clear. The current blockchain is essentially a decentralized (non-cooperative game) value production model with increasing marginal costs by On-chain operations (including the impact of auction mechanisms and token price growth). But, general goods and services require diminishing marginal costs, which has great limitations. Solving those problems will inevitably sacrifice a certain degree of “decentralization.”


Published an article on Stablecoin in 2014. A large part of the article tried to refer blockchain data as a price, rather than through oracles. I am more pessimistic about this, especially because POS needs an oracle. If we want to make stable currencies robust against the collapse of the dollar (if this happens, by switching to their own local CPI), we need more active governance.

in conclusion:

  • At that time, my thinking about politics and large-scale human organizations was naive, and focused much on simple and complete formal models…

  • I did have a good instinct in the early days to avoid the craziest part of Bitcoin dominance. There were a few early mistakes, which I quickly corrected.

  • Wrong X idea does not mean that any resistance against X will go smoothly, which will cause another difficulty in the form of organization.

  • In terms of technology, I am more accurate in abstract ideas than in software development. one must learn to understand the latter over time,

  • I now realize more deeply that what we need is simpler than I thought.


In short, we should not be so dogmatic about decentralization. It is necessary to have active users and not necessary to develop such complicated applications on L1 (because goods and services require diminishing marginal costs!). on-chain assets for gaming are good when users are willing to hold it, and complex applications are deployed on centralized systems such as L2. However, it is easy to change the technology, but difficult to change the balance. It is really not as simple as just talking about it.

· 8 min read
NEST Protocol

The blockchain world is also like the corner of the country with genres of thought. Different genres have different styles and philosophies. Outsiders will follow these styles and philosophies and put on various labels to distinguish them. Over time, people in the community will gradually be tainted with certain characteristics so that the style of the genre will be further strengthened and confirmed and gradually set down.

From my point of view, the blockchain world can be divided into three major genres: Theorists, Marketists and Capitalists. These three genres all have followers and their own “truths”. Some genres are popular at the moment while some are rising in the dark. Some are in the wind while some are in the long run. In the new world of blockchain, they are all shining and competing freely with each other. The community is at the mercy of anyone who wants to pick and choose. We are fair to them here and just describe the characteristics of these genres, including advantages and disadvantages, contributions and shortcomings.


First of all, is Theorists. This genre is called Crypto Native when it is good in people’s minds and fundamentalists when not. Theorists believe there are first principles of blockchain and some basic principles and logical laws that need to be adhered to, especially when it comes to guiding innovation, it is more efficient to insist on thinking and asking about the essence than a one-off.

This genre emphasizes logic, rationality, and atomistic analysis of blockchain. There are various terms such as “computation”, “storage”, “communication”, “game equilibrium”, “mechanism design”, “incentive compatibility”, “formal verification”, “zk-SNARKs”, “degree of consensus”, “anti-attack cost”, “network effect”, and so on. These basic concepts form the starting point of the Principlists.

In the view of the Principlists, concepts that are not clearly defined, conclusions that cannot be returned to the basic concepts, and judgment criteria that cannot be quantified are incomplete as the result of cognitive incompleteness. Therefore, this genre is characterized by strong theoretical and logical rigor and is concerned with the provability of models, rather than the integration of patchwork.

In terms of originality, this genre is the most likely to drive innovation of blockchain and ultimately industry-wide awareness. Projects such as BTC\ETH\NEST are typical of this genre. The drawback of this genre is also obvious: there is often a large information threshold in design and presentation and it takes more time for common people to fully understand them which are even paradigm revolutionary. As a result, the genre is not easily recognized at first and many people will find it too abstract, too esoteric or too theoretical, lacking some concrete description and highly communicative presentation. When the innovation degree is too high, it is easy to be misunderstood or included in some negative situation: when BTC was spread in China, it was easy to be taken as something like STAMP & COIN.

Theorists represent a certain underlying belief in the blockchain world: the defenders of decentralization. Sometimes it is difficult for them to get a balance on this belief. Insistence on decentralization on the one hand, and the temptation of user experience on the other. Such contradiction is even constructed by the theorists as the theory: Impossible trinity. These basic theories build the boundary between blockchain and the traditional Internet. It can be said that if Blockchain can rise to the flag one day, only theorists can carry the flag. They are the prime mover in the blockchain world which is actually developed from 0 to 1.


Marketists actually believe in more of a pragmatism: Existence in possible and it doesn’t matter if it’s decentralized or not. As they are not so obsessed with innovation, marketists even heavily fork other projects and may do very well. AAVE, for example, was previously a peer-to-peer lending protocol that did not very well in the bear market. But then it essentially forked the emerging lending protocol Compound and did surprisingly well that could be compared with Compound. In the view of Marketists, what’s valuable is users and using. Whether it comes to exchanges, Bitcoin or DeFi, where there’s a demand, where they go. And the Marketists don’t necessarily accept a “law”, they think it’s too dogmatic to be as practical as the present survival. Marketists have used various tactics to push the popularity of users and continue to lower the threshold of awareness in the blockchain world, eventually attracting the uninitiated and participants from the traditional world.

For example, the recent explosion of NFT is basically driven by the Marketists. Because there is no need to look deep into the theory of blockchain. Just by mentioning the word “Tamper Proof”, NFT such as JPG/TXT can be made into a hype object and even promoted by wash sale. NFT with people playing is God, which has created a boom in the blockchain world.

The marketists aim to go from 1 to 100 and have made great contributions to promote Blockchain. However, they have some shortcomings: they often make concessions for the sake of short-term “survival” and lose the possibility of long-term success. Or rather, they do not realize how blockchain really works and the essential difference of the valuation model from Internet enterprises. They eventually quietly stepped off the history stage. We think EOS is the typical one that has sacrificed its insistence on decentralization for user performance and eventually become a pseudo-blockchain project. Although EOS was once so prosperous that it reached half of the market cap of ETH, it eventually fell to less than 1%.

Marketists fail to realize that blockchain is not about reaching partial equilibrium and solving uncertainty of a specific group of people, but about creating general equilibrium and solving uncertainty at the human system level. As we have said before, solving human trustworthiness is far more valuable than solving the availability of certain people. Bitcoin hasn’t spent a dime on usability but invested multi-billion dollars each year to improve trustworthiness in a decade. No project designed specifically to address this weakness can replace it. In contrast, BCH, a forked one designed to address usability with large blocks has lost ground all the way from 40% to less than 1% of the market cap of ETH. If BCH is any guide, just allow BSC, Layer2 and so on to go their respective ways.


The last genre is the capitalists, talking about which is you really untold. There is no faster way to get a layman than “pumping and dumping”. So the capitalists use various so-called “Economic Models” and “Market Value Management” in the secondary market to push the small climax of innovation promoted by the first two genres in the blockchain world to a feverish level so that the most peripheral people can notice it. They have created the biggest wealth effect and the following effect in the blockchain jungle and indirectly promoted everyone’s eagerness for success. As the saying goes, the full moon is to lose and the prosperity is to decline. The overly naked behavior of the capitalists has increased a lot of negative influences. All kinds of criticism for the Ponzi are incessant and bring about intense regulation.

Objectively speaking, capitalists are not useless, especially when it comes to value production in non-cooperative games. When equilibrium has not yet been established and stabilized, external liquidity has a strong positive driving force which can accelerate the construction of equilibrium or make the equilibrium stable at a high level, early out of the game’s “weak equilibrium trap” to avoid the game’s negative cycle (equilibrium tends to 0). It should be noted that blockchain trading must be an activity with high URPI in the early stage. Only when the project gradually crosses the “weak equilibrium trap” zone, risk-averse investors may gradually intervene and reach a stable equilibrium.

However, the benefits of such liquidity may not be the intention. We see more pyramid and Ponzi schemes with promises of profits, price manipulation, pump and dump as well as unbelievable “exit plan”. All of these are more or less related to liquidity involvement, some of which are planned as naked frauds. This genre as a whole is more of a negative one.


In any case, the genre itself may have something to do with one’s inherent Risk Appetite and the belief strength of one’s pursuit of truth. Or rather, it’s actually a question about values. The blockchain jungle is still in its very early days, and you will see some genres dominate or some are more likely to be recognized in different geographic areas. But in the long run, the development of society will always encourage innovation and reduce the risk of instability. It’s just currently that the order is yet to be formed and even with many opportunities. Those who are interested in blockchain should learn more theoretical and practical knowledge. Keep the good side, improve the bad one, and converge in the final pattern.