vimothy

yurp
By minimizing the chances of default, which by extension minimizes the chances that the depositors' funds, which are used as capital to issue the loans, are lost.
yeah, but again, it doesn help them generate the cashflow needed to service their loans, it's just locked up value in case one of their debtors defaults
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
yeah, but again, it doesn help them generate the cashflow needed to service their loans, it's just locked up value in case one of their debtors defaults
The cashflow is generated by the interest paid by borrowers, as well as the profit from NEXO token sale and appreciation.
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
The cashflow is generated by the interest paid by borrowers, as well as the profit from NEXO token sale and appreciation.
The latter arguably helping bootstrap this profit model from an otherwise circular catch-22 arrangement, which you seem to be pointing out.
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
thats exactly what I've been saying (minus the token bit)
And the overcollateralization I think is integral to this profit model being sustainable, especially given how volatile the market it.

The best argument against overcollateralization is that it is capital inefficient as a practice, but I think thats an acceptable tradeoff given the security it seems to enable.
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
at this stage it makes total sense I think, its v standard banking model when you think about it
Yeah as I understand the two models, the big differences are that Nexo only offers overcollateralized loans, and the interest it pays to depositors is significantly higher.
 
Top