Question 1

What is NSDX, and how does it differ from NASDEX synthetic stock assets?

Accepted Answer

NSDX is the native ERC-20 token of the NASDEX ecosystem; it is not an nAsset minted from collateralized positions on the NASDEX platform. NASDEX was historically designed to let users mint, trade, or provide liquidity for synthetic stock assets using collateral, while NSDX was used for purposes such as participation incentives and staking in that ecosystem. Therefore, holding NSDX and holding an nAsset are two different things: the former is an ecosystem token, whereas the latter is the position or trading instrument for the corresponding synthetic asset. A 2021 project introduction listed platform governance, trading discounts, minting and trading rebates, participation incentives, and future payment of Gas in NSDX as token utilities. Items worded as “will” or “planned” were development plans at the time and should not be treated as features that are currently implemented.

Question 2

How were synthetic assets historically minted on NASDEX, and could NSDX be used as collateral at the time?

Accepted Answer

Historically, NASDEX used overcollateralized debt positions (CDPs) to mint nAssets: users first deposited collateral and then minted a synthetic asset representing the economic exposure of a particular stock. According to the 2022 FAQ, V1 used USDC as minting collateral; NSDX could not be used for that purpose at the time, and making NSDX a collateral base “in the future” was a subsequent development plan. This mechanism required off-chain stock prices in its calculations. The project stated that it integrated two oracle systems, Chainlink and Band Protocol, to bring off-chain prices on-chain; price changes altered the ratio of minted nAsset debt to collateral, thereby affecting whether a position continued to meet collateral requirements.

Question 3

What did the historical 150% collateral ratio and partial-liquidation rules mean?

Accepted Answer

According to the 2022 FAQ, the minimum collateral ratio for minting nAssets in V1 was 150%, and the project recommended 200% as a more prudent level. The collateral ratio can be understood as “collateral value ÷ debt value of minted nAssets”: if the stock price tracked by the debt rises while collateral remains unchanged, the denominator increases and the collateral ratio declines. The 150% level was not a safety buffer; it was close to the liquidation threshold. In the official example, minting one synthetic stock priced at $10 with $15 worth of USDC results in a collateral ratio of exactly 150%; if that stock price rises to $10.5, the ratio falls to about 142%, below the requirement and triggering liquidation. The FAQ states that liquidation was partial, meaning the mechanism handled part of a position rather than uniformly closing the entire position. Under the logic of that example, an initial 200% collateral ratio could withstand roughly a 33.3% increase in the underlying price before approaching the liquidation threshold, but this is only a price relationship under the rules at that time, not a limit on returns or risk.

Question 4

How did liquidity provision, shorting, trading, and NSDX staking each work in the historical mechanism?

Accepted Answer

NASDEX’s historical participation paths differed. nAsset minters deposited collateral through a CDP and minted synthetic assets; liquidity providers supplied nAssets and USDC to a pool in equal value and received LP tokens representing their pool share; short farmers also first opened a CDP, but immediately sold the minted synthetic stock on the market; traders exchanged stablecoins and synthetic stocks through liquidity pools to open or close the corresponding long positions. NSDX stakers were another type of participant. The 2022 FAQ described NSDX as the reward basis for stakers and stated that stakers could receive a portion of protocol revenue generated from minting and trading. This indicates that rewards were connected to the protocol’s minting and trading activity, rather than arising automatically from merely holding tokens; the available historical materials are insufficient to confirm the specific entry point, eligibility, share calculation, or whether it is currently available.

Question 5

What were NSDX’s historical supply, allocation, and unlocking plans?

Accepted Answer

The NSDX maximum supply announced in 2021 was 100,000,000 tokens, and it was an ERC-20 token; “maximum supply” is a supply cap, not the number unlocked, circulating, or tradable at a given point. Under that plan, 40% was allocated to liquidity mining; 20% to the core team and advisors; 9.2% to the ecosystem fund; 8% to marketing and advisors; 6% to operations and miscellaneous costs; 5.5% to the strategic round; 4.2% to centralized exchange and AMM liquidity; 3.8% to the multisig treasury; 2% to technical development; 0.8% to the seed round; and 0.5% to the public sale. The unlocking schedules for early sale allocations could also affect the number of tokens entering the market: both the seed and strategic rounds unlocked 25% at TGE, followed by a six-month cliff and then linear unlocking over 10 months; the public sale unlocked 25% at TGE, followed by 25% each week for three weeks. An earlier project introduction also described the 40% liquidity-mining allocation as a four-year issuance plan with block rewards reduced every two weeks. All of the above are historical tokenomics plans published in 2021 and cannot be used to infer later actual issuance, unlocking, or circulation status.

Question 6

On which networks was NSDX deployed, and why must the network and contract be verified?

Accepted Answer

The official 2022 FAQ records that NSDX had been deployed on Polygon and Binance Smart Chain at that time; it also lists the Polygon contract address as 0xE8d17b127BA8b9899a160D9a07b69bCa8E08bfc6 and the BSC contract address as 0x417871f0682db63924b931fc16ba3ff40343cdcb. This is a record of deployments at that time, not confirmation of current network support, contract versions, or bridge availability. The network is part of a token asset’s identity: the same symbol on different chains may refer to different contracts and transfer paths. Before transferring or depositing, use the network and contract explicitly supported by the recipient; sending tokens from one network directly to an address on another network should not be considered a completed cross-chain transfer merely because the token name is the same.

Question 7

What were the differences in fees and paths for minting or swapping nAssets in historical V1?

Accepted Answer

During the launch phase described in the 2022 FAQ, minting an nAsset itself did not incur an additional protocol minting fee, although users still had to pay Polygon network Gas; the project stated that no trading fee was added at launch so users could learn to use the platform. Therefore, users’ on-chain cost at that time was at least affected by network Gas, and “no minting fee” should not be understood as meaning no cost at all. The same material states that directly swapping for nAssets in a liquidity pool and minting them oneself were two different paths to obtain nAssets, but neither was defined as inherently superior. The practical trade-off depended on whether users were willing to open and maintain a CDP, the collateral needed and liquidation risk, as well as pool prices and liquidity at the time of a swap; these variables cannot be inferred solely from the historical rule of no minting fee.

NASDEX (NSDX) Price