full image - Repost: Do you guys think Nano is a failure as a digital currency project? (from Reddit.com, Do you guys think Nano is a failure as a digital currency project?)
Mining:
Exchanges:
Donations:
Under real world market conditions, Nano has failed to gian momentum and has experienced a slow and steady decline in the past few years. Save a small group of very active and devoted followers, most people have fled the scene in disappointment. It seems to me that the market still places projects that have more of an incentive to mine/stake above those that don't, or those with utilities as a digital ecosystem - despite being less energy-efficient and slower & not necessarily a digital currency at all. Even ETC or LTC is still doing better than Nano. Even cryptocurrencies that got delisted in many exchanges due to regulatory pressure like monero and other privacy - anonymity providing coins are more resilient than Nano, showing their utility are more appreciated by the market, suggesting people's attention to energy efficiency/speed/feelessness might be be moot. Though the network has grown resilient and more sophisticated since, the fact that there has been numerous successful spam attacks on the network that genuinely damaged its performance, albeit briefly each and every time, is still a stain on the project's image. What do you guys think? Was the game theory behind Nano's design a failure after all? Is the benefit of feelessness and instant transactions not valuable enough a utility for there to be genuine adoption? Or is there still a strong thesis to be made for the contrary? Is nano a sleeper with massive potential? If Bitcoin endures another halving and mining becomes even more centralized, would there be a re-emergence of concerns about energy efficiency and transaction speed/fees?
Social Media Icons