I think most people in this group will agree that

Nano is far superior than BTC, so once you learn about Nano, you should swap your BTC for Nano immediately, right? Or wrong? This means Michal Saylor has never heard of Nano? Or all other BTC whales? They have never heard of Nano? Hard to imagine, and this raises the next question, is Nano held down in a manipulative way? Hard to imagine as well. So why is this not the number one coin, and please don't give me the mass adoption pitch, there must be another reason.

People like Michael Saylor, and other BTC maximalists, have put themselves in a corner. It's really a psychological thing where, the majority of their value is in Bitcoin and the gains they made come from Bitcoin too. So they have a bias towards Bitcoin. Difficult to get them convinced of something else at that point. As for really big figures like Michael Saylor- He has made himself one of the most recognizable figures in the crypto/bitcoin community. He's known as that Bitcoin guy and got his business to invest heavily in BTC. For him, there's really no other way to go from there except doubling down on his bet, even if he's unsure of it. If he shows even the slightest doubt about Bitcoin, his whole career is basically over. Seems pretty obvious now when you read his tweets. He knows there's no logic to it but not really anything else he can do at this point.

I feel that nano should be superior,but there is a little problem that concerns me. Because it is absolutely free to use.... Typically the cheaper something is to use the more it gets used. Because nano has zero cost to use its potential transaction market is infinite. Therefore when nano goes mainstream even with crazy high TPS, there could be transactions getting delayed and creating a backlog much like the recent spam attack. Someone care to prove me wrong?

Scalable.

Infinitely scalable?

It’s not that I wish to “prove you wrong” because a good challenge is, for ANY coin, full global adoption is theoretical from a bandwidth perspective. But I can help explain: the way the nodes are set up, hardware and bandwidth capabilities scale with expected increases in txs. This speaks to an important thing to be aware of, and why I believe the Nano foundation has been right to significantly limit marketing budget until starting this year so that the protocol has time to develop/grow/test to be commercial grade knowing that the end goal IS to be a global digital currency for all.

Well said ser 👏

A currency can ONLY go mainstream when it is "stable" without crazy volatility. This is in my opinion the reason NANO trades in the abyss. If you are a hardworking person in Bangladesh and you get your salary in Nano, what is the first thing you do? Change it to Fiat! And if you send some Nano to your parents, what do you think they will do? Change it to Fiat! As long as the crazy volatility exists in the crypto markets NANO will not rise from the ashes. Just my humble opinion.

This is also part of the problem. Without fees and mining there is not yet any incentive to use. Some coins offer staking rewards just to prevent selling. Lighting network, even though it's pointless in a nano world.... Might make nano seem pointless to those already using it. Perhaps someone will build a good layer 2 on top of nano that incorporates a stablecoin like product to help adoption

Yes, exactly, something needs to be done to "force" adoption. However I think the NF wont do it, this is a currency and nothing else, period! So put NANO under the mattress and come back in 5 to 10 years to see if the volatility has diminished. By then BTC should be far in the 500.000+ or it is slowly dying which will be the rise of Nano.

Even bitcoin was highly volatile early on and yet that sees adoption. Changing to fiat immediately still means you are using nano - and with that usage merchants will see more people care about it and realize they save big by using it. Then it becomes less necessary to offload it all to fiat, adoption grows with stability. Everyone will make that conversion when they are comfortable, this is strictly an ultra-macro trend I’m suggesting here.

The only reason this is a problem is it has caused those “loud” voices who are incentivized by the network to spread their FUD with other coins. And yes, the lack of any noise (whether for the consumer’s benefit like Nano or not for it like Bitcoin/LN) would still help drive adoption which drives awareness. Nano doesn’t want the gimmicks of staking in its currency. Remember we’re not competing with other crypto coins (sounds weird to say but ALL coins are in such an early infancy these early comparisons won’t mean much in 10 years time) - Nano is competing against physical cash to create the best electronic replacement of an old world system. Now Lightning Network is pointless in its own right - it’s ungodly complicated to set up, fees to open and close channels, and many other things to know (no ease of use) just to interact with it, relatively speaking, it’s DOA.

This pretty much is the truth! You are betting against BTC, XLM..... In an ideal situation, BTC should be used for large txns and Nano (p2p) and XLM (recurring payments) for small txns.

In an ideal situation, nano should be used for large txns and nano should be used for small transactions.

Truth is even a coin like doge is up there. Markets are irrational. Can't be helped.