It's feeles, cheap to keep it running, fast, decentralized (much more than BTC or any other popular currency), and safe. I don't see any problem in not having any bigger entity on top of the currency, you are delegating the responsability to the users, it's a pure p2p currency, that for me is a big plus. If the people do not believe in self custody or self responsibility why would they trust a bigger entity?
I see the merit of self-custody and independence from external determinants. I’m just looking for the business case from a monetary economical point of view. Bitcoin was a true revolution in making such self-custodial value possible in the digital space. Dan and Alex Tapscott have pointed this out in their great book about this. Now I’d like to understand where Nano differs from BTC fro a monetary point of view. Why is Nano a good alternative to BTC? I see some design advantages, buy at the same time I do not see a fully technological agnostic appraoch. I also see utilities and governance structures. But is there an in-depth comparison to BTC or something similar?
https://twitter.com/mira_hurley/status/1679071242005913601
Interesting comparison. I see how Nano attempts overcoming BTC’s technological lock-in to its own blockchain, by adopting faster speed an lower transaction fees. My question: Are Nano transactions truly fee-less or are the just very low in fees? You may want to read my X reply: https://twitter.com/AndersTalige/status/1702264358783365415 And here’s the link to the article that I refer to. It makes an in-depth comparison to BTC too, but less from a technological standpoint, more from a monetary/economic perspective: https://gaugecash.medium.com/twin-tokens-agnostic-assets-d0ad038b447f
Personally i use nano to transfer funds from exchanges.. as fees are usually very low. Now you can be subject to price fluctuations... but unless you are very unlucky(which i once was) the transferred amount should be more or less the same..
Обсуждают сегодня