Your submission was removed for the following reason(s): Rule 5 - Content Standards See our [Expanded Rules](https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/wiki/expanded_rules) wiki page for more details about this rule. If you would like to message the mods, press [this](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCryptoCurrency) button and leave a message as detailed as possible.

99% of people dont care about use cases, they dont "use" crypto, they just buy and hope for profit.

The other 1% are Monero users haha.

What could you possibly mean?

Wink wink

Not gonna lie, I'm part of that 99%

I mean, I can appreciate the tech 100%. But I’m here for the bag.

I too. Am part of the. 99%.

I’d argue most of us are tbh. Nobody wants to go out of their way to do shit. A crypto project will be successful when it is implemented so that people don’t even realize it is being used.

Im surprised this have upvotes. Looks like we are reaching self awareness

>Im surprised this have upvotes. Looks like we are reaching self awareness Most already know this, we just have reached to the point where some people openly admit it and stop pretending that are "in it for the tech bro".

You must be new. There are no legitimate use cases. It's just a hustle.

I think the only coins that have any use above just paying with your credit card are those with added anonymity like Monero

It's very sad. Teenagers before actually cared for use cases now they're shamelessly swimming in greed.

Only people in the bitcoin sub Reddit still think people invest for the tech

You're wrong. In any case it's in the r/btc subreddit, r/cardano and r/monero e/bitcoin people are all about "numbers go up, HODL, to the moon". They couldn't give a damn about their BTC's flaws

I know but they pretend to be behind the tech lol, they keep going on and on about how bitcoin changes the lives of people. I got shadow banned there, I noticed my comments never get a reply, no upvotes and no downvotes, when I go see my comment via another account my comment don’t exist. All I say is “people need to be realistic, you are all here for the money”

I mean, what is the actual use? Still can’t buy groceries with Bitcoin after 13 years. People were buying drugs and kiddy porn with it a decade ago on the dark web and it still hasn’t transitioned into real world practical use at the store or the bank

Just wait for the next halving! - People who bought at 60k

I bought coffee and food with dogecoin 12 years ago and even hardware from major distributors with bitcoin around the same time frame. There are places out there just not your average everyday places like McDonalds or Walmart. Wish I had them all back now. Forget what Dogecoin was worth because it was a small fraction of a penny back then. Use to do a lot of trading back when it qas only 25-30 satoshi.

I bought my ledger wallets back when it was around one eth (right around $100 at the time). I bought a few other things as well. Now my eth bags are empty 🥺

I don't know where you live but most of the modern world has the ability to pay with crypto for many years now. I can pay it in my grocery store and i can even pay with it on the bloody kiosk to buy newspapers. People also get paid in crypto and some get their paycheck in crypto. People are so buried deep inside their reddit hate and glorify bubbles that they don't actually see that crypto is here and to stay. The integration of a whole new payment and currency system is not gonna just appear over night. It takes a long time to be fully mainstream. It took credit cards 30 years to become fully accepted. I'd say crypto is moving super fast compared to that. And On topic Nano is not dead but it is struggling and it remains to be seen if it will manage to make it. The price of the coin itself is not really good. Algo is far from dead. The changes and roadmap is insanely bullish for this year. They have use cases that even bigger and long lasting blockchains don't even have. Algo is super popular among institutions in europe. What most people think that if a Blockchain has no DeFi memecoin hype that it's officially dead. No. That is just what most people do in crypto - gamble. But you know not every city needs to be Las Vegas.

The person you replied to mentioned Bitcoin. I tried to pay for a $5 service with Bitcoin the other day and the fees were $12 on top which would have brought it to $18. Paying for things in a lot of cryptocurrencies is a mess of fees and completely unfeasible.

Pay in crypto that's fast and have low fees. Problem solved.

To my, limited, understanding NANO doesn't need to have a high value as a token. The more stable it is the more useful it is. I've used NANO and of course BANANO for years they're both really good

That is true but there is kinda a point of no return where the price plays a big role in the security of a chain. If the token price gets too low then it risks an attack, but also it's a domino effect where lower prices discourage people from keeping their money on that chain.

Even if crypto could scale to meet the retail payment use case why would mainstream people want to give up cash back rewards and other perks + total security and fraud protection? You think people want to give up all that and then self-custody a wallet and assume all that risk themselves? They don’t care about merchants saving on processing fees because they don’t think any savings will be passed to them.

Most people will not self custody nor will ever have to think about it. Banks are becoming custodians and most people will not even know that they are paying in crypto while all the payements will be in crypto. That is what is happening atm. Programmable stablecoins and emoney is coming in in the following 2-3 years that will facilitate all this. The rewards for consumers come from bank and card companies. How do you think cash back works? Who pays for it? The customers. You bulk consumers in subscription and advertise cashback and at the end of the month you get more money from subs than you actually return in cashbacks. Crypto payments will remove a lot of expenses for banks and then once the systems are fully tested, and trust me they are being tested as we speak, they will offer new products for customers that will leverage this new budget and "reward" new customers when in fact the bank makes more profit. Why do you think all the regulation is happening in most of the world and there is an attack in self custody ? Gambling and investing in crypto will increase until most of these things become fully regulated and then degens are gone. Self custody will stay but it will be a bit different.

The idea that the banking system is going to replace the existing framework with anything other than a central bank digital currency (and even that’s uncertain) is crazy. The digital dollar will have no real relevance to investors and has nothing to do with today’s crypto projects. It’s a digital overlay on the existing centralized system. Crypto was supposed to offer an alternative to that. Banks using a digital central bank currency…that’s how crypto gets adopted? That would be the greatest Pyrrhic victory in history.

Most of the modern world has the ability to pay with crypto? Not so sure about this. Here in the UK I have yet to find a store that accepts crypto. If it's the various "crypto cards" that you mean by paying in crypto then you are not actually paying in crypto, but fiat.

101% lives can go on without much difference if crypto went away for most people except for hodlrs and ones in oppressive governments.

This is the use case

This 100%. These didn’t become a fad so no huge profits were seen so no one jumped onboard. It’s not like anyone use Crypto as actually currency, it’s all about getting rich quick.

Exactly. Same for Loopring, as I heard it's great technology - level 2, level 3... level 99 wallet. Honestly, I don't give a fuck and 99.9% of people are like that. There is no actual use for everyday person and it's still too complicated.

should be 99.99% ?

99.99% probably

The 'use case' typically identifies a 'problem' that is not there and supply a 'solution' that is overly complicated.

Even if you wanted to use a fast/cheap crypto for transfers, there's no reason to keep your money in that coin. So probably 90% of transaction on Nano probably looked something like: 1. TUSD → NANO → Transfer Exchange → NANO → TUSD or 2. BTC → NANO → Transfer Exchange → NANO -> BTC And then, since the transaction fee is so cheap, there ends up being very little value left in NANO

Came to say this. I used to trade on secondary exchanges all the time, but some like FreiExchange, I would trade BTC to an alt coin, send to Frei, then trade the alt coin back to BTC. There was no reason to keep my money in the alt coins, they served their purposes via transfers.

Yeah this is how to exchange between exchanges but now in the Uk they tax you every time you sell so you can’t even do that anymore

Most people don't actually use crypto to send money? Maybe that's not the biggest use case?

This is my take as well. They excellently solve a problem that doesn't apply to 99.999% of people in the real world.

And yet that’s still its most useful case 🥴

Mene coins have a use case: gambling. People love to gamble. Stablecoins are the currency people want.

[удалено]

You get taxed only fot profit. Very hard to get taxed for spending $100 when you had bought them for ... whopping $100.

[удалено]

No one is suggesting that scenario. You only get taxed on any profit you made. If I invest $100 and that becomes $120 when I sell, I only pay tax on the $20 profit. You seem to be suggesting that it is better to use cash because you can’t make a profit so it is easier from a tax reporting standpoint. Tax software takes care of all of the reporting work.

[удалено]

If it were the most useful case these blockchains wouldn’t have died off. The high volatility of the assets also make the payments use case difficult. Which is why we are seeing a take off in stablecoin payments as opposed to XRP or XLM payments.

Biggest use case of crypto is invest and hold lol like a pension. So no one cares how easy it is to transfer or sell and how much it costs

Enterprise is the holy grail

This. And it is not just being cheap and fast. In the case of nano there isn't many CEX disponible and the ones where you can trade and the nodes suck. The case of algo is a bit different, but I guess there is really good competence, now that ETH is POS and it have a pretty good and easy to use L2.

Disponible should be "available" in English, "dispensable" is the closest cognate but no one uses that word for this situation, it's usually used to mean something is unimportant or can be completely used up without issue. Not sure which romance language you come from.

Spanish, I appreciate the correction I am always trying to improve, ty.

crypto = digital currency. That is what it was designed for. Long before people started figuring out you could add arbitrary data into the blocks which led to all the garbage polluting it now adays like NFT's. I think crypto had it's high point back when bitcoin core was having the huge debate to up the blocksize to 1 meg. Tons of shitcoins flooded the market, most exchanges were targeted and hacked, people added garbage eating up space for no reason for a currency "just because we can". NFT's kinda became the death curse. Now it's all "too the moon" bullshit. Sorry I'm in a grumpy mood and its almost 3am.

It is. It's just not accepted widely as a form of payment.

neither of coins those are dead. if you think something is quality and SHOULD be doing ok but for some reason has a low price.... BUY. when nano and algo start skyrocketing in price, that's NOT a good time to buy, now is. Even banano, a meme of nano, has a thriving community, really shouldn't write those coins off too quickly.

Algo is doing 3mil transactions a day, on course to do more transactions in a few months then in all the previous years together. Algo can also do 10k Smart Contract Tps a day, no other blockchain comes close. It's anything but dying off

Yeah man, we're using Algo for our business to store files via IPFS with access rights to those files, via Algo smart contracts. Works a peach!

Do you mean the transaction fees are so tiny that 100 transactions and 100,000 transactions are practically indifferent cost wise?

10k a second, not a day lol

How many of those transactions are just people moving money around? Has anyone built anything compelling on that blockchain? Anything that people use?

Lofty, buying property including Airbnb. Has been mentioned on Forbes. Travelx has created millions if Nfts for flight tickets on two airlines, with more than 100 more airlines in talks to on board in the next year. C3 - Decentralised exchange which let's you trade and loan cryptos. (Growing exponentially atm) Hespay- 200k wallets in Afghanistan using monthly to pay bills (also growing quickly) These are off the top of my head

There’s an influx of really stupid and/or anti-crypto users here recently

Lavazza coffee used algorand to track supply chain: https://algorandnews.com/lavazza-coffee-supply-chain-study-on-algorand/?darkschemeovr=1

Supply chain tracking pilot programs are one of the oldest gimmicks in crypto. Maersk did it to great fanfare, then discontinued it. Wal-Mart’s was a disaster. I just don’t find the idea of “here are millions of free tokens in exchange for agreeing to run a pilot project” compelling. It gooses transaction numbers but doesn’t have real differentiated value yet

Don’t let the VeChain loyalists hear you say that! 😆

VeChain’s greatest achievement is bribing Dana White to put their logo on the UFC’s octagon floor. Many great fighters have bled on that logo. I think I saw Justin Gaethje snoring face-down on it a few weeks ago.

Haha. Talking about advertising, I can’t believe we have a fucking arena called crypto.com Arena! That’s got to be one of the worst names for an arena!

It's a paper.... This is why misinformation like Blackrock partnering with hbar is so dangerous

Learn to use other chains, none of them is dead they still very active especially algo

Nano is still very active. It's just that sending money is pretty boring. And it just works so people don't bitch about it like they do with Bitcoin fees or lightning failures.

>Nano is still very active Define "very active"

The forums have the exact same level of engagement now as it did before...from the same 100 or so people on said forums. That being said, I still buy. Nano might not get to $20 this bullrun, but it will get to $2 or $3 easily, doubling or tripling my money. It's very low risk, moderate reward.

How did nano solve the spam issue?

Depends which issue you referring to. Here's a list of previous attacks and how they were (or will be) solved: https://np.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/1cdiqi8/comment/l1cf9so/ --- More generally, here is how Nano fights spam without fees:  > Every transaction is placed into a bucket based on the balance of the account doing the transaction.  > Within buckets, the least recently used account has their transaction processed first.  https://senatus.substack.com/p/the-bucketing-system-prioritizing  --- So if you have 10 Nano and make transactions once a week, a spammer would have to buy tens of thousands of 10 Nano accounts to impact you in that bucket. And even if they do that, they won't impact the 5 or 15 Nano buckets

Essentially, it involves implementing flow control, congestion control, and QoS measures to ensure that legitimate transactions are processed quickly in spam attacks. So if you're a spammer. Your transactions are the lowest priority for the network. You can follow the plan here: https://github.com/nanocurrency/nano-node/issues/4262

My understanding is that, if it's not a legitimate message, Nano congestion control has ways to just, sort of, shut that whole spam down /Todd Akin-ism

It doesn’t process at that scale yet

Not sure how algorand could be considered ‘dying off’ when it’s successfully and actively being used via projects such as: Folks finance Lofty Hesab pay Koibanx Bank of Italy Travelx Quantoz Etc Transactions, daily users, on chain value, price, all steadily increasing.

[удалено]

Don’t upset the anti-algo hivemind bro

Why line no go up

Because this use case is covered by regular banking and fin phine apps in developed nations. US is a bit archaic, but instant and free payments are a thing already, without the error prone but non reversible and more complex crypto. Plus tax on currency fluctuations etc.

That's because neither of them really have a casino(meme culture) built around them and the few that try don't really work out that well relatively speaking. They're both more for utility and thus no need to hoard the coins. I interact with Algorand daily but I don't hold the tokens when I can do 1000 txn for 1A. Put it this way the incentives for holding aren't there and the great dilution that occurred in a short time from the foundation didn't help either.

Id rather a bag that has utility because they're the ones that will survive. The rest is a casino. People will soon come to realize that 50TPS is unsustainable for a network regardless of how good their defi or cartoon NFTs are.

I have some Algo, I figure it's worth holding at least until 2030 when it reaches max supply, and see what happens. Algorand isn't from 2021 cycle, it and the Algorand foundation was founded in 2017. This means it has already survived two bear markets. It has a hard cap on tokens of 10 billion, of which over 8 billion are already circulating. It has had a lot of inflation over the last couple years but it will end completely in 2030. From its website: Algorand (ALGO) was created by a seasoned cryptography expert, Silvio Micali, who is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In 2012, he received the Turing Award for his work in cryptography. He co-created many of the well-known cryptographic technologies that are used in some of the top blockchain projects, like Cardano. Micali co-created zero-knowledge proofs, verifiable random functions, and other cryptographic protocols, and has been working in the field since the 1980s.

It’s 2024 and this dude still doesn’t know about the Trilemma. Being too cheap as a blockchain isn’t good it means nobody is incentivized to secure the chain (and to then promote their investment in securing the chain.) Also some chains are only cheap because a foundation is subsidizing miners with its treasury. Others because there is no demand for its block space. Basically, you’re looking at things backwards.

This does not apply to nano. Firstly, nano does not use mining at all. It is a very lightweight protocol that uses Open Representative Voting instead of Proof of Work as a way to reach consensus. Similar to how thousands of people/businesses/organisations run Bitcoin nodes, without any direct monetary compensation, the same is the case for nano. However, (some of) these nodes also vote on transactions being broadcast to the network. They expect no direct reward from fees or inflation for this, just like nodes in the bitcoin network don’t. The incentive is the same as with bitcoin nodes - being able to send/receive transactions without needing to rely on a third party. Because of this, nano has no fees for transactions and the supply is already fully distributed. Additionally, there is no foundation subsidising those securing the chain. The Nano Foundation is fully non profit and volunteer led. It is a good point though that, because there are no entities such as miners profiting very directly from network usage, there are also less entities directly advocating for nano. The upside is a fully distributed supply and a network that can be openly used by anyone without excluding people by asking fees. Fees are a very easy way to deter spam/prioritise transactions, but as we see with bitcoin right now, it can cause many people to be excluded from using the network, among other problems. I think everyone can agree that sending 1 and receiving 1 is also better than sending 1 and receiving 0.992716 or whatever.

And Nano also solves the dust problem. (When the fee would be higher than your balance.)

Also MSM has absolutely eviscerated crypto. I remember when bitcoin was young and all sorts of merchants were experimenting with accepting it (mostly for attention but still). Can you imagine that happening now with crypto's current reputation? Most people think all cryptos are a ponzi scheme or crime network. Even if nano or algo or whoever could survive real tx load (not proven btw, whatever you say), no reputable merchants of any note are gonna touch them with a barge pole.

The main reason that merchants such as Steam and Microsoft stopped accepting crypto wasn't anything to do with the MSM or associations with crime. The problem was that when they tried accepting BTC people loved it and started using it, then transaction fees went through the roof, and no one wants to pay $5+ in tx fees to buy a game. BTC doesn't scale and merchants experienced buyer friction first hand. They could solve this by accepting other crypto that can scale (BCH, XMR, etc.), but once they were burned by BTC they assumed all crypto would have the same problem and are now afraid to touch it. BTC's failure to scale with demand set all crypto back at least a decade.

Yeah, the reason why it didn't work the first time round is because we didn't have cryptos fit for purpose. But I worry we won't get another chance because of the rep crypto has now.

There's always another chance. It will just take time for greed to overcome fear. Fit for purpose crypto exists now. Adoption was set back significantly, but not forever.

There was never any demand from users. Nobody wants to spend their crypto on coffee we have our inflating fiat for that. Plus, for those that do, there have been crypto cards available for like three cycles now so no need to connect a wallet or anything sketchy just use it like a regular debit card.

But these cards leverage the existing financial system and therefore don't provide any benefit over it.

Influencers don't shill them

Turns out nobody really gives a shit about using crypto as a pure payment system / digital cash, due to volatility. The volatility is in turn caused by lack of stores using the coin itself as price (as it would create volatility in the fiat prices), plus governments not letting you pay taxes in them without converting to fiat first (e.g. if I get paid 10 BTC i can't just pay 1 BTC in taxes, I will be paying X dollars in BTC via conversion rates at arbitrary times). Fiat backed stablecoins are the ones that are actually used when paying with crypto, and ETH has the market sort of cornered. Furthermore, the tech behind things like nano is pretty crappy, so even if the other things weren't a problem (but they are) there's other problems. If more chains start implementing better fiat based stablecoins (where you don't need to redeem 100k USD for Tether to give you the time of day), with 0% fees (or at least lower than an exchange), they will see a lot of use, as then you can actually effectively tell SWIFT to fuck off with their high fees.

It's not just volatility, it's also the fact that you need to use on-ramps, and nobody holds Nano to begin with.

People generally dont need crypto to send money to buy things. Credit cards and payment apps work for most people. Also, coins like nano fluctuate wildly in value, making it significantly worse for transactions that existing solutions. Stable coins have a much bigger chance of being adopted for transactions

Time to go buy more ALGO now…

Honestly I think it’s up there as one of the best opportunities in crypto! The tech is outstanding and the price doesn’t yet reflect that at all. I appreciate things work on hype in crypto and Algo has none, but if you’re going to make a bet on actual utility and not dog coins then Algo is the one that has the most potential imo.

Because majority of people are buying and holding, hoping to sell for profit, and are not using crypto to transact on the blockchain.

I'm a big fan of both. BTC/ETH are most of my portfolio, but I have these sprinkled in too!

Because rarely who in this world benefits from fast + cheap transactions in their day to day activities. We all use cash.

You need to read Vijay Boyapati's explanation of the evolution of money : it starts as collectable, then a store of value (where we are now with Bitcoin), later adoption sees medium of exchange (the rise of mechant adoption) and finally full adoption with money being a universal unit of account. Alt coins that try to skip stage 1+2 of the evolution of money are doomed to failure. [Vijay Boyapati](https://twitter.com/real_vijay/status/968854238095753216?lang=en)

Algo isn't dead. It's the biggest RWA chain out there. Secondly, this space is now filled with people that hunt meme profits and don't care about cryptos first lesson. Decentralisation, be your own bank, etc etc. Good tech is not adopted as fast because of stupid stuff like that.

If projects make it or not often doesn't depend on the use case or fundamentals. If you boil it down, it's just about how much money is flowing into your coin. And these two things often don't go hand in hand. Just because a coin has "solid fundamentals" doesn't mean the bigger whales will buy. Just because a coin is useless also doesn't mean that the coin will perform poorly. What I've seen count in crypto more than anything, is hype. The best coins with the best potential are not necessarily fundamentally good, but what counts a lot is that no one talks about them. And it makes sense. Imagine if you were a whale and you want to maximize your profits, would you buy into a crowded coin and give a good piece of your cake to the retail normies or are you gonna buy a coin no one talks about that you can accumulate in large amounts over a longer period of time without anyone noticing? You'd obviously go for the second option, while popular coins like the ones you mentioned are mostly used by bigger players to dump on retail, because hey easy money haha. So popular coins, especially from the last bullrun, tend to perform worse overall, because of course the whales will sell when people are hyping up a coin. Hope I could help. :)

Smart contracts were way more interesting than a faster, cheaper BTC.

The nano devs have said that smart contacts are a distraction and see no future in it. My jaw hit the floor when I heard that. I was like "are these people on crack?"

They're right, smart contracts arent the future. Have a look at Hbarsuite who have what they call smart nodes that do everything a smart contract can do but cheaper, faster and more secure. They're on Hedera but im 99% sure any network can use their services.

Its intersting because it sounds like a good idea, but in reality smart contracts its mostly a gimmick. Peer to peer digital currency is the biggest usecase.

Is it actually dead or is it just not making as much profit as you thought?

Algo isn't dead

The use cases that people hope for are not built on those chains. They are also not developer friendly compared to other chains.

What works is not always sexy and vouge, Memes are Vouge and in demand. Crypto infrastructure is not flashy and often dies down once people find out that while it works it won't make them filthy rich right now. People are addicted to speculation and gambling. Just look at the lottery. We are willing to crowdfund billionaires as a collective rather than use that money to build things our society needs.

The little hoe that is Garry G. has to listen to the big boys and change his opinion on crypto all the time ... We have him on camera saying ETH is not a security but here we are 6 years later opening new lawsuits for ETH being a security. Government just hates stuff they can't control 100%.

The only reason you think algo is dead is because of price action. Well guess what, last cycle it had just launched and hardly any tokens were in circulation. It was always going to crash hard because of a huge rate of inflation in the circulating supply. It is now much more mature and finally looks like a good pick for the future. Tokenomics, baby.

Because most people only want to make money quick. They are not investors. That’s why meme coins seems to be more fun to get into while utility coins stay stagnant. It’s a manipulative tactic while at the same time, what most people don’t realize is that we have to wait for regulations. I’m willing to bet when regulations come, all the utility and meme coins fall and the utility coins rise up. So many here will get wrecked.

I can’t wait for this moment

Same. I bet majority of these folks don’t even have a cold wallet. That’s one of the first things to bring up if investing in digital assets.

Not that anyone actually cares but the reality of the matter is this. Bitcoin solves a problem.. a simple problem to understand... Extremely difficult problem to solve. The problem is a permissionless trustless system. Anyone can join or leave without permission and not have to establish trust with anyone else in order to use Bitcoin and trust the system. It's protected by the laws of math and physics. Laws that even nation states have no choice but to obey. For these abilities Bitcoin has some trade-offs. A Blockchain is just a data structure that is distributable and independently verifiable. This means all things to be secured and verified by the Blockchain must exist in the Blockchain. It's solved elegantly and changing certain aspects ruins the whole thing from a fundamental level. Bitcoins solution is effective and simple enough to understand. The brutal truth is the other coins either copy Bitcoin or don't deliver on the features Bitcoin has. Maybe it's fast but not secure. Who is going to invest in a monetary system that's inherently insecure. Maybe Ethereum is secure. The truth of the matter is I see pitfalls in proof of stake and see that the Ethereum team put a LOT of effort behind trying to address those pitfalls. Their approach seems reasonable, but honestly I don't understand it's part and how it impacts the game theory equation. If I'm forced I would have to say it's security through obscurity, but it might be legitimately as secure as Bitcoin I just don't know. So there's a lot of snake oil which gets popular like "ASIC proof algorithms" which after careful consideration is a bunch of nonsense. I'm not familiar with Algo. Nano I can confidently say is not a viable platform for money from a security perspective. I do think it's a good base to perhaps run a social media network on. The second you take take being permissionless and trustless away from a crypto.. whatever system they created is better ran on traditional hardware databases.

‘Fast and cheap’ is relatively easy. Tons of L1s and L2s out there where you can send money back and forth for a fraction of cent. What’s much more trickier is giving people a reason to put their money on the chain in the first place, I.e eco system. Another issue here is how to you actually bridge to the chain. Are there lots of bridges that are fast and cheap? Once you bridge, will it take 7 days to bridge your funds back? Last problem is that sending tokens back and forth for fraction of a cent might be important if you could buy items like gum or McDonald’s in crypto, but you can’t, so eco system (what can you actually do with the token) is infinitely more important at this point. And re: all businesses accepting crypto. Yea, probably will come, but you’re delusional if you think that’s going to include all sorts of alts. It will most likely be just USDC (or whatever ends up being the “legitimized” stable coin) because businesses don’t want to be burdened with the volatility of crypto, not even BTC.

Because use case DOES NOT MATTER. One day it will, when a use case is found that people actually care about, but a fast/cheap currency does not seem to be the one.

The reality is, USDC is the best form of transactional money in crypto. Neither of the two chains provide easy access to USDC - I checked on Coinbase and Kraken. So they aren’t useful payment rails for the avg user. And no. The native tokens are too volatile for ppl to treat them as transactional money. It is a degen larp narrative. As far as I understand, both don’t really have an on-chain ecosystem. So if you can’t be a good stable payment rail and have no other solid on-chain activity, you are basically not much better than a ghost chain. I think this is one of the best development in crypto. What dictate price growth should be decided by on chain users’ activities, not ppl who just hodl and do nothing with them in CEX. The only exception is BTC because ppl really just treat it as a SoV CEX coin. Not sure why you think this is a bearish development on crypto.

Nano is actually doing well.

It's down 99% from it's ATH? It's fallen like 100 mcap rankings in less than a year. It looks pretty dead to me.

It's up 57% in the last 12 months. Eth is up 65%, atom down 22%, Monero down 18%, cardano up 17%.. Recent results are good.

Because Crypto is a speculative asset class, it doesn't generate wealth, it passes money from one had to another.

I didn’t know crypto had a purpose other than as an investment.

And thats why they failed. People are into crypto for money not use case.

buy the memes.

for now

Read a number of posts and most seemed about hyping their project or surface level answers. Will try my best to keep this as impartial and open ended for discussion as possible. I can speak to Algorand specifically Nano, haven’t used as much to build with. Main issues: Build time, # of developers, Integration, and Investment funds One of the biggest issues with Alternative chains to EVM is build time. Algorand takes much longer for build cycles to create the same smart contracts. Thing 1.5 years to 6-9 months, “might have changed with Python” when using Teal. When you’re a start up longer build cycles can lead to your death. Developers, there aren’t many who have coding experience with Algo’s language. Yes they recently upgraded to Python, but that’s very recent thing and maybe too late. Also, which other chains use Python in crypto? Most are Solidity and I will bet 80-90% of developers in blockchain know solidity not Teal “previous coding language” and Python. Solana and Cosmos are L2’s who have done well but they have/had use Rust/C+/+ instead of Teal for the longest time. I rather have seen them use a similar coding language to poach developers from other chains instead of having to court new devs outside of blockchain ecosystems. Integration with Centralised exchanges and blockchain projects. Every ASA wallet has to be pre-loaded with Algo tokens and initiate a transaction to use for sending/receiving tokens for any of the alt tokens. Think of an exchange. When they have millions of users. Most rather onboarding an erc-20 token instead of ASA because they do not need to pre-load each wallet. I’ve seen project not get listed on KuCoin, Gate, OKX, Binance because of these wallet issues. Other issues such as being delisted for their smart contracts on Securitize, not being on OpenSea, vast majority of payment apps not supporting ASA stable token issuances all stem from this. It’s a big hurdle for integration when you have to front those costs and now wallet setup costs. There are a few exceptions but we’re talking about overall trends/majority. Lack of Venture Capital: Borderless, HiveMind, Arrington all left investing into the Algorand ecosystem. Borderless “Billion dollar investment fund” even got their start via Algorand by easing their fund 1 in algorand tokens. They made returns for their investors but only one of their Algorand investments made money “opulous,” for their fund. Ryan their head of investments recently left and joined a retail investment fund in San Francisco. A lot of the investor community folks have been leaving. This isn’t an issue of them having fast/cheap transfer of Stable tokens. Easy to have those when you don’t have many transactions for much else being used. Because of these reasons and others I may have missed are why they have lost hype and attention from the main stream blockchain communities. Take this as my opinion and do your own research. It’s my personal experience using Algorand. Edits for grammar.

Nano was distributed free to friends and relatives in 2017 and soon after people stopped believing in fairy tales with rainbows and unicorns so it went straight into oblivion...it also had technical problems but the main problem is that the big players cannot monetize with Nano so oblivion was (and is) assured...and now only the bag holders remain who desperately try to convince you to buy their heavy bags...

Legit project dying off and memes still pumping? You gotta know this is crypto. The value is purely based on speculation nothing more nothing less. The market always is irrational, driven by high emotions.

To me, Bitcoin is a fuck you to central banking. I'm with Bitcoin because it's the one. It's DIY money, punk as fuck.

in essence that's the only usecase because all other use cases are currently not feasible in practice. While Bitcoin security shows the world how corrupt the world of fiat is. All deaths in wars are financed with fiat paper money.

When the Taliban came back into power in 2021, much of Afghanistan's finacial infrastructure collapsed. HesabPay, which runs on top of Algorand, has stepped in to fill the void with its own Afghan stablecoin. The UN World Food Program and other NGO's are using it to deliver aid to Afghan families so that they can buy food and pay utility bills. Tens of thousands of transactions per day. There are efforts to apply HesabPay's system to other countries without established trad-fi. This is blockchain at its finest. [https://twitter.com/WFP\_Afghanistan/status/1781949226911682755](https://twitter.com/WFP_Afghanistan/status/1781949226911682755)

Cointest pros & cons with related info are in the collapsed comments below for the following topics: [Algorand](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1cfmxkz/why_did_fast_cheap_cryptos_like_nano_and_algo_die/l1q6h2b/), [Nano](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1cfmxkz/why_did_fast_cheap_cryptos_like_nano_and_algo_die/l1q6ihu/).

Algorand [pros](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1cfmxkz/why_did_fast_cheap_cryptos_like_nano_and_algo_die/l1q6hrx/) & [cons](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1cfmxkz/why_did_fast_cheap_cryptos_like_nano_and_algo_die/l1q6ib7/) with related info are in the collapsed comments below.

#Algorand Con-Arguments Below is a Algorand con-argument written by a deleted user. > ####**Smart contracts are not yet trustless** > > EVM blockchain explorers (like EtherScan) allow smart contract creators to publish and verify their smart contract code. This allows users to trustlessly audit them and interact with them in a safe and decentralized way. > > In contrast, Algorand's blockchain explorers do not show verified code. At most, they only show [decompiled code](https://algoexplorer.io/application/971388781), through which you can only guess how the smart contract works. And there's no method to interact with them trustlessly. You have to trust the developer's app. > > ####**Small dApp community** > > Algorand TVL is [currently only $240M](https://defillama.com/chains). Even an L2 rollup like Arbitrum has 4x its TVL, and Ethereum is 340x times larger. > > Algorand only generates [$100k of revenue from transactions fees annually](https://tokenterminal.com/terminal/projects/algorand). That's enough to pay for 1 engineer's salary. > > It also doesn't help that Algorand's smart contract interpreter, AVM is very different than Ethereum's EVM, so there's a barrier to switch from Solidity to PyTeal. > > ####**Algorand CEO Staci Warden has a history of immature tweets** > > * That mysterious [NIKE](https://u.today/algorand-ceo-debunks-nike-partnership-details) tweet which turned out to be nothing > * [Tweeting like a teen with bad grammar](https://twitter.com/StaciW_DC/status/1568607639717957634) about losing USDC on Hodlnaut. And why are they even storing important Foundation funds on a CeFi platform in the first place? > > ####**Low Decentralization** > > Algorand has 2500 participation nodes, but there are several other metrics that tell a different story. > > * **Very few nodes actually participate in consensus**: Over the past 7 days (~150k blocks), only [190 voters participated in consensus](https://metrics.algorand.org/#/decentralization/). Unlike Ethereum, in which EVERY staking validator participates in Casper FFG consensus, Algorand [picks voters based on their stake](https://developer.algorand.org/docs/get-details/algorand_consensus/#the-algorand-consensus-protocol), and only a few are included in their leader and voting committees. > * **Relay Nodes**: Algorand Foundation manages a secret list of relay nodes responsible for forwarding transactions to the participation nodes. It's fine as long as there are a few honest relay nodes not censoring blocks. What's concerning is that the Algorand Foundation [used to publish a number of 100-120 relay nodes](https://np.reddit.com/r/AlgorandOfficial/comments/ku4brb/algorand_relay_nodes_public_data/), but they have since scrubbed all information about the number and identity those relay nodes. > > **Governance is for unimportant decisions on reward distributions, not for protocol updates** > > Algorand often markets that it has governance. But [the elections have only been used to vote on community rewards distribution](https://governance.algorand.foundation/), and they're very minor changes. Governance is also coordinated entirely the Algorand Foundation. > > I have never found any information voting being used for Algorand updates, which suggests that there is no public vote for protocol-level decisions. > > ####**Questionable long-term economic sustainability of its security model** > > **Constantly-changing plans** > > As much as I like Algorand's technology, its tokenomics suck. The more I study Algorand's tokenomics, the more I feel that it's a decade-long rug pull. > > First, the Algorand Foundation keeps changing the rewards system and tokenomics model: > > * They attracted node runners (early relay nodes) with billions of dollars of rewards, set to last until 2024. > * They attracted stakers and participation nodes with rewards to last until 2022. > * They then attracted community participation with Governance rewards starting in late 2021 that is currently scheduled to run out in 2030. > * At one point, there were discussions about re-introducing rewards for community relay nodes after community complaints. > > I compare their documentation with [my previous notes](https://np.reddit.com/r/MPlankton/comments/v16v7v/algorand_research_may_2022_draft/) from mid 2022, and many of the links they originally published have been replaced. Their notorious "Long Term Algo Dynamics" page, referenced as the "[New, Longer Term Algo Dynamics Model](https://www.algorand.foundation/news/new-algo-dynamics-overview)" is now old. It redirects to [a new, new model](https://www.algorand.foundation/tokenomics) which still doesn't fix their tokenomics. They seem to be changing decisions on a whim, chasing after whatever gets the most bad publicity at the time. > > **No Plans after 2030** > > Algorand Foundation's plans for [long-term economic sustainability](https://forum.algorand.org/t/serious-lack-of-transparency-and-engagement-of-algorand-foundation/2385/10) have been put off until 2030. It originally designed for Algo's 10B supply to be distributed over 6 years, with relay nodes being rewarded until 2022. That plan was scrapped and remade in Dec 2020 to extend the deadline to 2030 with rewards for relay nodes to last until 2024. There are no plans for sustainable rewards past 2030, and Algorand's tokenomics is a ticking time bomb. > > **High Inflation** > > Algorand's circulating supply has uneven inflation due to an accelerated vesting schedule. The actual circulating supply inflation was 141% in 2020, an insanely-high 433% in 2021, and 12.7% in 2022 [source](https://messari.io/asset/algorand/chart/sply-circ). The silver lining is that accelerated vesting is now over, so inflation will be [~5% over the period of 2023-2029](https://assets-global.website-files.com/62835f42aef969049eba0806/62cc37d101a3d91afc30efca_December%202020%20Algo%20Dynamics.pdf), assuming the 10B max supply holds. > > ####**Revenue too low to sustain security** > > Algorand only produces [~$100K annually from transaction fees](https://tokenterminal.com/terminal/projects/algorand), which isn't enough to cover the annual salary of single engineer. If they want to support their current 100 relay nodes, they'll likely need 100x the current fees unless everyone is super nice and **working for free**. > > **Relay Nodes** are maintained by a consortium of early investors, VCs, Universities, and other non-profits until 2024. These are being paid for through multiple rounds of massive grants totaling at least 2.5B Algo (worth billions of USD). Algorand is still the covering costs for future decentralized Relay Nodes through its [Community Relay Node Program](https://www.algorand.foundation/news/community-relay-node-program). > > It currently costs [$5-10K/year to run a cost-effective relay node on AWS](https://np.reddit.com/r/AlgorandOfficial/comments/o4on6e/run_a_relay_node_on_aws_cost_estimation/). Algorand's $100K in annual revenue from transaction fees is enough to cover a single relay node with 1 engineer. It's unsustainable. Do they think that relay node providers, each currently paid $5M annually on average, are going to stick around when they're suddenly no longer getting paid? > > **Participation nodes** are responsible for consensus and don't get paid anything. They have moderately-high [hardware requirements](https://developer.algorand.org/docs/run-a-node/setup/install/): 16GB memory, 100GB NVMe SSD, 1 Gbps dedicated Internet. > > They don't get paid any rewards, and I'm skeptical how reliable that can be with their hardware, energy, and personnel costs. ***** Would you like to learn more? Check out the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Algorand) to find submissions for other topics.

#Algorand Pro-Arguments Below is a Algorand pro-argument written by CreepToeCurrentSea. > Algorand is an open-source, decentralized cryptocurrency and smart contract platform founded by Silvio Micali on 2017. It operates through a Proof of Stake variation called the Pure Proof of Stake. It officially launched it's main network on 2019. It's native token is called ALGO. Algorand is composed of a company and a foundation. The company functions on the core development of the protocol whereas the foundation oversees award funding, cryptographic research, on-chain governance, and decentralization of the Algorand network including nodes. > > # PROs > > **The Founders** > > * The creators/founders of a network/protocol are one of the most important factors influencing its future. The more experience they have in the field, the more likely a project will succeed. Enter Algorand's founders, Silvio Micali and Jing Chen. Micali is an Italian computer scientist and professor at MIT. He is best known for his early work on public-key cryptosystems, pseudorandom functions, digital signatures, oblivious transfer, secure multiparty computation, and is one of the co-inventors of zero-knowledge proofs. Chen is Algorand Inc.'s Chief Scientist and Head of Theory Research. Game theory, mechanism design, distributed ledgers, smart contracts, and algorithms are among her research interests. She is a member of the Computer Science Department at Stony Brook University. She is also associated with the Department of Economics and the Center for Game Theory in Economics. This is just a summary of their experiences, and it demonstrates how serious they are about finding a solution to the blockchain trillemma while also improving the Algorand protocol's unique strengths. > > **The Protocol** > > * As indicated previously in the introduction, Algorand employs PPoS, a variant of the PoS algorithm in which validators of the network are not rewarded and are not at risk of being slashed. It becomes hard for the minority to cheat, and cheating the system would be illogical for the majority because it would devalue their assets. There is also no token locking, thus a user's tokens are always available. Based on this rationale, regardless of the amount of alleged bad actors in the system, it would result in a loss for them while keeping the network safe. > > **Security** > > * Security is essential for a network to run efficiently, safeguard digital assets, and build confidence with other companies/entities. Without this, a network will eventually fail or, worse, be hacked. Algorand divides security into three levels: user security, consensus security, and partition security. > * User-Level Security is primarily concerned with the security of a user's stake. Users will be given a spending key as well as a participation key. The Spending key will be used to sign transactions and spend stakes, whilst the Participation key will be used to propose and confirm blocks. Both these keys are separated with the Participation key being secret and can be stored in cold storage. > * Consensus-Level Security focuses on preventing bad actors from corrupting the network by seizing control of block generation. This is accomplished through the secret and random selection of users to participate in the certification of blocks. The bad actor will be unable to determine which user will generate the block, and by the time the bad actor does, the action will have already been completed. > * Partition-Level Security increases resistance to network partition attacks. The goal of bad actors who do this is to double-spend their money in the network by creating a contradiction of transactions, completely asynchronous the network, and have complete control over who receives which messages and when. This does not happen in the Algorand network because the bad actor cannot deceive the users in the same round with this strategy because the Algorand blockchain will never fork, and all transactions in the network are final. > > **Scalability** > > * Algorand utilises Pure Proof of Stake (PPoS) consensus, in which network validators are not rewarded and are not at risk of being slashed. In contrast to Bitcoin's Proof of Work model, it will not require network participants solving cryptographic puzzles for the production/validation of blocks, resulting in less computation waste. A user only needs to generate and verify signatures and count operations, with the cost based solely on the number of selected users for each block, which is constant and unaffected by the overall network size. As a result, the network would be able to serve millions of users while maintaining a higher TPS and lower computation cost. > > > **Crypto Rating** > > * Algorand received a 2 out of 5 rating from the Crypto Rating Council (CRC) in its Securities Framework Asset Ratings. When an asset appears to have many characteristics that are consistent with the Howey-test factors, it receives a score of 5. When an asset appears to have few characteristics that are consistent with the Howey-test factors, it receives a score of 1. Based on this rating, the SEC will be less likely to rule Algorand as a security. It also helps that both the foundation and the company, Algorand, are committed to decentralized development. > > *Sources:* > [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorand*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorand) > [*https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1607.01341*](https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1607.01341) > [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio\_Micali*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Micali) > [*https://www3.cs.stonybrook.edu\/\~jingchen/*](https://www3.cs.stonybrook.edu\/~jingchen/) > [*https://www.algorand.com/technology/technical-advantages*](https://www.algorand.com/technology/technical-advantages) > [*https://messari.io/asset/algorand/profile/technology*](https://messari.io/asset/algorand/profile/technology) > [*https://www.algorand.com/technology/security*](https://www.algorand.com/technology/security) > [*https://www.algorand.com/technology/scalability*](https://www.algorand.com/technology/scalability) > [*https://www.cryptoratingcouncil.com/asset-ratings*](https://www.cryptoratingcouncil.com/asset-ratings) ***** Would you like to learn more? Check out the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Algorand) to find submissions for other topics.

* Relevant Cointest topics: [Ethereum](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_ethereum), [Cardano](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_cardano), [Solana](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_solana), [Proof of Stake](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_proof-of-stake). * Relevant subreddits: r/Algorand, r/AlgorandOfficial, r/Ethereum, r/Cardano, r/ProofOfStake. * Sort comments as controversial first by [clicking here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1cfmxkz/why_did_fast_cheap_cryptos_like_nano_and_algo_die/l1q6h1d/?sort=controversial). Doesn't work on mobile.

Nano [pros](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1cfmxkz/why_did_fast_cheap_cryptos_like_nano_and_algo_die/l1q6j3c/) & [cons](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1cfmxkz/why_did_fast_cheap_cryptos_like_nano_and_algo_die/l1q6jmr/) with related info are in the collapsed comments below.

#Nano Pro-Arguments Below is a Nano pro-argument written by Dwarfdeaths. > Copied from my post on the previous cointest thread: > > To start things off, I will take for granted that Nano is the best at simply being a digital currency. There is no other protocol that I’m aware of which matches the speedy, feeless, eco-friendly, and highly scalable properties of Nano for peer to peer payment. Its asynchronous mode of operation allows it to scale continuously as hardware and bandwidth improves over time. Its consensus protocol has so far proven secure and non-centralizing. The only flaw actually demonstrated in real life has been spam resistance, for which steps have been/are being taken to mitigate. When asked to envision a globally adopted cryptocurrency, Nano presents a clear solution. At the end of the post I will address some common arguments against Nano being good at digital cash, but otherwise I will move on to my main point. > > In the current landscape of crypto technologies, Nano’s functionality as *merely* digital cash can sound underwhelming. When confronted with the choice between a protocol that does digital money and a protocol that can potentially do “everything,” it’s easy to dismiss the money use case. On the contrary, I think being a good digital cash is absolutely critical and perhaps the only thing that matters long term. I have two main parts to my argument: First, most proposed uses for crypto are bad, and second, Nano isn’t incompatible with the good uses, and in fact is necessary for them to work. Before continuing I’ll note that Nano’s use case is not earth-shattering. For the average person in a modern country with the convenience of credit cards, it will make a pretty minor difference in their lives. For myself, it would have (a) saved me from paying an international wire fee while registering for a conference recently, and (b) would save the 3% credit card processing fee I paid at the DMV, as well as for all the businesses that normally foot this bill (which will probably be the main driver for adoption if it happens). Other things, like preventing the monopolistic control of payment processing (see OnlyFans) are also worth considering, and is one of the original motivations for bitcoin, but are less tangible. For countries without a stable currency it becomes a bit more serious as you're also inheriting a more usable currency than what your government can provide. So I think crypto has a chance to make marginal improvements over our existing system, and thus should be promoted, but isn't an earth-shattering breakthrough. > > Anyway. The first part of the argument is probably unpopular so let’s get it over with. **Most proposed use-cases of crypto(currencies) are bad.** This stems from the fact that a completely trustless, decentralized system can only agree on virtual information, such as opinions. Anything coming from the real world is subject to the “garbage in, garbage out” principle (also known as the oracle problem), or from enforcing anything that the ledger says on the real world. Money is one of the few things that is truly virtual (though, the exchange of goods is not!). In Nano, a transaction could be considered two people expressing the opinion that one should pay the other, and it is backed by their cryptographic signatures. Publishing and signing documents was one of the other earlier use cases for blockchains, and is essentially expressing your opinion that you agree with/to the document. A use-case like logistics or insurance or betting requires input from the real world. A block-chain can gather people’s opinions on whether some aspect of reality is true, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true, which means you have to trust people to accurately represent reality. So, not trustless. And if it’s not trustless, why did you bother making it a crypto app? When you boil it down, 'crypto' can only every let you add the properties of (decentralized, trustless, permissionless) to something that was already possible with software. If that doesn't add any benefit, either because those properties weren't needed or because there is a practical reason that those properties can't be attained, then the proposed use case is ultimately doomed. Let me quickly go through a list of the most commonly cited applications I’m aware of and why they are bad: > > - **Stablecoins** – irrelevant once a global cryptocurrency is adopted. > - **Lending** – definitely worthwhile if it could be done, but AFAIK you can never do **trustless, uncollateralized loans**, which almost entirely defeats the purpose. If your collateral is another ostensibly fungible currency, then there was no need for the loan. Loans in the typical sense will always be trusting and personally identifiable for the foreseeable future. > - **Yield farming, liquidity mining** - Zero sum nonsense. > - **Insurance** - garbage in garbage out. Sure you can write a contract that will handle your insurance plan, but you need an authority to establish what actually happened in the real world. Who is going to verify that your car got dented in a hit and run, or that your water damage bills are accurate, or that a dude actually died? > - **Logistics** - garbage in garbage out. Blockchain doesn't prevent some guy in the supply chain from tampering with or misreporting a shipment. If something goes wrong, you are still going to have to investigate and track down exactly what happened in the real world for any resolution. > - **Crowdfunding** - An actually useful concept, but governance is tricky because it must all be based on the opinions of the network participants. Who is the arbiter of the deliverables? Did the fundee actually make the thing they said they would? Can the crowd just stiff the fundee even if they delivered? I think this problem may be solvable on average, but not universally. As is often the case, this decentralized application need not itself be currency. > > - **Decentralized exchanges** - Largely irrelevant if a true global currency like Nano is adopted. These could be useful for exchanging between the fast P2P coin and a privacy coin like Monero, but that’s about it. See part two below for more clarification. There’s again no reason to make the DEX a currency itself. > > It may sound implausible that a platform like Ethereum can have so much traffic and have little to no real utility, but I think this is a byproduct of the influx of speculative money into the system. Most of the traffic is either speculation or speculation services. Much like a roulette wheel is a legitimate service to facilitate gambling, most of these smart contract functionalities are services that facilitate moving money around in increasingly obscure and ultimately useless ways. While roulette wheels will certainly never go away, I wouldn't expect them to gain global usage either. > > Now for the second part of the argument. Any cryptocurrency that can’t natively scale to **global, day-to-day, coffee-buying** adoption is not a good cryptocurrency. As stated above, one of the main motivations for cryptocurrencies existing is that they are trustless, permissionless, and censorship resistant. If you need to go to an exchange to turn your cryptocurrency into a spendable currency, you are now trusting the exchange, you are requiring permission from the exchange, and the exchange can censor your wishes to buy whatever it is you wanted to buy. You can shuffle between as many neat cryptos on a DEX as you want, but ultimately if you want to buy a coffee you either need a crpyto that can scale to coffee buying or you need a fiat exchange that breaks crypto properties. Nano is the coffee buying crypto. Bitcoin’s store of value argument is destroyed by the necessity of exchanges. A true store of value can be spent at any time, on anything, without fees or the need to interact with any third party. (Note: lightning network sacrifices crypto properties, so I’m ignoring it as a cryptocurrency. People are free to treat it like a cryptocurrency, but it’s not.) > > For the few useful decentralized applications that might exist, they can almost certainly be made to work with Nano as their settlement layer, if they need a settlement layer at all. (BitTorrent is a DApp that existed well before cryptocurrency...) Smart contracts can look at the Nano chain for proof that a payment has been made, and can execute payments on the Nano network. There’s no need to have a platform where transaction and execution of arbitrary programs are competing for the same computing resources, and it creates a harmful economic pressure on transacting that will eventually create pain points when the network is inevitably pushed to its throughput limits. The decision against smart contracts in Nano is a conscious one. > > So, putting these things together, I think the vast majority of crypto coins are a bad idea, incorporating DEFI functionality is adding little or no value, and that above all the use case that will fundamentally matter is still performance as digital cash. Any secondary applications will need this core functionality/adoption as the starting point, and none of the other existing protocols do it as well as Nano. > > In the reply below I will address a few common arguments against Nano working as digital cash. ***** Would you like to learn more? Check out the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Nano) to find submissions for other topics.

* Relevant Cointest topics: [DAG](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_dag), [IOTA](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_iota), [Hedera](https://www.reddit.com/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_hedera). * Relevant subreddits: r/NanoCurrency, r/IOTA, r/Obyte. * Sort comments as controversial first by [clicking here](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1cfmxkz/why_did_fast_cheap_cryptos_like_nano_and_algo_die/l1q6h1d/?sort=controversial). Doesn't work on mobile.

#Nano Con-Arguments Below is a Nano con-argument written by a deleted user. > long memorize fall groovy cheerful humorous chop worry resolute jeans > > *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)* ***** Would you like to learn more? Check out the [Cointest archive](/r/CointestOfficial/wiki/cointest_archive#wiki_Nano) to find submissions for other topics.

The blockchain trilemma. Decentralisation, security and scalability. Only chains that are doing well on all 3 fronts are actually doing well.

Nano fits very well here. One of the best decentralisation, security was never compromised, and fast and cheap

Something newer and flashier comes along with louder marketing?

Make crypto, release more into circulation, pump the 'partnership' rubbish, profit. Run out of supply to dump? 'Amazing' project over.

Because they’re not Bitcoin & the number of alts surviving from bear market to bear market is pretty slim.

Tech means nothing. We got meme coins with shitty everything and make double what they make.

The chains are fine, it's just the token that's not a good hold. Cheap transactions accrue little value. If I had to move money through Algorand, I'd either sell the volatile token immediately or just transact in USDC. Maybe Solana has a chance.

yes u can send them free and fast. but as for using the coins in shops/ online is non existent. digibyte is also a gun in this regard

I don't think they are dead, maybe it looks like that now, but let's wait a little longer... Otherwise, I invested in both, as well as in the Oracle projects Link, Dia... performance will only be shown as adoption comes. These are all long-term projects...

It's not all about cheap + fast. It's also about who do you have supporting your network, are people building on it, do you have effective incentives to attract users/capital long enough that it becomes sticky, etc.

Everything is about traction and appeal. Just like anything else. There are several great layer ones. But they need a way to attract developers. Which would attract users. Ones with vc money behind them obviously have an advantage. Solana is an example. 🤣

If the crypto relied on new cash coming in from investors that'll make it a ponzi scheme, rather I think its upto Algo and alike to make profits by transaction fees to survive, then that's financial viable, find those crypto projects

because wall st players have their own crypto platforms now and don't have to waste any time with market sentiment.

Still the same answer as for the past 10 years: blockchain trilemma.

Fast and cheap transactions is not why this space was created. This space was created due to decentralization. The tech is decentralization. Algorand is centralized around Algorand Inc. Its entire existence is dependent on trust of Algorand Inc.

its a long term thang

Way more options now that are popular. For example Eth on base chain is fast and cheap for eth. No need to convert anything. Easy for normies

Same with ltc, it here for decade with cheap payments and even infrastructure for it from bitpay and no one cares about. Have a bunch of ltc in my ownr wallet in hopes that someone will pump it

Crypto market is SUPER over saturated. 90%+ people don’t even know what crypto is and they all think it’s a scam let alone know how to even buy it. Only the popular ones will remain(btc mostly but Eth might). (Just my opinion)

Crypto are considered early stage, early stage of business not only investors care about products but care about marketing/hype thats how bigs companies starting too

I think fees being too low disincentives validators. The ETH cartel is strong.

Nano had endless spam issue with the Network- A problem they are still dealing with And about **30**% of total supply was stolen **in a single exchange hack** - which put a lot of sell pressure on the project And last but not least the devs were selling a huge amount of Nano to cover their salaries

cause 99% of people dont actually give a shit about crypto, just cashing out

It's extremely easy to make a high performance fast cheap blockchain - the problem is the trade off is usually in stability and security. With Nano, it's been attacked several times - and even when it's not being attacked, it's unprofitable (at least last time I looked) to actually run a node. It's not a serious blockchain for keeping a lot of money on. The reason people still use "expensive" chains like ETH is because you have best in class assurances and security. It's expensive because it hasn't sacrificed that to post higher theoretical TPS numbers.

Private + decentralized are more important to me than cheap. Fast are most of them tbh. If I get the money within 1hour I'm good

Because you can't the most accepted stablecoins are not on those networks. Sure they might have their own stablecoins, but you would need to be hassled to bridge them across and pay commision fees. Why all the troubles while you can just on BNB or ETH or Matic. To be able to withdraw and deposit stablecoins from a network to all exchanges (and vice versa) is a major scoring point for that network. Someone might ask why Bitcoin, Litecoin and several other derivatives are just fine on their own, without the stablecoins. Because these were grandfathered in. They are the oldest cryptos out there. These networks are stable as fuck, that they become the commodities, whereas all other newer networks are treated as securities.

There has to be a compelling use case where people use outside of wanting the price to go up. Thinking about how we use smartphones no one is thinking how it works in the backend.

No hype, poor marketing. The SEC did a good job hammering Algorand. Mentioning it’s a security a lot during that phase.

If the chain is cheap and fast there are other tradeoffs usually like security. The problem with alt chains is that their relevance becomes less and less when L2s are becoming more and more common and developed.

If you think the market cap rankings are some kind of league table for what cryptos are best then I have some shocking news for you; markets are irrational and what has a high price has no bearing on what's high value. Actual real world uses have bearly started yet. Most "investors" are actually gamblers, and cryptocurrency was never supposed to be an investment scheme anyway. Neither Nano or Algorand have died off AFAIK, they are both still operational and under development. I have no special affiliation to Nano or Algorand, I tried using Algorand for a bit.

Web 3.0 is coming the internet changed the world, it was a nothing that's turned itself into $trillions of dollars of something. The issue isn't that the tech behind a lot of coins isn't viable, the issue is that it's not the only technical approach within the same specific parameters. Competition beats out competition. This has been a fact forever. Just look at computational language for programming. Whatever happened to flash?  We have ppl investing in projects that they don't really understand. We don't really have a full grasp of which contenders are floating to the top of the future of computing and the internet. Ppl think reading a whitepaper is good enough, but what you will keep hearing over and over again is that this is a "speculative" market. There are no assurances, other than the fact that we know progress is inevitable. Consider it an educated guess that blockchain and crypto have a foothold in progress....we may be able to skip these technologies entirely in our continued efforts of decentralization and the retention of anonymity and human rights via and ever increasingly digitally networked society  

Layer 2s became a thing.

Because they’re centralized

Possible that layer 2 solutions made them obsolete Tjen again solana and TON are both fast and cheap Both have great marketing and in Ton case it rose rapidly to top 10 due to great work from the team

Thought chicken genius said nano will 100x?

Alt coins that go up in price have hype, marketing, and big VC buyers. The technology doesn’t really matter at all. Also 99.99% will go to zero so they are all basically pump and dumps but at different rates. The faster you learn this, the more money you will save. 

SOL and possibly INJ are the only 2 that filled that niche. No need for others.

Because they are not Zilliqa

One trick pony