Nano (NANO) News
You can hear it here as well: https://twitter.com/nano/status/1143262450386706438?s=19 -- starts at 13:10.
He starts by saying that he started Nano because he thought the barriers to adoption for cryptocurrency is speed and transaction fees. Right off the bat I have the vibe that he's not seeing the big picture here. Ask yourself, why did you buy cryptocurrency (Bitcoin or Nano)? Was it so that you had an alternate "transfer of value" mechanism to buy things with? Obviously not, that'd be pointless. Why go to all of the hassle of converting your dollars into Bitcoin or Nano just to buy something with it that's more readily available in dollars?
The reason you bought it is because these are commodities. They're investments. You're trying to make money, and eventually you plan on selling your Nano and Bitcoin for dollars so that you can use those dollars to buy things. Maybe if you're lucky you can buy things directly with Nano and Bitcoin, but that's NOT the primary reason for obtaining it, nor is it a requirement. This applies to nearly EVERYONE in the cryptocurrency space. The whole "it's a way to pay people" thing is mostly smoke and mirrors. Monero has a genuine use case there because it can be used to buy drugs anonymously. Nano isn't a privacy token though. Nano is fundamentally, a better version of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin cannot serve the purpose of a transfer of value because at scale its fees are too high, and its transactions are too slow. But even if it could serve this purpose, you still need to be able to find people willing to accept Bitcoin for goods to be able to use it in that fashion. Barely any merchants exist in the grand scheme of things and it's been over 8 years now. So yeah, Nano solves that problem TECHNOLOGICALLY, but in reality it does not, because nobody uses it. You need to solve the problem of adoption before you can solve the problem of being a transfer of value.
The proposed stages from Colin:
- Nano is focusing on interbank transfers between countries (stage 1)
- They're also looking at international remittances (stage 2)
- End user adoption starting with 3rd world countries first, since they have the biggest need (stage 3)
When I heard this it really demonstrated to me the disconnect of how to run this thing successfully. Nano has brilliant engineers, but evidently it does not have brilliant businessmen or visionaries or marketers. These guys don't actually understand what it is they're building or how to sell it to the masses.
Stage 1: NO BANKS WILL EVER USE NANO FOR INTERBANK TRANSFERS. I worked in the payments industry for Visa as a software developer for a long time, I'm familiar with the payments industry and I'm familiar with the banking industry and how terrible interbank communications are and the settlement system. These guys operate on mostly trust and spreadsheets. There's a huge need for them to refine these processes and the trust component. But Nano is NOT the solution here. Why? Because Nano is too volatile and will always be too volatile, these interbank transfers and settlement processes rely on the stability of the dollar. Why? Because banks need to maintain control, did their systems mess up and they need to issue a chargeback? Did ANYTHING go wrong in that process? Nano affords them zero control. Why? Because this is FAR too experimental for banks, they don't want to expose their infrastructure to the public on a public blockchain, they don't want to open themselves up to the potential of vulnerabilities. Do they want to risk governance issues if they need to change something? Obviously not. This is a pipedream and I can promise you that'll never happen. If banks ever move to blockchain, they'll use proprietary versions or run their own internal networks where only the banks run nodes and nobody else. So please don't waste your time on stage 1, you'll get no where here.
Stage 2: International remittances has a place here, but this is putting the cart before the horse in a massive way. You send 1000 Nano to your neighbour in Botswana, now what? They need to find someone to INSTANTLY exchange their Nano into Botswana dollars. This needs to happen straight away because of the volatility of Nano. But the real issue here is that this sort of a remittance market relies on a network of fiat on-off ramps in every damn country across the planet. Something that Western Union has accomplished because they're positioned all across the globe. Something that Nano hasn't even STARTED to address. Nano struggles to get listed on cryptocurrency exchanges -- things within our domain -- and you expect on/off ramps to just pop up out of no where? Again, this is a losing battle for the time being. It has a place in the future, but not right now. This should be looked at a WAY later date, not stage 2.
Stage 3: "Since they have the biggest need" highlights a lack of understanding of how 3rd world countries operate. Countries hit by hyperinflation or a severely volatile national currency aren't ANY fucking better using Nano, Nano is just as volatile as they are. "But Nano is instant and has no fees", yeah, well so is cash. These people don't need "instant zero fee transfers", they have that already in the form of cash. These people need a STABLE currency, something their hyper-inflating dollar does not offer them. Moving from their volatile national currency to a volatile cryptocurrency that nobody accepts in their country is a fools game. With that all said, do you know what IS a perfect fit for those places? Libra. It's EXACTLY what they're looking for. It's HIGHLY stable, and everyone will be supporting it because it's made by Facebuck. Don't bother competing in this market, it's a suckers game.
And on the topic of transfer of value, Nano is the best transfer of value in this game, but in saying that it's actually still a terrible transfer of value due to its volatility. Stable coins are going to win this game.
So with all that said, it's quite clear that the team doesn't understand the importance of these things, and it's really quite frightening. It's like they have the Ark of the Covenant in their hands, but they don't know how to use it. It should be obvious to them though, and the answer is simple: Target the market that actually wants it. How do we know what market wants it? Well, they're the people who are already buying it and have been buying it since day 1! The god damn cryptocurrency market! The people who are invested or WERE invested in Bitcoin that have moved their money into Nano because it's a VASTLY superior Bitcoin. It's Bitcoin 2.0. Start selling it as such. Blockchain 2.0, Bitcoin 2.0. This is the future of the digital gold game. This is the future of the digital store of value game. Sell it as such, and stop overthinking it. Once you have mass adoption among the market that we already know exists and already know would buy something like this and feel proud of owning it, THEN you can transition to your other goals of Stage 1, 2, and 3. There's not a single point trying to tackle those above challenges before you have a solid crypto-fan userbase first. Focus on exchange acquisition, focus on fiat on/off ramp acquisition, focus on marketing to Bitcoin fans and tell them how garbage their investment is and why Nano is so much better and that they're investing in a dead technology and are on the verge of $80 fees. Nano is the best transfer of value in this game, but in saying that it's actually still a terrible transfer of value due to its volatility and its lack of merchant support and fiat on/off ramps. Libra is going to win this game the second it releases, it solves all of those problems from day 1. Libra does NOT solve the problem of a censorship resistant, decentralized, instant, free, digital gold. This is why people buy Bitcoin, and this is why people will buy Nano.
Natrium v2.0.9 was released yesterday on both the iOS App Store and the Google Play Store.
The biggest change is a fix that caused the incorrect address to be shown in the settings account list under certain circumstances.
Example, if you open Natrium for the first time and tap "New Wallet", then go back, then tap "New Wallet" again and go through all of the setup steps as normal you would find that the "Main Account" shown in the settings is different than the actual account.
(This can be seen in this screenshot)
Two users that we know about had this occur and they copied this bad address (the second address in the above screenshot would be the bad one) by going to the "edit account" screen where you can change the name, copy the address, etc.
Unfortunately for these two users they sent nano to this incorrect address (example here). These funds were burnt, because that address was essentially cached from a different seed (a seed that they didn't back up and wasn't relevant to them, generated during the intro process as mentioned above)
In total, 211.95 NANO was lost by these two users and we have reimbursed them from the Natrium representative/donation account after learning that the funds were not recoverable.
The v2.0.9 update fixes this issue, even though it's relatively obscure and affected a small amount of users, we encourage updating as soon as possible just in case you are affected by this bug.
Because it requires a very specific amount of steps to reproduce this bug, we didn't catch it. Unfortunately some other users did. The affected users were very helpful in helping us track it down and reproduce it (we spent a few hours at least trying to figure out how to reliably reproduce it)
Anyway, that's all and the main thing that's fixed in v2.0.9
|24h Low / 24h High||$1.32 / $1.51|
All time high
|All time high||$33.69|
|All time high date||2018-01-02 (one year ago)|
|Since all time high||-96.07 %|
|24 hours||-7.70 %|
|7 days||-14.94 %|
|14 days||-15.79 %|
|30 days||-26.55 %|
|60 days||-15.88 %|
|1 year||-39.84 %|
|Merged pull requests||1083|