I’m a big supporter of cryptocurrencies. I love all about them and try to work in the ways possible to me to promote their use and general adoption. For that reason, I try to inform myself of the existing projects, their goals, and their philosophy.
The existence of those projects and developing technologies is indeed a revolution, and because of that, we see growing adoption each year. People and institutions are starting to challenge the role of fiat money in our economies, and the war the governments have started against cash and financial sovereignty is being replied by those who believe that monetary freedom is key to a free society.
That being said, Nano is also “challenging the challengers.” Unlike any other primary cryptocurrency, Nano is questioning:
- the need for fees to secure the network;
- the need for direct financial incentives to run a node;
- the need for costly and expensive hardware to run a node;
- the need for lots of energy used to secure the network;
- the need for high confirmation times needed to include a transaction in a block;
- the need to restrict how many transactions per second can be made or how big can blocks be.
I think a manageable approach to simplicity is “if it isn’t required for the objective, don’t use it.” If a cryptocurrency user can securely send money without all those things, as thousands of people do every day with Nano, it means they aren’t strictly required for a peer-to-peer electronic cash system and should be, reasonably, discarded.
But all of that doesn’t mean that Nano is perfect in every sense. In my opinion, there are some things that Nano lacks. For example, privacy is a fundamental human right. Any form of currency should protect the financial privacy of its users, something that Nano can’t reliably provide at the moment, although something could be solved in the future.
Now, what does all of this have to do with “creating a fair economy?” Well, it has to do with the fact that everyone should be able to participate in some way, not necessarily equal, that gives them some governance over the network.
Often we hear supporters of other cryptocurrencies say that they run nodes to have some control over the network, to validate their transactions, or to be able to “accept or reject changes on the network.” Unfortunately for them, running a node for those reasons doesn’t mean they are going to have some real control because, without hash power behind, the things that they do to their copy of the blockchain have no impact on the network at all.
On the contrary, users of Nano can contribute their balance to choose how decentralized the network will be and how many representatives are, by delegating their available voting weight to the node of their choice. Also, all the arguments used by users of other cryptocurrencies to justify running a node apply to Nano and do have an impact on the network.
Running a full node, for a fraction of the cost, doesn’t only mean that one can verify the transactions, but also that it is possible to achieve greater decentralization, which strengthens Nano and makes it more secure without the need to waste lots of money and energy. Instead of external observers with no hash power to enforce their decisions, they become supporters of the currency and help strengthen the network.
That means that even people in developing countries can contribute to decentralization and security of the network, rather than concentrating miners in countries with ridiculously cheap electricity. The power is fairly distributed to the actual users of the system, something that’s not done by any other major project.
In the years to come, we are going to see even more significant improvements, and I’m sure that people will notice Nano even more than before. Its incredible technology has almost everything that people want when they hear “digital cash.”
Thanks to the developers, the users, and the community behind it. Those are the ones who are making the world a better place with better opportunities for everyone.