Thread 60763271

Why is NANO ranked so low at #315 in market cap?

1. It's a store of value
2. It's basically the only crypto with actually zero transaction fees
3. Near-instant transaction times
4. Environmentally friendly

If the bull case for XRP is that it's not made with archaic technology and practical for everyday use, then isn't the case for NANO even better?

I'm all tied up in BAT right now, but if people are flooding to XRP because it's not made with archaic technology like Bitcoin and its practical for regular transactions, then isn't NANO in a better position for that?

>>60763288
>down 98%
>store of value
nobody gives a fuck about nano
everything you mentioned has not done anything for its price positively

>>60763288
None of that matters if no one accepts it as payment

>>60763351
>>60763353
The bull case for NANO is the same as the bull case for XRP except it actually just does it better. I'm anticipating that people will come along, see that they missed the train for XRP, and then hype up NANO as it's the better candidate for a practical decentralised digital currency. It already happened for Bitcoin, so why couldn't the same thing happen for NANO? Even if it doesn't flip XRP I think it has lots of upside potential

>>60763351
By that logic since everything is valued correctly then nobody has an edge investing in anything because it's all just priced in

>>60763374
NANO is not the chosen one by The Tribe, faggot. That is literally all that matters.

>>60763400
It doesn't have to be to 10x or even 100x. All it needs is a little bit of hype from some social media influencer and that narrative will make it blast off like it has with XRP.

>>60763271 (OP)
>shitcoin of 2 cycles ago

>>60763416
It pumped in the last bullrun. With the current narrative around XRP I feel like it's bound to in this one as well.

Wasn't it a top 10 coin at one point, or close? Makes me feel worse about my shitcoins, gains aren't promised to anyone, even with "sensible" projects.

>>60763271 (OP)
Low demand, low opportunity cost, low revenue

>>60763410
you can say this about any coin
only instiutional adoption and interoperability matters now
go on, start shilling Nano to normies on tiktok and social media like an indian, see how that campaign goes

>>60763728
You can't though. Only NANO and IOTA have absolutely zero transaction fees, dummy. I don't need to shill anything. It sells itself.

>>60763788
the only dummy is the one holding a shitcoin nobody gives a fuck about it, what the fuck are you talking about?

>>60764848
NANO has ZERO transaction fees. Basically no other coin has this. Are you illiterate?

tech illiteracy is crazy
specially now that AI can explain to you what's going on

>>60766478
are you actually fucking retarded? if this was such a game changing aspect, it would be reflected in the price and marketcap
what the fuck even is this thread? are you shilling or actually so fucking dumb that you don't understand why Nano is #315 in marketcap? and you're trying to talk to me like Im the mongoloid holding a dead shitcoin and treating everyone else like they're unaware

you actual dumb fuck, I hope you continue bagholding this piece of shit fucking kek

>>60766545
I don't even own the coin. Look retard, if everything was reflected in the price and market cap then betting on the price action of anything is retarded. Go ahead then, buy the altcoin that's already pumped 100x. There definitely won't be a correction.

>>60766561
yeah and you seem very defensive of Nano for somebody that 'doesn't own it'. Not to forget your very first >>60763288 reply referring to it as 'a store of value' despite losing sats against bitcoin. Can you explain that part? What makes Nano a store of value based on your research?

I bought the literal bottom for my multi-billion marketcap altcoin which Im currently up 8x on, and alt season hasnt even started
the reason I was able to achieve this is because I look at metrics and developments of projects that will positively affect the price, and you are here going
>yea but nano has ZERO transaction fees
okay? and yet nobody except cultists give a fuck about it as a technology, otherwise it wouldn't dump 98% after every bullrun top

>>60766624
>store of value
It's deflationary. They aren't minting new tokens.
>I bought the literal bottom for my multi-billion marketcap altcoin which Im currently up 8x on, and alt season hasnt even started
I don't care.
>metrics and developments
Such as? What is more important than the tokenomics

>>60766642
>It's deflationary. They aren't minting new tokens.
wow a world first in crypto
yet its still $1 as it was in its 2019 bear market low despite the US dollar inflating 200%, so its actually lost 50% of its dollar value
doesn't that mean it should be worth $2 right now if it was a store of value?
>Such as? What is more important than the tokenomics
uh adoption? demand?
just cause artificial scarcity has been imposed on dogshit doesn't mean anybody wants it

retarded nano shill doesn't even know how to subtly shill his token, this is gold

>>60766686
>wow a world first in crypto
yet its still $1 as it was in its 2019 bear market low despite the US dollar inflating 200%, so its actually lost 50% of its dollar value
doesn't that mean it should be worth $2 right now if it was a store of value?
You're actually dumb. It's not a store of value, yet, but neither is any fucking crypto. I'm just saying it has the ability to function as one.
>uh adoption? demand?
So you're saying if something has demand for it then it's valuable. That's just circular reasoning.

Look, I'm telling you the truth. I just made this thread looking to argue the bear and bull case of this token because it seemed like a promising investment at this price. Look faggot, you aren't a genius because you made money in a bull market. I think everyone on this board is making a lot too. You aren't special or clever.

>>60766714
>its not a store of value
>yet
stopped reading here

any other anons reading this, this is all you need to see when it comes to these grifting bagholder shill faggots
says an absolute statement, and will now backtrack and make implications that
>dur of course theres more nuance to my statement
not to mention he tried to use a capped supply as a bullish component, like this isn't already the norm

>>60766734
You singled out a single irrelevant point. The only reason I'm talking about it is because you forced me to. My main case is that it's transaction fees are zero and that makes it unique. You're arguing in bad faith and/or you're an idiot.

it's over anon it's a dead 2018 shitcoin

>>60766745
it literally doesn't matter what you say
it couldn't get listed on coinbase, and it is probably gunna get delisted from Binance
barely $1M in daily volume across every exchange

kek baggie

>>60766823
I don't even own the coin nigger. Why are you pushing the bag holder narrative so hard. Touch a nerve?

>>60766825
>ZERO transaction fees

>>60763288
>It's a store of value
So like anything.
>It's basically the only crypto with actually zero transaction fees
So no value accrual.
>Near-instant transaction times
Because no one uses it.
>Environmentally friendly
No one cares.

>>60763386
>nobody has an edge investing in anything because it's all just priced in
This is the true, people only wing big when they either get lucky and invest before a big change (pre 2017 btc holders) or they manipulate the information/conditions (insider traders/lawmakers)

Nano/ETH chart looks bad = aint buying that shit

I am a new holder. It is 8% of my portfolio. It was 10% when I bought, so it underperformed. I still hold. The reason is that the old spam issue was fixed, and AI models often classify XNO as good or the best for payments and micropayments. I know AI isn’t a god, but people will ask it and treat the answer like one. I’m holding because of this. Of course, I wish I had bought more LINK. I also use NanoGPT.

kek get rekt OP you flaming faggot

>>60766933
Suck my dick baggie nigger tranny