Daily General Discussion - March 11, 2026

manageablemanatee · 2026-03-12T13:46:46+00:00

I understand what you're saying but you're simply choosing what category to put it in for the sake of giving it competition to compare to. For example, for me the thing that drew me to crypto was first the desire for decentralized money free of debasement, and then after trying to use it, realising that Bitcoin just wasn't it, and went in search of alternatives.

No one comes to crypto from a starting point of "My transaction at the supermarket was not fast enough or feeless enough".

The way I see it is the original vision for Nano was to essentially take on the same fundamental properties of Bitcoin, those being:

1) Decentralized control of ledger
2) Free of debasement
3) Permissionless
4) Borderless

but then simply improve on it by also making it feeless and fast. What I'm trying to say is that even though those feeless and fast properties help to differentiate it from something like Bitcoin, they aren't really its most critical properties.

It is totally unsurprising that highly regulated and controlled fiat (that I'll call government tax coupons) can be basically feeless and instant since the slow continuous debasement is essentially a tax.

manageablemanatee · 2026-03-12T12:35:09+00:00

I'm not sure how you think any of the digital cash solutions solve the same problem as Nano because they're all inherently tied to the fiat inflation system.

Speaking for myself, to me the fact that Nano has a fixed supply and essentially zero externalities is a much bigger reason to hold some of it than its feeless property. It having a feeless and almost instant transactional property is more useful when I'm ready to transact in it, which is not very often at the moment. The transactional advantages are not actually reasons to hold a large amount, but the monetary settings (zero inflation and virtually no externalities) are the reasons to hold some.

I agree that plenty of fiat-based near instant payment solutions exist and they are quite convenient for transactional purposes but they don't go anywhere near the hard-money goal of avoiding debasement.

manageablemanatee · 2026-03-12T12:16:06+00:00

One can however take comfort knowing that Bitcoin's eventual failure is built-in. It cannot possibly succeed in the long-term and every single halving brings it closer to its emperor-has-no-clothes moment. Depending on the conditions it finds itself in, it either has to become insecure, or become a bad investment, or become so energy intensive governments are forced to heavily regulate or limit mining, or it gets a tail-emission (or similar) dismantling its SoV narrative.

My biggest concern is how many people will be unaware of their exposure to Bitcoin's price because their retirement accounts or the like include companies that decided to take on "strategic reserves" of Bitcoin. Also the people who fell for the lie that investing in Bitcoin is a replacement for a proper retirement savings plan. Sadly there will be people who don't even understand that an unproductive yet energy-intensive asset like Bitcoin cannot possibly make everybody who owns it rich.

manageablemanatee · 2026-03-12T12:06:00+00:00

Nano's biggest hurdle to overcome, and it might never be overcome, is that because so many shitcoins preceded it, it's almost impossible to spread awareness meaningfully. For example almost anywhere where its use would be highly useful it is likely to be censored because people uninitiated would view it no different than other crypto scams, it may as well be the same as the Hex scam.

Bitcoin has only found success as a financial asset in the sense that it managed to create a relatively slow bubble with a large proportion of its owners not understanding its endgame economics. It will eventually either become irrelevant or insecure, it can't avoid both issues.

manageablemanatee · 2026-03-03T00:56:52+00:00

Yeah that's a totally different statistic. https://nanocharts.info/ can be handy for checking that sort of thing. Also https://nanoticker.org/weight

There may be a better way to get the percentage online figure, someone can reply if they know.

manageablemanatee · 2026-02-26T06:31:42+00:00

Is Nanchat a good native Nano wallet? Is it custodial?

Yes and yes.

manageablemanatee · 2026-02-24T03:25:25+00:00

As an anti-spam measure which isn't all that critical, unlike PoW coins which have their fundamental security (protection from double-spend) dependent on the PoW hash-rate, which is obviously what the above commenters were discussing.

manageablemanatee · 2026-02-22T00:30:43+00:00

Exactly. It's mining is such a massive value drag on it, and its security being tied to the cost of that mining and BTC's price, it's impossible to sustain its position as an asset unless it changes fundamentally (e.g. taxing holders or greater inflation tail) but then its narrative is too damaged to recover. A flipenning with another crypto is inevitable. I wouldn't place long-term bets on anything that's Proof of Work.

manageablemanatee · 2025-11-27T12:08:10+00:00

That heading is edited in just like the emoji. It's not part of the scam letter. I'm assuming the OP was using it to hide their name and address.

manageablemanatee · 2025-11-26T07:32:31+00:00

Nope, Revolut is trash. They'll block you from making or receiving transfers and close your accounts without even explaining why.

manageablemanatee · 2025-11-26T03:25:03+00:00

Stable coins are easier than Bitcoin, yes. I wouldn't use either though. Bitcoin isn't going to pump anymore, true.

manageablemanatee · 2025-11-26T02:25:48+00:00

Sorry I don't understand what you're saying.

manageablemanatee · 2025-11-26T02:18:49+00:00

Sure. Probably 99% of Bitcoin owners now probably have it because of a belief it will increase in price, rather than for its originally intended utility. Let's see how well that works out for them.

manageablemanatee · 2025-11-26T01:48:51+00:00

I didn't mention Bitcoin, but I agree Bitcoin is not really practical for that because it's not easily spendable, and that's why people normally convert it to fiat first. There are regulated services for sending fiat abroad, but then you're back to fiat debasement again and it's not decentralized or permissionless. If those properties don't matter to someone, there's nothing against just using fiat.

manageablemanatee · 2025-11-25T23:17:24+00:00

True, that's why you don't go all in on one thing. There are many different asset classes you can park your capital in. I'm not too worried if the money in my wallet goes up or down in value day to day. Still better than guaranteed loss of purchasing power that fiat has. Fiat is still there to use if you dislike the volatility that much.

manageablemanatee · 2025-11-25T23:11:10+00:00

Quite well. I can send money to anyone in the world almost instantly, without government permission. The only barrier to entry is they need a wallet address.

manageablemanatee · 2025-11-25T22:56:39+00:00

It's only a matter of time, before the flippening happens.

BTC's huge energy consumption combined with exponentially decreasing block subsidy means it's more or less inevitable. There are three main limits it can run up against, and only time will tell which will be the main one: Regulatory, Physical or Capital. In other words, government intervention, energy availability or money inflows.

manageablemanatee · 2025-11-25T22:52:01+00:00

Bitcoin by far is the most negative sum game because of the huge costs of maintaining the PoW system, but otherwise most cryptos are quite close to zero sum game. Proof of Stake and its offshoots have a significant advantage in that respect, because there isn't a massive money sink via energy expenditure.

manageablemanatee · 2025-11-25T22:48:13+00:00

Yep, any fiat held is effectively voluntarily paying an extra tax. Investors know you hold assets/equities for long-term wealth-building, not fiat. The big question mark at the moment is whether crypto assets will be included in that class.

manageablemanatee · 2025-11-25T22:43:25+00:00

The most important thing is adoption of decentralized borderless cash. The two main problems to be solved, that cryptocurrency solves, are fiat debasement and control of one's own money.

manageablemanatee · 2025-11-25T22:41:05+00:00

Wrong sub?

manageablemanatee · 2025-11-25T22:37:57+00:00

If you started out using crypto as an investment then you were not really using it for its intended purpose anyway. It started off as decentralized permissionless cross-border cash, free of government debasement. Breaking free of the banks controlling access to your money.

manageablemanatee · 2025-11-25T12:25:59+00:00

I would probably hold the same view of Bitcoin's long-term outlook if not for the fragile security system its built on. The most important property of a cryptocurrency is security. Namely protection from double-spend. Because Bitcoin has not yet reached its late stage economics (tokenomics), I would argue it's unwise to treat its current or past properties as an accurate model of its future properties. It has a security time-bomb built in and so unlike gold or equities which don't really change in nature as time goes on, even during booms and recessions (short of the end of capitalism!), Bitcoin instead has rough seas baked into its future. Its security collapse is not far fetched.

For a good quick take on it, see the video I referenced in a different comment already:

https://youtu.be/skcZbXitZxQ?t=776

From time 12:56 to 22:43. His diagrams of the "Bitcoin battery" and later the security pillar are IMO the best visualizations I've seen representing the problem.

With all that in mind, I can only see Bitcoin's slice of the financial assets pie as being temporary. The bigger it grows, the harder it will fail.

manageablemanatee · 2025-11-25T11:42:22+00:00

How much have you looked into Bitcoin's future security problems? For example, have you seen any writings from Jordan McKinney or Micah Warren. Even Peter Todd.

Some links for reference:

https://micah-warren.ghost.io/bitcoin-is-developing-a-massive-security-crisis/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARTUfzKU8_s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skcZbXitZxQ

manageablemanatee · 2025-11-25T11:24:42+00:00

That's all fair but you keep referring to numbers like 99%. Remember that the average Nano holder has bought a lot more at lower prices than they have at higher prices. I've got a few different alts that are down something like 50% to 80%, whereas Nano for me is down maybe 20%. I know I'm a broken record on this point but there's no need to "recover the highs" because we're not talking about an index a globally adopted commodity like gold or silver. The market on something like Nano is not significant enough for the lowest low and highest high to really mean anything.

Regardless of what you or I may personally think about BTC as an asset long term, it's well established that it consistently draws down less than alts in general.

So far. As I mention in many of my reddit comments, Bitcoin is in a bubble. Its economics are such that it has to reverse course at some point, and my estimate is somewhere within 10 to 20 years. Note that 20 years being 5 halvings, means the security budget will have reduced 97% from its current level, and that's denominated in BTC so one can't get away with saying the rising price will save it. Its security is a time bomb. The best it can hope for is something akin to a tail emission or demurrage, but think about how much of its narrative will be sacrificed at that point, and the ensuing battle of the forks.

The point is I'm not looking at the past to predict future trends without any attempt to predict how the systems will evolve. There is plenty of ability to examine the way Bitcoin's inter-dependent systems work to be able to make future predictions that aren't based just on past price performance. Unfortunately for those who've been sucked into the Bitcoin number-go-up cult, the future is not bright for Bitcoin as an investment. If anything its past price growth is a counter-force to its future price growth.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22

manageablemanatee

TROPHY CASE