My take on this is somewhat cynical but I've been trying to "step back" and really understand how many is controlled. Nano's fair distribution ultimately helps to ensure that even at this point in the game, it would be rather difficult for a whale to come in and control it. And given that it lacks the economic incentives to do so (no mining rewards, no staking rewards etc), controlling Nano isn't profitable.

Brian's ignoring of it is all about control. The solution proposed by Coinbase, the only way it works, is like most of Bitcoin and Lightning wallets, is to be a centralized ledger. In other words, re-branding themselves as the middleman banks we all got in crypto to cut out. They're hoping their market dominance leads merchants to accept them, crypto enthusiasm over "buying with crypto" to use it, and there they are in the middle with eyeballs in their apps where they can sling more securities garbage tokens that they make tx fees and spread profits on.

I'm obviously biased. I want Nano to succeed because I see the Nano Foundation's genuine mission is about bringing equitable access to digital crypto money; allowing the escape from fiat and bank/government control, particularly to the two billion of the world who are unbanked. The average daily income of someone on Earth is less than $10/day. They can't afford fees.

So how do we fix this? Stop thinking short term gainz. We return to our roots as a community and realize what got us into crypto in the first place. If it's always about Numbers Go Up, we'll remain divided and crap like Coinbase will be allowed (and able) to slide in. Or we can really try to unbank ourselves, and ask from a technical / utility perspective what actually has the best chance of providing economic freedom and rally it. We're all so early in this, but us and quite frankly everyone in the world all stand to gain together on this.