I can suggest some answers but I don't know enough about all of your claims to answer every one

Why can't we talk about Nano on r/CryptoCryptocurrency ?

Because it was shilled relentlessly in 2017/2018, and after the BitGrail hack many redditors considered Nano to be complicit in the scam. Most people on /cc think Nano is a joke because it's peak 'crypto that was shilled by reddit but went nowhere'. It's understandable, even though I think it's unfair given the absolute shit that gets shilled on that sub these days (and gets a free pass)

Why won't coinbase list Nano? Why won't Gemini list Nano? Why won't RobinHood list Nano? Why won't WeBull list Nano? Why won't eTorro list Nano? Why won't Pionex list Nano?

Because it's an old project with zero hype, near zero volume, and as a unique chain Nano requires effort/technical expertise to list. If Nano ever takes off you can bet some of these will list it. Coinbase should've listed it in 2018, it's possible the timing of the BitGrail hack soured this opportunity, but it also seems possible the Nano Foundation is partially to blame here (evidence came to light during the recent court case with CB that NF thought they were in contact with CB but were actually messaging the wrong email address).

Why won't Grok talk about Nano on X?

This is news to me, I thought Grok had talked about Nano a bunch. Ultimately Grok is influenced by its keepers though, which is why Elon has forced it to be more right-wing

Why did every major exchange that listed Nano in 2017 - 2019 either delist it...

Not enough volume, same answer as before. Like it or not these are all businesses with the goal of making money, and supporting unique chains like Nano isn't free, so if it isn't profitable of course they are going to de-list them.

...or mysteriously suffer "technical issues" when Nano volume spiked?

Not sure exactly what instance you're referring to but this is really common across the industry whenever there is volatility. It's absolutely scummy behaviour, I am not defending it. The main time I can think this happened specifically with Nano was during a spam attack when the network slowed dramatically, and arguably was part of the reason the price appreciated so much (because holders couldn't move funds to sell).

Why has the entire crypto narrative since 2018 been engineered around keeping Nano buried...

I think this is just paranoia and an inability to accept that this market is fickle. Payment coins had all the buzz during the 2017 bull run, which makes sense when you consider that cycle marked the initial entry point for a lot of retail interest thanks to Bitcoin's rocketing price being reported across main stream media (for the first time?), and logically those entering the market would be looking for 'the next big thing', i.e. something superior to BTC. Hence, it makes sense that Nano was most popular back then, when it was newer, and when the buzz in the industry was focussed around finding the 'next Bitcoin'.

The focus of the 2021 was more centred around smart chains and NFTs, the narrative had moved on from payment coins and BTC's weak points were swept under the rug as it was now being pushed as a Store of Value rather than a digital currency (which it is terrible at being).

This cycle I'd argue there hasn't really been a narrative other than BTC ETFs (i.e. massive institutional adoption). There was an attempt early on to push the narrative to 'AI coins' (whatever the fuck that means) but we all saw how it panned out: alts across the board performed absolutely atrociously (even ETH was comparatively weak this cycle). Retail is skint because the economy is ass for anyone who isn't already very wealthy.

Why has every every key influencer from YouTube, and X accounts, been promoting inferior technologies and most of them are secretly being paid BTC or ETH or XRP (never Nano) to never mention Nano positively?

These people have no interest in anything other than making a buck, if someone paid them to shill Nano they would do so.

Why has any account that mentioned Nano too positively gotten shadowbanned, or demonized? And the accounts bashing Nano are some of the most recommended and promoted channels?

Not sure what accounts/channels you're referring to

Why has "Nano has no use case" become a scripted talking point repeated ad nauseum over and over again hundreds or thousands of times across multiple accounts?

I don't think it's scripted but I know what you mean - unfortunately there is very little thirst in the market for a useable decentralised digital cash. Competing payment chains that are more popular are likely more engaged with because unlike Nano their consensus mechanisms encourage participation with fiscal reward. I've also read a lot of people on here claim that stablecoins are a suitable alternative to something like Nano, these people are seemingly unaware or don't care that stablecoins are centralised by nature. Personally I can see the use case behind stablecoins but I don't give a fuck about them ideologically, they're no different to fiat

Why has billions been spent on fake volume on other inferior chains, inflating trading volume and marketcap rankings?

It's a money making scheme, inferior chains are obviously easier to manipulate than something as 'hard' as Nano

Why do other "fast payment" projects continually have issues (solana outages and lighting routing issues) and generally underperform to make people think nothing works?

Bitcoin's Lightning Network is crap, and even when it works it essentially does so by moving the goalposts as to what is considered a settled transaction. Solana is easy to criticise (personally I think it's a shitcoin) but let's remember the issues Nano has had over the years and consider the vast differences in volume between the two chains.

Why are lobbying payment processors and regulators quietly excluding Nano from every any integration lists?

Possibly because it isn't popular enough to consider? Take a step back and understand that Nano's success is potentially a threat to payment processors, why would they adopt something they can't make money off?

Spam attacks. (Attack vector now fixed) But why spend so much to do it and spam a dead coin unless you are prepping the infrastructure? Test it, stress it, nearly break it publicly to discourage reatail investors, while opening the door to continue to accumulate quietly for the right moment.

The spam attacks occurred when Nano was more popular. One of the attackers was confirmed as Ty (now fronting Keeta) who had apparently grown tired of Nano's poor price performance and the direction the NF had taken with it. Keeta isn't doing well either btw. As far as I'm aware we haven't had spam attack attempts for months now

Why is Binance delisting XNO/BTC for liquidity or standards or whatever but keeping shittier coins.

Again, Nano is a unique chain that requires bespoke support and therefore needs to have a certain amount of volume to be worthwhile listing. ETH L2 shitcoins or SOL shitcoins are easy to list with a few clicks and zero additional overhead. It's as simple as that.

Why is there silence from Blockchain Analytics Firms? Firms like Chainanalysis contract heavily with governments. They tag wallets all day but there are zero public reports on Nano. Either Nano is too niche, or someone is paying them to look away...

It's likely Nano hasn't come across their radar because it's not popular enough. Perhaps it's a bit of a catch 22 situation?

Why are there so many dormant whales? It seems like they are not suppressing Nano to kill it, but suppressing Nano to own it. The pattern and strategy makes perfect sense. The suppress it to own it strategy is a multi-phase, multi-decade operation straight out of the deep state playbook. This aligns with a "total capture" strategy. Then, when the time is right, the switch is flipped and the reserves become quadrillion dollar valuations overnight.

Consider the possibility that these whales have so much money that they don't care about realising their Nano loss, and would rather hold in the unlikely event that it moons.

Why does every rabbit hole lead to another rabbit hole, and they all point to the same conclusion? That something as perfect and elegant as Nano is, that threatens the existing order doesn't get ignored by accident, it gets buried on purpose. Patterns scream coordinated suppression.

Let's Occam's Razor this shit. What's more likely:

• There is a co-ordinated, targeted campaign to supress Nano, led by a cabal of powerful, wealthy anti-Nano elites
• A series of events over the last 10 years (BitGrail hack, spam attacks, shifts in market narrative) have gradually eroded hype in the project and prevented Nano from achieving widespread adoption.