/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>28856161
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>28785255
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>28483131
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>22384968
Nano has crashed tech and is a total disaster:
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

Nano has crashed tech and is a total disaster:
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>21760870
Nano has crashed tech and is a total disaster:
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>16643841
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>12612366
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano get a full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Core dev and main community manager jumped the sinking ship, leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>12359464
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>12359464
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>11948421
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>11641807
Dangerous flaws and major problems with Nano
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>11441862
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
[5] http://archive.is/iq9fP

>>11434399
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>11430632
>>11430674
>>11429046
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>11221217
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

(1 of 6)

>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.

>>11194096
>Nano has 756 TPS [1][2]. VISA can handle over 56,000 TPS [3]. Competitors work on 1 million TPS solutions [4]. Nano’s aim to be global currency is either delusional or a fraud.
>7,000 TPS was falsely boosted and promoted, causing the Nano price to skyrocket 97.7x in December 2016 alone. Real transactions per second (TPS) for Nano, however, was a meagre and pathetic 100-200 TPS [5].
>Nano falsely claim theoretical unlimited scalability, only constrained by hardware and bandwidth limitation [6]. This is as absurd as claiming that a car has unlimited speed theoretically, and the goal is to drive so fast that the car escapes earth’s gravitational field and park on the moon. Nano’s technical updates don’t bring it closer to the goal. It’s like saying the improvements on the engine of the car has brought us closer to driving to the moon.
>Nano advocates like to use average demand as benchmark for needed TPS. This is false. Who will use a currency that will crash at every emergency, at Christmas and other holidays?
>Nano (Raiblocks) was a dead amateur coin, worth less than 10 cents less than a year ago, until it was discovered and pumped hard by Italian scammers. Only after the pump did Nano full time dev. This amateur project has had a full-time dev for less than a year, with a horrific team and management picked among incompetent friends and supporters.
>Lead devs are leaving Nano. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.
>Devs are dumping Nano on the market [7]. Insiders obviously know Nano is riddled with terminal flaws and structural problems.