@kevinolearytv Hey Mr. Wonderful. Exciting to see you getting into #crypto, and nice to see you immediately acknowledge some downsides related to mining and CO2 emissions from #Bitcoin . This makes me believe you've truly looked into it.

If you have a few minutes, I'd like to pitch myself into your virtual shark tank for a quick swim, and explain to you why you should look at $NANO - a better store of value than Bitcoin and gold, without mining issues, and currently massively undervalued.

I believe we are reaching the end of a cycle in which we have fiat currencies as reserve currencies. Not just the dollar - all fiat currencies. This is caused by a confluence of factors, factors that I believe prompted you to look at Bitcoin.

Too much collective debt has been built up, and this is being propped up by central banks who are running out of ammunition. This might have gone on for a bit longer, had it not been the case that the Covid crisis accelerated this process.

As you are well aware, the money supply is being expanded at a tremendous pace to keep the system propped up artificially. This further accelerates the decline.

In prior cycles, the bust of a reserve currency led to a flight back into hard money. The cycle starts over, starting with gold-like assets, then moving to claims on hard money since gold is risky and inconvenient to carry around.

However, something has changed relative to prior cycles. We now have the internet, and all the possibilities it brings with it. What the internet offers us is a form of hard money that does not have the problems associated with gold.

Specifically, I'm talking about #cryptocurrency. A form of hard money that is easy to carry around because it has no physical existence, that is divisible, and most importantly is secure through decentralization and game theory. Bitcoin being the primary example of a crypto.

I believe we are starting to see this movement right now. Investors are fleeing into cryptocurrency as a hedge, because some are coming to the same realisation you are. However, I believe that the market is still frothy, and that fundamentals are being overlooked.

The reason I say this is because the cryptocurrency that is getting the most attention, Bitcoin, is the cryptocurrency where the aforementioned factors (portable, divisible and secure) are doubtful.

Bitcoin's lack of scaling causing slow transfers and high fees is already leading to custodial solutions, essentially leapfrogging to the second part of the debt cycle. However, far more importantly, its security through decentralization is questionable at best.

Bitcoin's security derives from its decentralised consensus mechanism. Transactions are verified by a competitive network of miners performing Proof of Work, aiming to lay claim to the block rewards and fees associated with Bitcoin blocks.

This mining comes with some downsides - the aforementioned mining leading to high emissions, due to a race to the bottom in terms of energy costs where so far the cheapest energy is primarily non-renewable energy.

While this has worked relatively well so far (with some exceptions), the long term dynamics of this must worry anyone that looks into it. Bitcoin mining is a business with economies of scale, through access to cheap capital, scale advantages in production, and myriad other ways.

Economies of scale lead to centralization of consensus power, which directly decreases the security and value proposition of Bitcoin. There is plenty of research that describes this trend which is already becoming apparent.

Bitcoin's value proposition comes from its security, which comes from its decentralized consensus mechanism. The incentivisation of centralization through economies of scale directly impacts Bitcoin's long term value proposition.

It should be clear that while I think cryptocurrencies offer massive potential, I believe that Bitcoin is not the answer. It's a first version, a prototype, which comes with many issues as prototypes are wont to.

As I mentioned at the very start, I believe the best hard money is Nano, and I believe that its potential is massively underappreciated. I'll explain why I believe this to be the case.

Nano improves on gold in many ways, and approaches the theoretical limit of a perfect store of value. Its portability and transferability is unparalleled - it's a digital currency that transfers at the speed of light. Nano globally confirms in under 1 second.

Not a single atom is lost as might happen in gold - 1 Nano sent means 1 Nano received, forever, because there are no fees in Nano. It can be divided up to 30 decimal places - the entire world economy could run on 1 Nano and people would still be able to do microtransactions.

This no-fee proposition leads me to the next important aspect, and I've written about this before. In Nano, there is no centralisation over time. There is no mining, there are no fees, no inflation nor block rewards. The network itself is the reward.

This might sound counterintuitive. Because Nano is feeless , the fastest value transfer in the world, and such an excellent store of value, it's an ideal solution for many businesses. As you know better than most, being able to cut on fees has high value.

As any exchange will tell you, people exchanging into Nano brings them lots of revenue. The value for these entities is in the network being online and staying online in a secure manner.

The value is in the businesses they have built on top of it, and in the value of their own Nano holdings. The same holds true, proportionally, for each Nano holder.

Nano has no mining. It uses Open Representative Voting. 1 Nano = 1 vote. Anyone can run a validator, and anyone can vote for any validator at any time, or change their vote at any time.

This decentralization over centralization is not just a theoretical exercise. While the emergent centralization in Bitcoin is already apparent, this emergent decentralization can be seen in Nano through the movement of Nano votes over time.

Additionally, there's the fixed money supply aspect of Nano. Bitcoin enthusiasts sometimes talk about the Stock to Flow (S2F) model as the roadmap to a $1 million Bitcoin. Bitcoin's S2F is about 38-54.

A higher number is essentially better as this means there is less new supply coming into the market. Halvings increase the S2F, as this decreases the supply coming into the market.

Without going into the validity of this theory, it's clear how Nano's proposition offers a better S2F. Nano will never have any new Nano coming into the market. Its S2F is infinite.

Finally, Nano has no limitations built in with regards to scale. It scales using whatever hardware and bandwidth is available to it. The protocol is at the limits of efficiency, and uses extremely little energy.

In every sense, it pushes the boundaries of what is possible. This is why I think Nano is not just a fantastic store of value, but that it might be difficult to conceive of something that works better in the first place.

All the above is what I mean when I say that Nano is at the theoretical limit of a perfect store of value. It's almost limitlessly divisible (up to 30 decimals), limitlessly transferrable (no fees), and perfect as money since transfers are subsecond and trustless.

Its security comes from decentralisation, and decentralisation is incentivised on a protocol level. Attacking Nano's consensus is difficult because it's extremely hard to acquire a large share of supply, and because once you have done so you have every incentive not to attack it.

Nano's scalability means that the move to a 2nd stage (claims on hard money - central institutions) in Nano might not ever be needed or at least far less necessary, because Nano gives us a form of hard money that improves on gold by being globally transferrable, trustlessly, ...

... instantly, feelessly, with no loss of matter and incredible divisibility, in a scalable manner.

In short, I believe Nano offers an orders of magnitude improvement on every prior store of value. I believe it pushes the theoretical limits of being a store of value and reserve currency, and I believe this is massively underappreciated.

I see the current ending of the cycle as the time for hard money to re-emerge, and I think more and more people will find their way to Nano.

I think you're in an ideal position to take the stance that many are unwilling to take, because you aren't afraid to look at fundamentals rather than what others think. Because of this, I'd love for you to check my thesis, and tell me what you think.

If you've read this far then I'd like to thank you very much for your time, and thanks for letting me have a virtual swim in the shark tank. It's much appreciated. All the best to you, and if you want to discuss I'd love to get in touch.