Nano (XRB)

Nano utilizes a novel block-lattice architecture, where each account has its own blockchain and achieves consensus via delegated PoS voting.

About Nano (XRB)

Nano (previously named RaiBlocks) is a trustless, low-latency cryptocurrency that utilizes a novel block-lattice architecture, where each account has its own blockchain and achieves consensus via delegated Proof of Stake voting.The team behind Nano claims to offer feeless, instantaneous transactions, as well as unlimited scalability, making Nano ideal for peer-to-peer transactions. The network requires minimal resources, no high-power mining hardware, and theoretically can process high transaction throughput.

Use of Blockchain
4.6
Product
Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
Appeal

Does this solution have a distinct edge?

5.0
N/A
5 - Wow.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

4.0
N/A
4 - Few competitors / a leading solution.
Innovation and IP

Is there (patentable) innovation and intellectual property?

5.0
N/A
5 - Highly specialized, proprietary.

Product

Nano claims to do one thing and one thing only and that is serve as a cryptocurrency. They do not offer smart contracts of any on-chain application; instead they aim to disrupt monetary transactions as we know it. Their platform truly offers a working, feeless, instantaneous transactions, and that alone is massive, game changing even. It is what Bitcoin was always aiming for. The only real question mark hovering over Nano is – can it keep working with mass use? Does it truly offer unlimited scalability. This remains to be seen, with the team running into several technical difficulties with nodes running by exchanges (Problems with withdrawals and deposits and synchronizing into the network, and as of now, only withdrawals are locked, with clear communications with the community and a fast feasible ETA) that list XRB after a big influx of volume. Nevertheless, after winning Binance’s 5th monthly vote by a landslide and with a working, game-changing product, if Nano can scale according to the claims, then the entire cryptocurrency world will forever be different.

Product Roadmap
4.8
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

Is blockchain technology essential? Does it make the solution significantly different and better?

4.0
N/A
4 - Innovative use of blockchain technology.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

Is it safeguarded against misuse and corruption?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fundamentally disruptive.
Need for a Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

5.0
N/A
5 - Real, tangible, utility-based value.
System Decentralization (besides token)

Does the token provide holders with value other than as an investment?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully decentralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

Does the solution contribute to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

5.0
N/A
5 - Wow.

Use of Blockchain

Nano utilizes their own self-developed novel DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph) based block-lattice architecture, where each address(user) possesses their own blockchain. It will record account balances instead of tracking transaction amounts, a method that allows for less intensive storage requirements through the use of database pruning. Each blockchain can only be updated by its owner. Each blockchain reflects information related to the individual’s balance history to the network. One crucial feature in Nano’s blockchain-lattice architecture, is that a user’s blockchain can be updated asynchronously to the rest of the block-lattice. There is no requirement for distributed agreement protocols (PoW, PoS). Each transaction is processed on a user’s individual blockchain. The system is completely decentralized and it’s architecture is optimal to serve as an instaneous, feeless cryptocurrency. If it can scale according to the developer’s plans, it will undoubtely change the entire blockchain/DAG ecosystem for years to come. Transferring funds on the Nano protocol produces two separate transactions. Firstly, a send transaction that deducts the fund amount from the sender’s balance, and secondly, a receive transaction that adds the fund amount to the receiving account’s balance. Each send transaction must reference the owner’s previous block, so a double-spend on the block-lattice, would be someone attempting to reference the same previous block in two separate send transactions. In the event of conflicting transactions, nodes will vote for the transaction that will be kept on the network, whilst the other transaction will be rejected. Furthermore, because Nano does not require mining for transactions to be processed, there are no transaction fees on the network. Nano secures its ledger through the use of delegated proof of stake (dPoS). With dPoS, users have the ability to choose a representative node to vote on their behalf, acting as a voting proxy. A representative node fulfills tasks such as verifying signatures for blocks that are processed, and in the event of conflicting transactions, voting for the valid transaction. The voting process is balance-weighted, meaning that the weight of a representative’s vote is directly proportional to the amount of Nano that have been linked to it. The greater the number of Nano linked to a representative, the more its vote will be worth. A current list of all Nano representatives can be found on their official website. Nano’s architecture does utilize PoW, however, as an anti-spam measure, and not as an agreement protocol as to the shared state of the global ledger. Because there are no transaction fees on the Nano’s lattice, an attacker could indefinitely spam the network. With Nano’s PoW implementation, each block has a small amount of work associated with it, approximately about 5 seconds to generate, and 1 microsecond to validate. This forces a malicious actor to dedicate a significant amount of computing power to carry out an attack, whilst requiring only a small amount of computing power by everyone else. Furthermore, it is also even possible for these spam transactions to be pruned away, limiting the amount of storage that can be consumed from this type of attack. Critics like to point out, as they should, that there is no apparent incentive to run a node in the Nano network. The developer’s rebutted that claim by stating the incentive to run a node is the usage of the coin. Merchants/businesses will want to run a node or several nodes as it backs the underlying security in place, while also ensuring truly instantaneous transaction fees (Optimization) in contrast to how little setting up a node might cost. ($3/month according to calculations) It is interesting to note that every wallet also acts as a node by itself.

Use of Blockchain Compliance
4.2
Roadmap
Concreteness

Is there a concrete and practical development plan (vs. just a conceptual vision)?

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional.
Feasiblity

Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

5.0
N/A
5 - All bases covered.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

5.0
N/A
5 - Paving the way for the future.
Dependencies (other services or capabilities required)

Does it seem as though a lot of know-how and experience went into the development plan?

4.0
N/A
4 - Available and trusted.
Current Position

Is the project currently sufficiently far along in its development plan (relative to its vision and plans)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Roadmap

Nano’s roadmap is short and simple. Their only product is one thing – XRB as a cryptocurrency. Everything else – supports the network. Their roadmap for 2017 reached all the goals: Faucet closed at Oct 2017 with all 133,248,289 distributed to the community. For 2017, the team has managed to: Expand RPC protocol, beta test mobile wallet, register Nano as a legal entity, standardize QR code, update the desktop wallet UI, publish a new website with localized content, get enlisted on bigger exchanges and develop merchant services and partnerships. Their roadmap for 2018 simply details the general plans for 2018 for now: development of light wallet, implementation of chain pruning to reduce chain size, enhancement of the block explorer and get enlisted on additional exchanges. Their vision is grandiose, which makes sense with this kind of technology. Their current position is crucial – if they manage to solve scaling issues and get successfully enlisted on Binance, they can change the blockchain ecosystem.

Roadmap Company and Team
4.8
Compliance
Token Utility (intrinsic value through usage)

Is there a concrete business plan (vs. market descriptions, general sentiments, and fluff)?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Token as Security (tradable financial instrument)

Is the business model realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

5.0
N/A
5 - Only through utility value, or airtight compliance.
Token / Smart-Contract Infrastructure Readiness

Are the solution's revenue streams, profit mechanisms, key KPIs, etc. clear and easy enough to understand?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully operational.
Attention to Compliance Issues

Is the project raising an amount of money that makes sense given what it needs to reach profitability?

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional, audited.
Legal Review or Agreement

Is it safe from legal, moral or investor abuse?

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.

Compliance

The XRB token was distributed through a faucet utilizing an audio captcha users had to solve to gain XRB. As of Nov 2017, the team had approximately 4.71% of the total supply. The list of highest balances can be found on the official website. We ran Howey’s test to determine whether XRB is a security or not – and we believe is overlooked by many most of the times. From out results, Nano does not seem to be a security nor will it be regarded as one in the foreseeable future. There was no crowdsale, only a small portion of the total supply is held by the team, there are no token rights, all functionality is inherent in the token and occurs programmatically , there is no economic return possible from using the network (no mining) and token holders (wallets basically) as a whole are able to vote on significant decisions for the protocol. The block-lattice DAG architecture is already in place and running. It ran instantaneously and feelessly until a large exchange (Kucoin) listed XRB and the mass increase in volume has caused technical bugs in nodes to surface. (Only for exchanges; issues with balance withdrawals. P2P use is still feeless and instant) As to the writing of this review, the exchange nodes problem has not been resolved, but according to the developers, they are almost done fixing the issue, and are working towards making the Binance listing (Jan 2018?) as smooth as possible. There isn’t much to review legally, it’s simply supposed to serve as a cryptocurrency. (Will probably not be regarded as a security)

Compliance
4.4
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?

4.0
N/A
4 - Established with some fundraising history.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
Team Assembly and Commitment

Is a solid, fully committed core team in place? Do they have online (e.g. LinkedIn) profiles showing sufficient relevant experience? Is their participation transparent?

4.0
N/A
4 - Fully assembled and committed.
Team Skill Set Relevance

What is the level of presence, added value, and commitment of the advisory board?

5.0
N/A
5 - Meeting and exceeding project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

Are there enough sufficiently experienced blockchain architects and developers on the team?

5.0
N/A
5 - Excellent, all aspects covered.

Company and Team

Colin LeMahieu – Core wallet developer and creator of Nano started working on this ambitious project in 2014 (In its previous iteration, Nano utilized an audio-captcha mechanism to calculate PoW) and along with Mica Busch (Web & Mobile developer), Sergsw/byte16 (Core wallet contributor), James Coxon (Services & Integration developer) and Zack Shapiro (iOS mobile developer) he continues to code endlessly to improve Nano’s network. Their Github is notoriously active, especially relative to the team size, and the RaiBlock’s reddit community is very active as well. The team is very communicative with the community, with active Discord and Telegram channels. The face behind Nano, Colin LeMahieu, is active on social media, with Twitter and LinkedIn profiles, active daily. The same can be said about Mica Busch (Twitter, LinkedIn, Github), James Coxon (Github) and Zack Shapiro (Twitter, LinkedIn). There are also several community managers for the project, from all over the world. (Spain, Indonesia, Russia and more).

Product

Nano claims to do one thing and one thing only and that is serve as a cryptocurrency. They do not offer smart contracts of any on-chain application; instead they aim to disrupt monetary transactions as we know it. Their platform truly offers a working, feeless, instantaneous transactions, and that alone is massive, game changing even. It is what Bitcoin was always aiming for. The only real question mark hovering over Nano is – can it keep working with mass use? Does it truly offer unlimited scalability. This remains to be seen, with the team running into several technical difficulties with nodes running by exchanges (Problems with withdrawals and deposits and synchronizing into the network, and as of now, only withdrawals are locked, with clear communications with the community and a fast feasible ETA) that list XRB after a big influx of volume. Nevertheless, after winning Binance’s 5th monthly vote by a landslide and with a working, game-changing product, if Nano can scale according to the claims, then the entire cryptocurrency world will forever be different.

Category Breakdown
Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

4.0
N/A
4 - Beta or initial rollout.
Appeal

Does this solution have a distinct edge?

5.0
N/A
5 - Wow.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

5.0
N/A
5 - General audience / mass market.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

4.0
N/A
4 - Few competitors / a leading solution.
Innovation and IP

Is there (patentable) innovation and intellectual property?

5.0
N/A
5 - Highly specialized, proprietary.
Product Score:
4.6

Use of Blockchain

Nano utilizes their own self-developed novel DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph) based block-lattice architecture, where each address(user) possesses their own blockchain. It will record account balances instead of tracking transaction amounts, a method that allows for less intensive storage requirements through the use of database pruning. Each blockchain can only be updated by its owner. Each blockchain reflects information related to the individual’s balance history to the network. One crucial feature in Nano’s blockchain-lattice architecture, is that a user’s blockchain can be updated asynchronously to the rest of the block-lattice. There is no requirement for distributed agreement protocols (PoW, PoS). Each transaction is processed on a user’s individual blockchain. The system is completely decentralized and it’s architecture is optimal to serve as an instaneous, feeless cryptocurrency. If it can scale according to the developer’s plans, it will undoubtely change the entire blockchain/DAG ecosystem for years to come. Transferring funds on the Nano protocol produces two separate transactions. Firstly, a send transaction that deducts the fund amount from the sender’s balance, and secondly, a receive transaction that adds the fund amount to the receiving account’s balance. Each send transaction must reference the owner’s previous block, so a double-spend on the block-lattice, would be someone attempting to reference the same previous block in two separate send transactions. In the event of conflicting transactions, nodes will vote for the transaction that will be kept on the network, whilst the other transaction will be rejected. Furthermore, because Nano does not require mining for transactions to be processed, there are no transaction fees on the network. Nano secures its ledger through the use of delegated proof of stake (dPoS). With dPoS, users have the ability to choose a representative node to vote on their behalf, acting as a voting proxy. A representative node fulfills tasks such as verifying signatures for blocks that are processed, and in the event of conflicting transactions, voting for the valid transaction. The voting process is balance-weighted, meaning that the weight of a representative’s vote is directly proportional to the amount of Nano that have been linked to it. The greater the number of Nano linked to a representative, the more its vote will be worth. A current list of all Nano representatives can be found on their official website. Nano’s architecture does utilize PoW, however, as an anti-spam measure, and not as an agreement protocol as to the shared state of the global ledger. Because there are no transaction fees on the Nano’s lattice, an attacker could indefinitely spam the network. With Nano’s PoW implementation, each block has a small amount of work associated with it, approximately about 5 seconds to generate, and 1 microsecond to validate. This forces a malicious actor to dedicate a significant amount of computing power to carry out an attack, whilst requiring only a small amount of computing power by everyone else. Furthermore, it is also even possible for these spam transactions to be pruned away, limiting the amount of storage that can be consumed from this type of attack. Critics like to point out, as they should, that there is no apparent incentive to run a node in the Nano network. The developer’s rebutted that claim by stating the incentive to run a node is the usage of the coin. Merchants/businesses will want to run a node or several nodes as it backs the underlying security in place, while also ensuring truly instantaneous transaction fees (Optimization) in contrast to how little setting up a node might cost. ($3/month according to calculations) It is interesting to note that every wallet also acts as a node by itself.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

Is blockchain technology essential? Does it make the solution significantly different and better?

4.0
N/A
4 - Innovative use of blockchain technology.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

Is it safeguarded against misuse and corruption?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fundamentally disruptive.
Need for a Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

5.0
N/A
5 - Real, tangible, utility-based value.
System Decentralization (besides token)

Does the token provide holders with value other than as an investment?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully decentralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

Does the solution contribute to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

5.0
N/A
5 - Wow.
Use of Blockchain Score:
4.8

Whitepaper

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Transparency

Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Technology Presentation

Does it present a well thought out technological architectecure? Does it address implementational challenges?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Whitepaper Score:
0.0

Roadmap

Nano’s roadmap is short and simple. Their only product is one thing – XRB as a cryptocurrency. Everything else – supports the network. Their roadmap for 2017 reached all the goals: Faucet closed at Oct 2017 with all 133,248,289 distributed to the community. For 2017, the team has managed to: Expand RPC protocol, beta test mobile wallet, register Nano as a legal entity, standardize QR code, update the desktop wallet UI, publish a new website with localized content, get enlisted on bigger exchanges and develop merchant services and partnerships. Their roadmap for 2018 simply details the general plans for 2018 for now: development of light wallet, implementation of chain pruning to reduce chain size, enhancement of the block explorer and get enlisted on additional exchanges. Their vision is grandiose, which makes sense with this kind of technology. Their current position is crucial – if they manage to solve scaling issues and get successfully enlisted on Binance, they can change the blockchain ecosystem.

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

Is there a concrete and practical development plan (vs. just a conceptual vision)?

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional.
Feasiblity

Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

5.0
N/A
5 - All bases covered.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

5.0
N/A
5 - Paving the way for the future.
Dependencies (other services or capabilities required)

Does it seem as though a lot of know-how and experience went into the development plan?

4.0
N/A
4 - Available and trusted.
Current Position

Is the project currently sufficiently far along in its development plan (relative to its vision and plans)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Roadmap Score:
4.2

Compliance

The XRB token was distributed through a faucet utilizing an audio captcha users had to solve to gain XRB. As of Nov 2017, the team had approximately 4.71% of the total supply. The list of highest balances can be found on the official website. We ran Howey’s test to determine whether XRB is a security or not – and we believe is overlooked by many most of the times. From out results, Nano does not seem to be a security nor will it be regarded as one in the foreseeable future. There was no crowdsale, only a small portion of the total supply is held by the team, there are no token rights, all functionality is inherent in the token and occurs programmatically , there is no economic return possible from using the network (no mining) and token holders (wallets basically) as a whole are able to vote on significant decisions for the protocol. The block-lattice DAG architecture is already in place and running. It ran instantaneously and feelessly until a large exchange (Kucoin) listed XRB and the mass increase in volume has caused technical bugs in nodes to surface. (Only for exchanges; issues with balance withdrawals. P2P use is still feeless and instant) As to the writing of this review, the exchange nodes problem has not been resolved, but according to the developers, they are almost done fixing the issue, and are working towards making the Binance listing (Jan 2018?) as smooth as possible. There isn’t much to review legally, it’s simply supposed to serve as a cryptocurrency. (Will probably not be regarded as a security)

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (intrinsic value through usage)

Is there a concrete business plan (vs. market descriptions, general sentiments, and fluff)?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Token as Security (tradable financial instrument)

Is the business model realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

5.0
N/A
5 - Only through utility value, or airtight compliance.
Token / Smart-Contract Infrastructure Readiness

Are the solution's revenue streams, profit mechanisms, key KPIs, etc. clear and easy enough to understand?

5.0
N/A
5 - Fully operational.
Attention to Compliance Issues

Is the project raising an amount of money that makes sense given what it needs to reach profitability?

5.0
N/A
5 - Professional, audited.
Legal Review or Agreement

Is it safe from legal, moral or investor abuse?

4.0
N/A
4 - Professional.
Compliance Score:
4.8

Company and Team

Colin LeMahieu – Core wallet developer and creator of Nano started working on this ambitious project in 2014 (In its previous iteration, Nano utilized an audio-captcha mechanism to calculate PoW) and along with Mica Busch (Web & Mobile developer), Sergsw/byte16 (Core wallet contributor), James Coxon (Services & Integration developer) and Zack Shapiro (iOS mobile developer) he continues to code endlessly to improve Nano’s network. Their Github is notoriously active, especially relative to the team size, and the RaiBlock’s reddit community is very active as well. The team is very communicative with the community, with active Discord and Telegram channels. The face behind Nano, Colin LeMahieu, is active on social media, with Twitter and LinkedIn profiles, active daily. The same can be said about Mica Busch (Twitter, LinkedIn, Github), James Coxon (Github) and Zack Shapiro (Twitter, LinkedIn). There are also several community managers for the project, from all over the world. (Spain, Indonesia, Russia and more).

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?

4.0
N/A
4 - Established with some fundraising history.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

4.0
N/A
4 - Verifiable relevant experience.
Team Assembly and Commitment

Is a solid, fully committed core team in place? Do they have online (e.g. LinkedIn) profiles showing sufficient relevant experience? Is their participation transparent?

4.0
N/A
4 - Fully assembled and committed.
Team Skill Set Relevance

What is the level of presence, added value, and commitment of the advisory board?

5.0
N/A
5 - Meeting and exceeding project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance (biz / tech / blockchain)

Are there enough sufficiently experienced blockchain architects and developers on the team?

5.0
N/A
5 - Excellent, all aspects covered.
Company and Team Score:
4.4

Token Sale

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

Is there a clear cap? Is the maximum raise amount modestly sufficient (as opposed to either greedy or insufficient)?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Raise Amount Min

Is the minimum raise reasonably enough to carry out the majority of the development plan? Are there raise amount dependent milestones?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Token Allocation

Is the ratio of tokens sold to those kept reasonable? Does it prevent the company from having too much control?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Media Presence and Following

Is the ICO well planned in terms of time, phases and scenarios?

N.0
N/A
N/A
Token Sale Score:
0.0
Loading data from server...
No chart data found