IS NANO Centralised?

Hello NANO Community

It is great to be here finally, been an active member in Reddit and Twitter for a while, and let me tell you that I do know the answer to the question "IS NANO CENTRALISED", however, a google search result was sent to me with that exact phrase recently that pointed to a very old article that expressed some doubts.

So however naive this may sound, I wanted to have a clear documented answer to why and how NANO is Decentralised today and would remain that way in the future as well for all such folks that might be searching with similar terminology.

Looking forward to hearing your answers!


Yes, Nano is decentralized. No single entity controls the network, and no one can force protocol changes on unwilling node operators. A common measure of decentralization is the number of consensus influencing entities that would have to collude to attempt a 51% attack (i.e. Nakamoto Coefficient), and Nano currently has a Nakamoto Coefficient of 6, while Bitcoin has a Nakamoto Coefficient of 4:

Source: Nano Charts - Charts and graphs for the digital cryptocurrency Nano

Source: Pool Stats -

Furthermore, because there are no transaction fees or special privileges for Nano representatives, there is less of an incentive to hoard vote weight and centralize. We see evidence of this as Nano gets more decentralized over time. Conversely, because of economies of scale, profit maximization, region-based electricity cost differences, and specialized hardware requirements, Bitcoin trends towards increased centralization over time


Similar topic on Reddit: "Is Nano decentralized?":


"But doesn't NANO have a CEO?"

No - but the not-for-profit NANO Foundation does. There is a difference.

The NANO Foundation is a not-for-profit that was established to help facilitate and fund the development of the protocol. It held back approximately 5% of all NANO created to fund initial developments, of which less than 0.2% remains. The protocol has several key members around the globe helping to improve NANO.

While yes, the founder, Colin LeMahieu, is a major contributor to the project being its original key architect, the protocol can nearly be considered complete - all on-going updates and changes are improvements on NANO's code and functionality. The work being theorized, proposed, and updated are contributions from many members in the NANO developer community.

If Colin decided to stop working on the project, there are many many others who will step up and continue building on the Network. Please also note he has NOT made any indication that he intends to stop working on the protocol, and has maintained a very active role in key research on topics that will help the robustness of the network, again with the help of others in the community.

The commitment from outside participants on the network have expanded on that topic. Looking at the Kappture White Paper (page 4, section d.) they state:

d.Code review & maintain ability
Our developers had to be comfortable with the project code following a thorough review, and be comfortable maintaining it, if necessary


I wholeheartedly agree that nano has a lot more decentralisation against btc both in potential and as of now. in fact even I can run a node and help decentralisation while on BTC all of that is a lot harder.

Edit: I DO run a prin rep at 5€ per month Virtual server which granted is behind a bit but generally keeps ip pretty well for how it's doing.

1 Like

Just to round out this topic, can anyone comment on what an attacker who controlled 51% of the network could and could not do? I think it's helpful for people to understand that even in this case the damage is limited (such as the risk to funds in their own wallets).

1 Like