In BTC, token concentration doesn't have higher implications. Consensus is tied to computing power only. On NANO, however, the ammount of tokens one posses has direct influence over network consensus. The top 100 wallets on BTC hold 19% of the supply, **while on NANO, it is a whopping 62%**.
Token distribution is directly related to NANO's quality.
The best way to increase decentralization and security, in this sense, would be to distribute voting power (tokens) over its members. This can happen by exchanging NANO for goods (such level of adoption is still far away) or by simply donating NANO - but since its money, I imagine hardly anyone will ever do it.
However, the more decentralized we are, the more secure and reliable the network gets, and more value is attracted. Thus, by having less tokens per individual, each token would be more valuable. What would be a sweet spot, I wonder??
Would Core, for example, be willing to do a token distribution in the name of decentralization? It would only boost the intended fundamentals of the network and help it achieve its intended goal. Once more people need to get involved and tokens get pulverized, a collusion to hinder the network gets way more difficult
Today, a group of less than 100 people can orchestrate a network breakdown. NANO incentives holders to act honestly in order to protect their investment, but most of the whales have invested nothing (but time to complete captchas or deploy bots to do it) to be in that position - tokens were freely distributed.
There is improbable but possible scenario where network guardians (whales) collude to break the network. An actor who wants to kill NANO for whatever stupid reason would need to (i) accumulate / buy the highest ammount of tokens available in the markets, and, assuming he is unable to obtain 51%+ -> +(ii) convince holders who posses the missing ammount to collude - at the promise of higher profits.
Bear in mind that I believe in the potential of the tech and I'...