Mikerow's opinion on the BitGrail-NANO case.


I am no longer part of the NANO team (formerly RaiBlocks) since about end October 2017. I have no communication with the NANO team and I have no share or income from the BitGrail portal.

I am also a victim of the recent theft on BitGrail.

Warning! Those that follow will be only my opinions and have nothing to do with a future judicial truth that will be produced in the competent offices. In principle, I'm not partisan for NANO team or BitGrail. The following opinions are based on information provided on official channels by the NANO team, by BitGrail or otherwise available publicly on internet even by third parties.

Who is the culprit of the theft of 17 Millions of NANO?

I believe that the real culprit is those who acted in bad faith in order to take possession of money that did not belong to him. From the information that has so far emerged on the web it seems that the culprit is a person outside the NANO team and BitGrail.

NANO team

What role does the NANO team play in this case?

I think absolutely marginal, every new ambitious project requires months if not years to correct the problems or perfect their functioning. Moreover, NANO is expressly issued under the license of "use it at your own risk, we do not provide guarantees". Anyone who agrees to use NANO to keep money, also accepts any risk associated with it.

Why the first transaction (of the many) of the theft has a chronologically incompatible date? (on the official explorer)

I did the code of the explorer, even after having double checked it (from my backup) I do not think it showed any particular anomalies. I do not know if it has been changed. The explanation that the NANO team has provided seems to me founded. Perhaps more attention is to be paid to the propagation of "open" type blocks. It is probable that with the universal blocks the thing definitely resolves.

In essence, the NANO team played a direct role with theft?

I have no reason, nor any proof to think or prove this.


What role does the BitGrail play in this case?

BitGrail is the tool by which the perpetrator of the theft has gained its advantage. As in the case of the source code of NANO, even the source code of an exchange that lists a fresh currency may present problems or inaccuracies not necessarily due to the negligence of the person managing the exchange.

Can the recovery plan proposed by BitGrail be a viable solution?

If we consider low the chances that the stolen NANOs will be recovered from the law enforcements, I would say yes. Of his heritage, I do not think that BitGrail can cover even 2% of the theft. Anyone who accepts the recovery plan will immediately be able to get back 100% of the coins with the exception of NANO (of which about 20%) and over time be reimbursed with part of the profits of BitGrail. In the case of BitGrail being closed, I believe that the procedure to get back your funds can be much longer and uncertain.

In essence, BitGrail played a direct role with theft?

I have no reason, nor any proof to think or prove this.


I hope that any future judicial truths will take away any suspicion that directly involve the NANO team and Bitgrail in the theft.

NANO is a beautiful, innovative currency that if it will survive this problem will be even stronger than before.