If you just care about transactions per second, you shouldn't use nano, but Visa. Faster more reliable and stable, tested, etc
If you care about decentralization, really being the owner of your funds, and giving back financial power to individuals, bitcoin no doubt.
Scalability is just a problem to be solved if people are using the network. People are not using nano or bch
what load of shit in your post.
transactions per second its the most important metric in this field ask any expert in blockchain, how you want to replace visa if it not scale.
this is what experts try to solve, so much bullshit in your post and sorry to say you far away from be educated in this space for sure.
if crypto wanna be main stream its must to scale the tps, imagine only the cars in the usa pay for gas/fuel in crypto on a basis how much transactions per second it will be.
You appear to be missing some of the nuance being explained to you here. There are compromises that need to be made if you place all your focus on maximising the number of transactions per second. Scaling carries certain costs to bear. The first thing which some people tend to sacrifice in favour of raw speed is decentralisation. But those of us who understand Bitcoin do not want to sacrifice decentralisation. As bitmover said, being in control of your funds and not having barriers to transact with other users is vital. Those are not qualities we would ever want to lose.
If you think TPS is the only important thing, that's your prerogative, but you'll find that many won't agree with that. And because Bitcoin is consensus based, the people who value decentralisation will continue to run the code that preserves decentralisation. If people wanted what you want, that wouldn't be the case. This puts you in the minority, which is not generally known for being a position where you get to assert your preference on development.