Nolan Williams has been involved with digital assets since 2015, long enough to watch cryptocurrency become associated with both genuine technical experimentation and relentless speculation. Through Concrete Digital and his research, he has become increasingly interested in a question that price charts rarely answer: what is the underlying network actually capable of doing?

That question sits at the center of his book Kaspa Ghost Protocol. Williams wanted to move the conversation away from short-term market excitement and toward architecture, security, scalability, and whether a decentralized network can support meaningful use over time. His argument is not that every new blockchain deserves attention, but that serious projects should be evaluated on more than their ticker symbols.

Infrastructure Matters More Than Hype

Bitcoin remains the reference point for most conversations about cryptocurrency, and Williams sees good reason for that. It introduced a decentralized proof-of-work model that demonstrated digital scarcity could exist without a central authority controlling the ledger.

At the same time, Williams believes Bitcoin’s strengths do not automatically make it the ideal architecture for every use case. He points particularly to transaction speed and everyday usability as areas where other networks are attempting different solutions.

That interest led him to Kaspa, a proof-of-work network built around a blockDAG structure rather than a traditional linear blockchain. Williams is drawn to the project because he believes it attempts to preserve the security properties associated with proof of work while processing transactions more quickly.

He is careful to distinguish that interest from simply calling Kaspa a faster Bitcoin. For Williams, the more interesting question is whether a network can remain decentralized and secure while improving the speed and flexibility needed for broader use.

Proof of Work Is Not Necessarily Finished

Proof of work is sometimes treated as an older generation of blockchain design that newer consensus systems have already replaced. Williams thinks that conclusion is premature.

He argues that proof of work still has value because independent participants contribute computing resources to validate activity on the network. The trade-off is that traditional designs can become slower or more difficult to scale as more activity moves through them.

Williams sees newer architectures as an attempt to address that tension rather than abandon proof of work altogether. In his view, Kaspa is interesting because its design allows multiple blocks to coexist within the network structure rather than forcing every block into one strictly linear sequence.

Whether that approach ultimately becomes widely adopted remains an open question. Williams is more interested in the experimentation itself because it shows that blockchain infrastructure is still developing rather than simply repeating the first generation of cryptocurrency systems.

Education Is the Best Defense Against Bad Actors

Williams also acknowledges one of cryptocurrency’s biggest credibility problems: fraud, exaggerated promises, and people using technical language to sell assets they may not fully understand themselves.

His response is education rather than reassurance.

Williams encourages people to ask basic questions before taking a project seriously. Who built it? What problem is the network designed to solve? How does the technology work? What are the trade-offs? Can the people promoting it explain those answers clearly without immediately turning the conversation into a sales pitch?

That distinction matters because technical complexity can make people feel they have only two choices. They can trust the person speaking most confidently, or they can avoid the subject entirely.

Williams believes both responses are dangerous. Blind enthusiasm creates obvious risks, while dismissing an entire technology category because parts of it are confusing can prevent people from understanding developments that may eventually matter.

His own approach is to lead with research and let readers decide whether the argument holds up. Kaspa Ghost Protocol was written partly to give people a structured way to understand the network before forming an opinion about its value.

Everyday Use Is the Harder Test

Much of cryptocurrency has been built around investment narratives. Williams believes the more meaningful test will be whether decentralized networks become useful enough that people interact with them without thinking primarily about speculation.

That could involve payments, financial infrastructure, record keeping, ownership systems, or other applications where a public ledger provides practical value. Williams points to growing interest in blockchain infrastructure among financial institutions and technology companies as evidence that the underlying technology is being explored beyond retail trading.

He is particularly interested in whether networks can handle ordinary transactions efficiently enough to operate alongside existing financial systems. A blockchain that works well only when people are holding an asset has a different purpose from one designed to support frequent economic activity.

This is where Williams believes technical design becomes more important than marketing. Transaction speed, security, network participation, upgradeability, and decentralization are not especially exciting topics compared with dramatic price predictions, but they determine what a network may realistically be able to support.

Research Comes Before Conviction

Williams is openly enthusiastic about Kaspa, but the more useful part of his argument is his insistence that enthusiasm should follow investigation.

Cryptocurrency has developed quickly enough that people can encounter a new project, a persuasive social media thread, and a price forecast before they understand what the technology does. Williams wants to reverse that order.

He believes people should begin with the engineering problem, examine how a project attempts to solve it, and decide whether the solution represents meaningful progress. Only then does it make sense to think about what wider adoption might look like.

That approach also makes room for uncertainty. No researcher can know with certainty which networks will still matter years from now, and technical promise does not guarantee commercial adoption.

For Williams, that uncertainty is a reason to study the infrastructure more carefully rather than retreat into hype or cynicism. The useful question is not which cryptocurrency will rise fastest, but which systems are solving problems well enough to earn a place in the next generation of digital infrastructure.

Want more Plugged In? Read more or listen on Apple Podcasts.