Questions about the Sicilian Kan

The Kan might be easy to play in that in the hedgehog positions after c4, black can easily shuffle the peices around on the back three ranks in typical hedgehog style. Objectively the play might not be very great though.  The standard of play of sicilian club players playing white, might not be that high either, not being comfortable with these more static english positions. That might contribute to the relatively good db stats with  the Kan.  Objectively though 1.e4 c5 2Nf3 e6 3d4 pxp 4Nxp a6 5c4,for example, is quite a testing line for white to try, and occured for example in a Carlsen v Anand World Championship game.  The point of Delchev's Flexible Sicilian book is to choose Kan lines against opponents that don't play the c4 hedgehog lines.  In the Nc3 lines black has more comfortable or at least less theory intensive options than the comparable Taimanov lines.

@Optimissed: No, "mainline" would not mean that. "Mainline" simply means that an opening is played at the GM level with decent frequency, and is known to be completely sound, and offering Black good chances for equality. The Kan meets all of those requirements. Secondly, your statement that the Kan is played in a "hyper-aggressive" way is simply not true.

The vast majority of the games go either into lines with White's O-O or into Hedgehog positions, both of which cannot be called hyper-aggressive. The remark about "pawn development" is a straw man. ... b5 in the Kan also has its positive features, namely that a Nc3 becomes uncomfortable. In the 5. c4 line, it constitutes a key break.

Thirdly, there is a game from Lone Pine in the 1970s where Vassily Smyslov, by beating Silman, popularised the Kan with 5. Bd3 g6!? - a pawn move that creates weaknesses and was previously thought bad.

Aren't the Kan and the Paulsen just the same thing?