If X and “nature of X” are the same thing, then “nature of X” is redundant and can be ignored, which is what I do.
Since I do not accept “natures” in the reified sense you appear to use it, then there can be neither similarity nor difference between things that do not exist.
I do accept similarities and differences between, say cats and dogs. I do not accept “nature of cats” and “nature of dogs”, which are either redundant, if they do not differ from cats and dogs, or lead to an infinite regress: the nature of the nature of cats etc.
For me, what I see is what I get. No more. You appear to want there to be something beyond what you see. You project a reified version of what you would like to see out into the real world and think it is real. I do not agree.
A Zen story to illustrate:
On a cold winter night, a big snow storm hit the city and the temple where Dharma Master Dan Xia served as a Monk got snowed in. Cut off from outside traffic, the fuel delivery man could not get to the Zen Monastery. Soon it ran out of heating fuel after a few days and everybody was shivering in the cold. The monks could not even cook their meals.
Dan Xia began to remove the wooden Buddha Statues from the display and put them into the fireplace.
“What are you doing?” the monks were shocked to see that the holy Buddha Statues were being burnt inside the fire place. “You are burning our holy religious artefacts! You are insulting the Buddha!”
“Are these statues alive and do they have any Buddha nature?” asked Master Dan Xia.
“Of course not,” replied the monks. “They are made of wood. They cannot have Buddha Nature.”
“OK. Then they are just pieces of firewood and therefore can be used as heating fuel,” said Master Dan Xia. “Can you pass me another piece of firewood please? I need some warmth.”
The next day, the snow storm had gone and Dan Xia went into town and brought back some replacement Buddha Statues. After putting them on the displays, he began to kneel down and burn incense sticks to them.
“Are you worshipping firewood?” asked the monks who were confused about what he was doing.
“No. I am treating these statues as holy artefacts and am honouring the Buddha,” replied Dan Xia.
What is the essence/nature of those pieces of wood: are they firewood or are they sacred statues? Would it be better to say that the sacredness/firewoodness was not intrinsic to the pieces of wood, but projected onto them by the monks? It was not part of the object itself, but a mental construct by the monks who projected it onto the object.