May I ask, can accounts with less than 100 XEM still receive the respective amount of XYM tokens later? I mean after the genesis block?
In other words, is the “min. 100XEM” rule only applicable to the pre-launch optin for XYM genesis block allocation?
I am relating to this post:
Interesting. According to this site, opt-in transactions are sent even under 100XEM.
I would like to know what happens to all XYM below 100 XEM that were not granted.
Burn??
You have time until the snapshot to fill the account.
I am asking with a specific case in mind: LuxTag NEM collectible bronze & silver coins.
We had minted quite a number of coins and pre-loaded them with 10 XEM each. Their private keys are under a scratch-off seal affixed to the coin itself.
Would the coin-accounts not be eligible for later (I hears “six years”?) claim of XYM?
Because I also have a purchase.
I will try and wrap a few questions up in one post:
`
I would like to know what happens to all XYM below 100 XEM that were not granted. Burn??
If they are not (or not able to be) opted in then they will sit in the unclaimed tokens account and be burned at the end of the 6 years
Interesting. According to this site, opt-in transactions are sent even under 100XEM.
It is possible to opt the account in (it can also be done via programming code) but they will not receive XYM unless they have >= 100 XEM at snapshot
@r3n3 the post launch opt in process will be confirmed in the next few weeks. The 100 XEM limit per the terms an conditions will apply to any account pre-launch, it may also apply to the post launch. I have forwarded this specific use case to the team to consider.
The original offer of the coins is still valid - buy a bronze or silver coin and get 10 XEM which still happens, from the above it doesn’t sound like you have committed to buy a coin and have 10 xem and 10 xym correct?
Accounts with less than 100XEM cannot be increased to more than 100XEM after the snapshot.
So that means they can’t receive XYM even within 6 years after the symbol launch, right?
They won’t be burned until after 6 years, but no one will receive them.
Is this correct?
Correct that we didn’t promise any new token allocations to apply to the pre-loaded collectible coins. But… We still hold a certain number of coins and don’t want to loose the future opportunity of XEM&XYM for the accounts. So we need to top-up another 90 XEM to the “physical coin accounts” to make them future-proof for future XYM claim.
I’d prefer to see the threshold for non-eligibility to be lowered to <10 XEM though.
Correct
Is there a reason why 100 XEMs was set as the cut off point for opt-in?
PoI was supposed to make it more fair for everyone, not just to make the rich get richer, to encourage genuine transactions rather than hoarding. PoS+ is supposed to continue in the same thread, a better way to distribute wealth among people invested in the community.
You can argue that people with less than 100XEMs do not contribute to the community as they don’t have enough stake, but I feel that in principle such an attitude is why after so many years, it is the NEM community has remained where it is (coupled with other factors as well). As of now, I don’t see any real reason why the opt-in process has this limit. The impression I’m getting is that this group does not deserve to be on the new platform, that what little they have we will take it and burn it away, so that we can artificially pump our coin in the future.
This is not a personal attack on anyone, or even the opt-in process itself, which I think has so far been conducted very well. But I would like to have some transparency/response regarding this point which I feel deserves some more discussion in the community.
PS. All the above are my personal opinions and does not reflect the position of any business or organizations that I am affiliated with.
The opt-in process was previously approved by a community vote. However, it did not include cutting less than 100XEM there. FYI.
accroding to https://nemnodes.org/richlist10k/ there are around 120k accounts with less then 100 XEM as we speak.
I understand that we dont want to bloat the genesis block but can we make it possible for them to claim after genesis?
I also think accounts under 100xem should be able to be claim after genesis. And if they don’t claim it after 6 years, it’s OK to burn it.
Trying to wrap a few questions into one post
Pre-Launch Opt In - reason for 100 XEM threshold
The nemesis/genesis block has a limited amount of space, allowing smaller accounts to opt in risks bloating the block to the point that bigger accounts may not be included in block 0 which has multiple potential knock on effects (harvesting, supernodes, namespaces, multi-sig configuration etc)
Setting a minimum threshold also makes it more expensive to initiate a spam disruption by placing a barrier on someone for example opting in 100,000 “dust” accounts with tiny balances
When 100 XEM was selected, it was expected to be necessary for namespaces owners to need to pay for 1 year’s fees (~20 XEM/XYM) so setting it above that made namespace opt in safer, this has since been removed by a minor enhancement allowing namespaces to be created for 0 rental fee in the nemesis/genesis block
Post-Launch Opt In - reason for 100 XEM threshold
Setting a minimum threshold helps avoid spam of the post launch opt in process and makes it easier to ignore spam attempts
The holding of each balance on-chain takes up an amount of resource in terms of storage, memory etc on nodes, it is preferable at a technical level to have only “real” accounts at the start of the chain to reduce chain bloat in the early days
Why was 100 XEM the number selected?
It was a combination of:
A number higher than 20 was required for namespaces, and 100 is a nice round, easy number (no longer relevant, see comment above, but was at the time of opt in opening)
To be significant enough to deter spamming, but low enough to not be exclusionary. When the number was selected the price was ~$0.05 so represented an account with approx $5 of XEM in it. Changing a number to 10 XEM for example would have been 50c. In terms of spam protection, issuing 10,000 spurious requests costs $50k or $5k with the two different options (100 vs 10) this was also factored in. There is no technical reason for saying 10, 50, 100 XEM from a spam protection perspective
The number of accounts with less than 100 XEM is significant in number but not volume held (~114k accounts according to the rich list last time I looked) which is 114k accounts that hold less than $10 of XEM at current prices and if each opts in contribute to the size of the chain. Of course if they are combined into larger accounts, or held on exchanges which are opting in, then they also become included.
Thanks for the detailed answer Dave.
It raises some additional questions though 
General questions:
Specific questions:
I think this only applies if there is indeed 1 or a few big holders which control a big part of the 114k accounts.
Again, this would only be possible if there is indeed 1 or a few holders which control the 114k accounts.
Just some assumptions… Lets say there is indeed 1 or a few holders which control 114k accounts, which waits to spam the symbol blockchain. What would stop them (besides from fees*) from sending everything to one account, optin, create 114k accounts on symbol and start spamming?
*(fees would be higher if the attacker opts in every single account vs opting in just one big account and create 100k new accounts on symbol to spam the chain)
My opinion on it: I think most of the 114k accounts are “lost” and not controlled by anyone anymore. I do think there will be few active ones. I dont want to lose them just because some theoretical problems which seem to be mostly made up on the “spam problem”.
However, I see the problem with genesis block (limited amount of space) and why they cant be included from start.
Not including the smaller accounts in the genesis block is acceptable because of the block size limit.
I however do not follow the reasoning to block them post launch. Just make it posible that they opt in after x blocks post launch if it is technologically not posible to put them in genesis (say 10 days blocktime). If they really want to spam they will find a way around it or do it without.
Lost accounts will be lost even if there is no 100 xem limit because they need to send a transaction to claim.
to my understanding there is nothing to stop us to allow below 100 XEM addresses at snapshot to claim their XYM balance after start of chain
technical it make sense limit the genesis included addresses
but after genesis we could use a more reasonable number example 1 XEM
as 1 XEM was aready above 1$ in the past anything that size cant be seen as dust
u dont leave a 1$ note on ground without pick it up
its not dust!
Thanks for the detailed reply @spizzerb I will try and break up the chunks, let me know if I miss something.
Thanks for the detailed answer Dave.
It raises some additional questions though
General questions:
- Who made this decision?
There are two decisions - Pre and Post, I’m not sure which you mean so will answer both
the post launch opt in process will be confirmed in the next few weeks. The 100 XEM limit per the terms an conditions will apply to any account pre-launch, it may also apply to the post launch. I have forwarded this specific use case to the team to consider
- To the decision maker: What if we lose a part of our community if we exclude them?
This is a consideration and why we are watching these threads and conversations.
- To the decision maker: How many of the 114k accounts did you expect will optin?
This is impossible to know, and impossible to know if more will be created pre-snapshot and opt in (for example a spam scenario).
There is a natural follow on question - who should make this decision and how. My preference for example if 100XEM, Rene’s is around 10XEM I think) others are at 0 XEM. This decision isn’t mine or NGL’s to take and is the subject of a discussion. I have no issue for example having this conversaton run and then having a vote on it but what should be the question, what should be the answer options? (0, 10, 50, 100 etc they are all personal preferences).
My personal take is it should be somewhere above 0, it was set at 100xem for pre-launch due to numbers involved and space in the block based on estimates, that has been assumed as the start point post launch but is not decided/set in stone and we have some time to decide this (community not NGL)
I will add a seperate reply shortly for the specific questions to try and avoid a wall of text
Edited: to make formatting easier to read
