You are not answering…
Oh I see, all your anger comes because you put too much money in XEM. You should have sold when the price was 2$. Crypto market is not going to be like 2017 ever again. Just take a look to Ethereum, they have more adoption than NEM and the price is still decreasing.
Say good bye to your money!
Here’s the thing: Either those companies use nem and we can see that by activity on the blockchain or they are not, which is what seems to be happening right now. If all those companies used the publich chain it would be at capacity right now (due to the arbitrary 129tx limit per block). Usage of the nem chain would create demand for xem, whether that increases the price of xem is secondary to me.
Of course most projects appear to be using private-chains in which case I don’t even care about them. Why would I care what a private business does ? For all I care they can run any chain privately. The point of blockchains was to make matters more transparent and trustless. Private chains bring neither and hence I could care less about them. It’s nice for the business if it saves them cost and/or solves problems for them but I simply don’t care which chain they use for that if it’s gonna be a private one.
I realize most seem to want private chains for the majority of use-cases, that doesn’t mean I have to like that fact though.
2 Likes
Your vision stop’s at $2. Go learn some basic math and come back.
1 Like
If we are putting NEM out there to the world at large, having a private and public option isn’t a bad thing, its a solid business advantage.
Whenever we can, we should (and do) push the public chain adoption. Large corps and government won’t use public chain so having a private option let’s NEM in the door. That is not to say we prioritize private over public.
Employees hold XEM too so actively working against a model that will (hopefully) increase price and public adoption is against the interest of the health of the chain and (if a big holder), the value of what you own.
Thats a Business Development slant on it, which @Lance_Cheang is more experienced than I.
I just don’t think its fair to accuse boots on the ground people for offering all the great options that we have at our disposal to get companies and governments using NEM tech. I don’t necessarily like it either but we have to face relaities.
The community has very right to be heard and listened to. Their concerns weighed carefully, and, acted upon in the best interest of the NEM ecosystem.
I hope the community and the new ExCo and Council can work hand in hand to make everything better, and release Catapult roadmap ASAP.
Thanks again for writing Lance, not many hear from those on the ground.
L
1 Like
who contributes in real? why you’re focusing on SEA? if you’re telling that somebody is bad, so go and show us who has a good CAC?
and who unveal this measures to regions from the top to discuss it now? - that’s way we need a President who will show us the goals - to every region to every country and city and employee
2 Likes
Jaguar, this is an interesting point coming from you. We are building on top of NEM but the tx cap on the mainnet makes a mainnet solution unfeasible for us and maybe most projects. What I mean here is that it is cheaper to buy the nodes on Mijin than to develop a workaround to enable tx on mainnet to be suficient to host a large scale project. Question one then is, do you have any advice on how to reconcile this problem. Example: Our pilot program will be aiming to have on max around 1 txps total, serving 500 users. If that is successful we will be looking to implement on a scale of about 100,000 users for an initial group and scaling to 6 million or so in the first six years. That would require 222- 13,000 txps necessitating multiple private chains interoperating with XEM as the intermediary. If it gets to the point that it would be potentially profitable to explore mainnet solutions instead of private then we would do that. The issue here is that a smart company should not design a project that requires thousands of txps per second and do the development on a chain that will be capped potentially in the tens. How then can you bring projects into the mainnet?
Second, is it true that Mijin are paying the developers’ wages? If so, I wouldn’t see mainnet tx as the only measure of value.
I spoke with members of NEM Europe recently, they did not seem interested in community building or the likes. They are focused on going to market. Maybe that’s why they are too busy or don’t care enough to post in the forum. Specifically because of what @Jaguar0625 and @Lionheart are talking about. Because paying people to chat on the forum does not yield ROI.
Public mainnet, even when catapult is released, will not be able to do 13k tps. That is out of scope.
Mijin is a brand. Tech Bureau Japan is paying the dev’s wages.
Did you just deflect both points? 
How can we expect projects on a mainnet capped at 2txps. You go to your investors and say hey we will have 1million users in the first five years. They ask how can you achieve that on NEM. The answer will be a dealbreaker for you. I think expecting most new projects to be building on the mainnet is asking a bit too much. Basing ROI assertions on this is even more presumptuous.
Doesn’t the tech bureau generate revenue from selling private chain services?
1 Like
That is enough for the pilot in your example. But then you say that it has to scale up to 6M user with 222-13k tps. The latter value is just not doable and will not be doable by any decentralized chain.
Catapult will be a lot faster than NIS so I think if you want to plan for future projects, you should only consider using catapult.
You have to ask Tech Bureau since i have no information on this.
1 Like
who contributes in real?
Foundation, in general, has underperformed. EU is only region that has staffed global CoE. Other regions have shifted to catapult focus much sooner than SEA.
why you’re focusing on SEA?
Because SEA is the only region that is praising itself about what a great job it is doing. Yet, when asked for specifics, there is little in real results. Additionally, SEA typically does not cooperate with global foundation initiatives (e.g. CoE) and has been one of the last regions to shift focus to catapult (although given this directive nearly a year ago).
and who unveal this measures to regions from the top to discuss it now
I imagine the foundation and SEA region have some way of measuring its performance? What are these metrics? Are goals being achieved? Who knows?
3 Likes
We are building on top of NEM but the tx cap on the mainnet makes a mainnet solution unfeasible for us and maybe most projects.
Existing public chain (pre-catapult) is not intended for high throughput scenarios. Throughput is intentionally capped to allow weaker nodes to participate in the network.
That would require 222- 13,000 txps necessitating multiple private chains interoperating with XEM as the intermediary.
If you’re interoperating with the main chain, then you’re using the main chain to some degree. That would count as main chain usage.
Given your high throughput requirements, you might be better off with a LightningNet-like solution rather than a network of private chains.
I wouldn’t see mainnet tx as the only measure of value.
It is not the only measure, but it is an important measure.
I find totally unfair some words denying that NEM is not working for adoption. Those who are talking about the lack of adoption? Who is getting slow adoption out there in the enterprise or governments market apart of a few private chains? (Hyperledger, R3 Corda, Private Ethereum and so on).
If nem its supposed to be the Enterprise and goverment blockchain, how you (and others here) expect governments and enterprise are going to chose NEM among others, even if we have better technology but nobody knows about us. (no awareness)
Nem teams across the world, Europe (Ukraine), Latam, Dubai, Malasya, Australia, myself met with governments. And of course, most of them are ware of Hyperledger and others. And then you can’t expect all of the sudden because you explain to them that catapult is awesome, they are going to use NEM. In the best case scenario you can sign a MOU and work in some tasting POC.
Same with Enterprises. I think its not so late but NEM lose a lot of traction with private chain competitors last months because there is no strategy with this. ( This is in one of my policies)
On the other side, the public chain, I read different solutions and opinion from you the core devs, NF devs, Nem founders or companies’ devs using public NEM with no consensus.
Education, Don’t know about other blockchains but NEM is doing very well specially in developing countries in SEA and Latam with training sessions in universities.
As I said in my council policy there is a lack of comunication (apart of resources) with core DEVS and internally that have to be fixed. We all together have to work for one goal, that’s NEM adoption. I find a totally nonsense “The region fights” and lack of confidence and trust among NF employees in all levels (BD, DEV, Marketing and head of regions).
Some comments from outside to some NF employees for example to the guys in Dubai are totally ridiculous and mean.
I totally support them and is there a problem, you should point Head of regions and not NF employees who follow orders with the best of intentions.
Saying that I also think if somebody act against NF have to be excluded, no matter which position.
This is my first candidate policy if I a get elected to Council.
NEM Foundation procedures and policies have to be fixed . Everything from the Foundation’s Constitution and election procedures, to clarifying Foundation representatives’ responsibilities and accountability (including the ExCo and Council) to ensure our teams are working to the same goals and outcomes.
1 Like
Well Anton If something does not go well people usually criticize.
NEM foundation took big money from investors in process what they call “not ICO”. I dumped my units long ago, but lot of people trusted NEM’s long term prospects and expected more than bashing each other on public forums. In the meantime certain individuals invented bureaucratic maze in order not to be held responsible, while few core developers left are on autopilot. Spin-off nem companies emerged competing directly or indirectly with nem.
Problem is - if shit hits the fan, which court would be in charge for disputes, because things are not going in right direction.
1 Like
Utter bollocks.
At the time of the non ICO there was no foundation. It gathered a grand total of about 63 BTC and some NXT when BTC was worth vastly less. The foundation came a long time afterwards.
The foundation hasn’t taken anyone else’s money and never has other than membership fees.
2 Likes
Just a theory - Someone or group of people within NF in SEA region may have vested interest to delay launch of public chain catapult, not hire developers, not open CoEs in the region and for NEM to not succeed, as they may have outside contact with a competing chain. Just a thought, but something to consider.
Two people come to mind who maybe ProximaX puppets.
Anything’s possible, they missed the boat with NEM and ProximaX offers them a second chance. Not accusing anyone, but it sounds reasonable enough to explore this possibility too.
It is very simple, you see mess, you dump mess, guessing is waste of time in ecosystem where most of people who are competent to provide some answers are hiding their identities behind anon. accounts.
1 Like