Catapult Brand Update #1

NEM’s founding visions can be found on BitcoinTalk (which I also reiterated in my candidate policy doc last year.)

:bulb: Founding Values
From its very first announcement post in 2014, NEM’s founding values have been:
“Financial Freedom, Decentralization, Equality of Opportunity”

My interpretation of NEM’s founding values is:
Financial Freedom - This means financial success for our supporters, partners, and the sustainability of the Foundation.
Decentralization - This means transparency. This means moving towards an organization based on rules, not politics, and negotiation.
Equality of Opportunity - This means there is a place for everyone who wants to join and contribute. This means fairness and objectivity in how we operate, how we measure success, and how we reward success.

I also disagree that NEM is a “community-oriented cryptocurrency.” NEM is a blockchain technology platform that has a cryptocurrency component, but NEM should not be thought of as just a “cryptocurrency.”

As for Catapult, there is discontinuation between NIS1 and Catapult. The Brand Steering Committee was asked to explore options around creating a new brand for Catapult, so that is what we’ve done. After months of research and exploration, this is our perspective.

Catapult’s brand ambition is to be the trusted value transfer network for business.

At Catapult, we believe that the next evolution of business will about fair value
exchange. The ability to ascribe value to anything that individuals or organizations own – and
exchange it fairly – will create a level playing field that removes barriers to entry and
allows full participation in markets and business. We want Catapult technology to be at the heart of this new movement, allowing everyone to digitize their assets, exchange them, and create real value.

Catapult Core Belief
Everyone is valued, and everything has value. We believe that everyone originates and creates.
At Catapult, we recognize that all businesses, organizations, individuals, and communities have value and that too often, that value is exploited or unrealized. Our technology will enable everyone to create possibilities and realize value, whatever that is and however they choose.

NEM began as the New Economic Movement and now, :point_right:with Catapult we want to create the New Value Model.:point_left:

The core idea is that Together, Everything is Possible. With Catapult you can create value; however you define it. We believe that our technology can be the platform to make possibilities real by reducing the cost of trust and enabling the creation, exchange, and protection of ideas, innovation, and value.

The philosophy for Catapult is: Openness
Openness describes our approach to business and business interactions, the developer community, and open source as well as the technology features and benefits in Catapult. With Catapult, you can realize possibilities, and create value; however you define it. We make it easy to work with, so anyone can participate and build with Catapult.

Openness & collaboration through Security
Openness can only be achieved by establishing a robust, secure framework at its core that enables, encourages, verifies, and protects data and the creation and exchange of value within and between businesses, organizations & individuals. Security underpins openness, which creates a possibility and ultimately enables the creation of business value.

Our Proposition
Powering possibility, creating value. We provide the means to digitize your assets, to exchange and protect them, to create real value. With Catapult everyone and everything can now be valued through tokens, making a level playing field where everyone can participate in value creation.

:point_right:Our Territory and Brand Strategy:point_left:
Our ambition: To be the trusted value transfer network for business
Our belief: Everyone is valued and everything has value
Our idea: Possibility
Our expression: Together, Everything is Possible
Our philosophy: Openness & Collaboration through Security
Our proposition: Powering possibility, creating value
What we do: Technology, tools, inspiration & support
Our audience: The value builders
Our personality: Open, Intelligent, Connected, Vibrant, Optimistic

We will go more into detail on this in the next update but based on the feedback I see in this post, I think it’s important to share the thinking around the Catapult brand.

Sidenote #1: Due to trademark issues, it cannot be named Catapult.

Sidenote #2: It’s worth emphasizing that I’m proud of NEM and believe both Catapult and NEM can be supported with a strong ecosystem. I’ve seen some feedback that I “don’t care” about NEM. I am an empathetic leader who is a strong collaborator by nature. I am also analytical and look at facts and situations. The data compiled by the Brand Steering Committee and agency indicates that Catapult has the best chance of success as a new brand and therefore on behalf of the Brand Steering Committee, I volunteered to be the one to share information to the wider community as this aligns with my nature.


Please see my above response. Branding map, scenarios, priorities, and input (ranging from community to core to partners to industry experts to team members to SuperNode owners) has been compiled so that we could get to solid understanding of the opportunities we have for Catapult as a new brand. If there is something we may have missed please let us know.

Thank’s. I felt there was no need to change the name if the NEM policy itself did not change.

1 Like

Show results in market and transaction. That’s all.


It seems like the first branding update is Q1 2020. Isn’t Catapult supposed to be released by then . . . why would a rebrand take place after such a massive milestone. Can you clarify? Maybe I am confused?

Catapult launch timeframe has been revised. You can find latest schedule in the migration committee updates here: Migration Committee Community Update #4.


1 Like

Do we have any successful examples of a rebranding in the crypto space?

NEO & Dash are two notable ones

1 Like

Can we pay 50% of the marking company fees in catapult tokens, which is locked down in a wallet for 2 years ?
Then after the suggested re brand has happened and is tested in the market for a small period of time they can decide to sell there tokens… (which would be worth way more)
I think it is a great test to measure the trust and confidence in their professional suggestion. Lets hope in those 2 years that no exchange is negligent in their processes, which may result in a false article being written that Catapult was hack, but on the bright side it would not be linked NEM…
Also now we will have a tried and tested process, so if Catapult 2.0 is planned for release we can start with the new branding already without needing community input as we have a proven process.

There was some sarcasm in some of my statements above.
This statement has no sarcasm :
Aa! what the hell, let just do it. Either way a new improved chain is born.

Also good to ask the negative side of that question and measure up the 2 answers outcomes.
Do we have any unsuccessful example of re branding in the crypto space.
I think we may all safely assume that there are more coins which had a re brand and was still unsuccessful than successful, which from a probability point of view makes me feel that sometimes re-branding is a scam or not the biggest success factor. Maybe just maybe, staying true to your roots has more value than one thinks. Just a thought.
Consumers value story and character more in the long term than brand. Brand need it’s reputation to build over time. Stories(History) and Character is built over time.
Starting all from scratch - time starts from scratch.

1 Like

how exactly a 50-100 times slower and with no additional or different feature 3 years outdated old chain technology is a two directions setup?

its not! dont try to sweettalk that they did go the easy path of not code a chain upgrade and instead have to start a fresh chain.

its clear that catapult is faster at least 3 years more modern in codedesign and way more futureproof and it have all abilities old chain had and a lot more

there is no reason to have the second old chain beside lack of proper chain upgrade design and keep old chain running a few months maybe years until all serious projects running on top migrated to new chain

i mean its ok to choose this way but then be honest

call it by its name it will be a soft shutdown for old chain (out of support after project migration finished OR open source and release into freedom of old chain technology)

nis based old chain was a placeholder its replaced by new catapult based technology
and old chain values are migrated step by step native coin balances of snapshot are cloned
and 3rd party projects get support for migrate their assets to new chain

once migration is finished there is no logical reason waste energy in upkeep old outdated chain

1 Like

Well if NIS1 gets open sourced after catapult launches, its possible we could see community make improvements and increase TPS, etc.
Remember that catapult development had halted all further development on NIS1 and its foolish to say that it wont hold any use/value in future.
Of course we can let community/markets decide on that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some in the community, particularly in Japan continuing development on NIS1 if it gets open sourced.


Antshares to NEO was a pretty successful one

1 Like

Most rebrands in crypto appear to have had positive impact from what I’ve seen. But catapult is more about a new brand rather than a rebrand.
I’m all for a new brand for Catapult, that way we can keep NEM alive and coexist alongside Catapult.


I read somewhere that there will be a new ticker/symbol as part of the rebrand. Does this mean there will be a token swap? Will Xem be degraded? Will Xem be axed once Catapult is live?

XEM and the new token will exist side by side. As stated in the Migration Committee Updates, there will be a token allocation with a snapshot of your XEM balance (in your NEM Wallet) and you will be issued the same amount of Catapult tokens as XEM at the time of snapshot. It will be 1:1.
NIS1 will still be running and XEM will still exist. They are two separate chains.



This is a machine translation of Japanese text. I’m sorry if there is any rude expression.

Thank you for your reply.
Also sorry for the late reply from me.

I am worried that there is no accurate communication between the branding team and the community.

You said.

"I also disagree that NEM is a“ community-oriented cryptocurrency. ”

When I saw the discussion in this group, I felt the following:

Maybe the branding team thinks like this:

“Community members demand that NEM’s name remain unchanged. They are like children crying for fear of being robbed of toys.”

As far as I can see, no community member thinks that way.

They want NEM to be used in enterprise applications.

They are seriously thinking, “How can a company engineer consider using NEM for their services?”

Perhaps you think they are using NEM “just for fun”?

In my view, they “play” with the goal of getting more people to know the name of NEM and reaching out to corporate engineers.

They are exploring new ways of using “play”.

In addition, many of them do not receive compensation for branding and work with their own money and time.

If you think of them as “children who are crying because they are robbed of toys,” that is a big mistake.

At least I think so.

Of course, the branding team will have a claim. Please tell it so that we can understand it.

I hope the branding team and the community can work together to increase enterprise usage.

Our goals are consistent.

Both the community and the branding team aim to increase NEM enterprise use.

The question is, “Why do we need to change the name to increase enterprise usage?”

At least I will not object to the name change if there is a reason to be convinced.

I am worried that a closed decision will be made without showing a clear reason.

You might think this is a small thing.

However, I am worried that the accumulation of precedents that “closed decision making was allowed” will create a centralized organizational culture.

And did the branding team members read my article?

You are very busy. I understand that very well. And I support you.

So it doesn’t require you to answer directly.

Can your subordinates answer the suggestions in my article?

— オリジナルの文章 —





"I also disagree that NEM is a “community-oriented cryptocurrency.” "


























Can you specifically name the engineer who wants to develop the NIS1 core?

At least my friend’s Japanese engineer has no such person.

In addition, this is a survey with very low accuracy, but in my survey, Japanese engineers who use NIS1 are 1/10 of engineers who use catapult.

(To reiterate, this is a low-accuracy survey. The branding team will have the funds to conduct a high-accuracy survey, so we will conduct an accurate survey and submit the results to assert the branding team ’s idea. It can be announced.)

Read this article for details.

Does the branding team confirm that demand for NIS1 exists in the market?

What are the benefits of engineers and users using NIS1 instead of catapult?

In the absence of such data, I disagree with a branding policy that puts NIS1’s survival scenario as the first priority.

By the way, do you think the current number of catapult core developers is enough?

Suppose an engineer with the technology to develop a blockchain core is interested in NEM.

If I was a Foundation decision maker, I would encourage him to do catapult core development. I will consider giving him incentives if necessary.

I believe that the number of catapult core developers should increase.

There are not many engineers who can develop blockchain cores.

Do you think that such valuable talent should be distributed to catapult and NIS1?