Catapult Brand Update #1

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how exactly a 50-100 times slower and with no additional or different feature 3 years outdated old chain technology is a two directions setup?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once migration is finished there is no logical reason waste energy in upkeep old outdated chain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?















You are absolutely right that the number of core developers on Catapult should increase and hopefully that will be happening soon.
The Foundation will not be expending most of its resources on NIS1, quite the contrary, we will be focussed on Catapult support, with ongoing support (but minimized) of NIS1.
You are also correct that for developers or projects that want to build, we should (and have been) steering them towards Catapult.
The underlying principal is that we cannot force projects to move/migrate onto Catapult. They will move if and when they are ready. They have their own reasons and they need to be respected as well.
In short, Foundation focusses their efforts on Catapult with ongoing (reduced) support for NIS1.
I hope this helps, apologies for all English.


Why did MC require the core team to open source NIS1?
Please tell me the purpose.

understood. Make sentences only in English.

And thank you for the answer.

I understood that the Foundation’s policy is as follows. Please let me know if I make a mistake.

・ Foundation resources are used for “catapult” as much as possible.
・ Minimize the allocation of resources to NIS1 (so that NIS1 does not die)
・ Branding that encourages the use of catapults for both corporate and personal use
・ However, which chain will be used ultimately respects user and market choices

I agree with this branding policy.

1 Like

MC didn’t require, there may be a request to open source NIS1.

You are correct. Thank you for your reply.

I made a mistake. It’s NF, not MC.

Ah, ok. Same answer - it’s a request that will be made to Core and NF hopes they decide to make NIS1 open source. No one can force Core :slight_smile:

Yes, I know that. So I ask what did they request for.

No one has requested as of yet. The request/recommendation will be made when Catapult launches. I’m not yet sure of the procedure, but the hope is that they will agree.