Catapult Brand Update #1



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.

You don’t understand my question

I’m asking for the purpose they request open source.


Apologies did not immediately pick up on the emphasis of the purpose. It was always one of the criticisms of NIS1 that it was never fully open sourced. One of the reasons why Coinbase never listed us. It would be preferable for community based developers to have access to all of NIS1 code, maybe it can be developed further, who knows?

Finally, I see.
NF expect to the growth of NIS1.
I understand. Thank you.


When is the snapshot?

It’s not announced as of yet. When we know, it will be announced to the community across all of our channels.

I believe that there will be an extreme selling pressure on NEM nis1 when Catapult NEM comes.

If I understand it correctly, there will be more focus on Catapult. I believe that NEM Nis1 will become extinct.

Why shouldn’t you not sell all your NEM Nis1 right after the snapshot and buy NEM catapult token so you would have the double number.

There is a detailed plan for how Foundation will be supporting NIS1. This is something we’ve been working closely with exchanges and internal teams on.