I am not attacking. I’m just asking a question.
What do you think about my first opinion?
1 Like
Do not say sorry, you ask very good questions.
I am a bit familiar with the story but obviously not as much as you as you have lived it where as I am just reading a story.
Have I assessed NEM as a loser(dog)? Absolutely not! I think NEM is and has been very successful.
I don’t think it is necessary to change the NEM logo or name.
If you want to keep NIS1 and distinguish it from NIS1
I think it is enough to change only the ticker symbol.
NEM does not require rebranding. All that is needed is the actual use case.
After catapult is launched, the company I work for plans to develop products that use catapult.
I know some other companies like that.
If there is a place to output the results of even one successful case, I think that natural and catapult will be used in business.
I am opposed to only professionals and highly detailed people making decisions.
You should hear more from the community, not just the famous NEMber.
And NEMber should give more opinions.
First of all, here is my opinion.
This post may have no impact on the discussion, but I have the right to express my opinion.
And to many NEMber who are still watching have it.
---------------------- translate by Google
NEMのロゴや名前を変更する必要はないと思います。
NIS1を保持し、NIS1と区別したい場合
ティッカーシンボルのみを変更すれば十分だと思います。
NEMにリブランディングは必要ありません。必要なのは、実際に使用された事例だけです。
catapultがローンチされた後、私が働いている会社でもcatapultを使用したプロダクトの開発を計画しています。
私は、そのような会社を他にもいくつか知っています。
成功事例が一つでも世に出て、その成果をアウトプットする場があれば、自然とcatapultがビジネスで使われるようになると考えます。
私は、専門家や一部の人々だけが意思決定を行うことに反対しています。
有名なNEMberだけでなく、コミュニティの意見をもっと聞くべきです。
そして、NEMberはもっと意見を述べるべきです。
まず、ここに私の意見があります。
この投稿は議論に何の影響も与えないかも知れませんが、私には意見を述べる権利があります。
そして、静観している多くのNEMberにも。
7 Likes
Your responsibility is serious. Including the current situation.
1 Like
Lewis mentioned this on Twitter but focusing on enterprise doesn’t mean we don’t support public chain. It doesn’t mean we don’t just support NIS1 or Catapult. It isn’t either/or situation. We believe we can do both and have been working across entities and with the agency to put together a Go-To-Market strategy plan on what this will look like and what the budget/resources needed should be in order to execute on this in a meaningful way. We think we can energize the public chain (and hybrid and public) in a way that is commercially viable and self-sustaining.
2 Likes
Hi TakaNobu ,
I can hear the frustration in this post. NEM is not a loser(dog) and I am proud of the NEM brand and our community. I see Japan as an important part of NEM’s history but also NEM’s future. My hope is that the NEM community will be open to the ideas presented by the Brand Steering Committee on what the future could look like with a more refined focus on enterprise. I’ll continue to share more on this vision.
1 Like
First you say, ”I am not attacking. I’m just asking a question.”
Thank you for saying that. I appreciate it very much. It is too easy when we do not speak each others language to make poor assumptions. Please keep me honest and give me honest feedback. I will try not to make too many mistakes! I spent 13 years working for Hitachi Data Systems and greatly respect Japan and its intelligence and heart.
You say, ”I think it’s ridiculous to change the name of the platform due to negative image due to negative events such as coin check hacking.”
I totally agree. But this is not the only factor. We have come across this and other reasons. Other reasons such as competition is growing and moving to Enterprise as well. Looking at Enterprise target market around the planet and what they like and what they don’t like also is a big factor.
Thank you for these questions!
2 Likes
More information will be shared early next week. I agree with you - it is too early to judge on this without proper specifics. This post was about opening the discussion.
2 Likes
Thank you, We hope you will surely bring results to us.
I strongly hope that the new brand name includes the word “NEM”. That’s all.
4 Likes
Please make a numerical goal and show it to us.
For example,
Target transaction increase
Target companies
Target market value
Their target time
This will add power to your poem!
3 Likes
“an expert decides because feedback is not necessary”
“This post was about opening the discussion”
What do you want to do?
and
I am not asking . I’m just attacking a Meaningless discussion.
4 Likes
I honestly think it just better for you not to attack anything (or any person). It’s not good for the culture or for these discussions. It doesn’t inspire people to come into the ecosystem nor does it change the price of XEM. It only shows you are mad. I can’t do anything about people being mad. I can however do something about actionable feedback on content.
What should we do?
What is the discussion for?
If only expert opinions are to be adopted, report only the decisions.
The same applies to the Migration Committee. Tokenomics too.
And decide early.
1 Like
Hi there.
Thanks everyone for the opinions, this is exactly what this thread was created for - to get community feedback and view.
Let me share my view which can help to understand the situation better.
NEM was created as a community project with just one forum post and has an impressive history. This is the greatest example of how people can come together in a community and create great things.
In my opinion, NEM should and remains such a decentralized, reliable and convenient project that creates a NEW ECONOMIC MOVEMENT.
But the realities are such that a fully decentralized future with a global economy working on the blockchain does not seem to be achieved in the near future.
This is why we should be flexible and give the market what it needs at the moment and as you can see from the market research presented in the first message, this is a project with a focus on enterprise.
For a project to be successful in a selected niche, it must be customized for it. That is why we need a new branding and concept.
This is not a transition from one to another or quit one project or engage in another, it is a diversification of risks and flexibility in following the market.
As a result, we will have two projects - NEM, focused on the community and say “NEM2”, which is focused on enterprise needs, but also existing in the interests of the community.
We cannot know which of these areas will be more successful in the future, but if we think strategically, then this is a justifiable decision to increase the chances of success in the future by having two different directions.
3 Likes
Could you tell me more about this policy?
What is the reason for recommending that the community continue to use NIS1?
What exactly does “NEM, focused on the community” mean?
Does NIS1 have a community benefit that doesn’t exist in catapult?
この方針の詳細について教えていただけませんか？
コミュニティがNIS1を利用し続けることを推奨する理由は何ですか？
「NEM, focused on the community」とは具体的にどのような意味でしょうか？
NIS1には、catapultに存在しない、コミュニティにとってのメリットがあるのですか？
4 Likes
Hi kitsutsukick
Thanks for the questions.
I did not mention any policy in my post, so I’m not sure what you mean.
As well as I didn’t recommend anything, it’s only my perspective and point of view.
“NEM, focused on the community” mean that NEM is the project made by community with community as the main value.
May I suggest to have the objectives of the rebranding exercise being listed, well-explained and pinned for everyone to constantly referring to. Same goes to the targeting outcomes.
Suggesting this as seems many questions are about these issues. Clear points will help everyone not to loose sight while commenting.
I personally kinda fond of NEM, and personally experienced that people happily accept the fact that Coincheck hack is not the blockchain issue.
On the other hand, I do understand the rebranding exercise is far more than that. Do look forward to the outcome.
Rebranding is an issue, upholding the brand is a bigger task. The structure and activities to live up to the brand name are my concerns too.
I do feel like the stone on the catapult sitting for sometime waiting to be launched. Can’t wait to contribute.
2 Likes
Thank you for your reply. I understand that it is your personal opinion.
My understanding is that most projects will use the catapult chain, and a very small number of projects with special circumstances will use NIS1.
That is also my hope.
I hope that many projects, both enterprise and community, will generate large amounts of Tx in the catapult chain.
Next, I would like to hear about the official policy of the NEM Foundation. Is this possible?
Does the Foundation have a desire to actively brand NIS1 and keep both chains alive without relying on Natural selection?
If there is such a wish, why?
Or do you want to use the catapult chain if you can, whether for enterprise or community projects?
I thought we couldn’t talk about branding unless this premise was engaged.
(Of course, it is the user who decides which chain to use in the end.)
返信ありがとう。あなたの個人的な意見だということを理解しました。
私の理解では、大半のプロジェクトがcatapultチェーンを利用して、特殊な事情がある極めて少数のプロジェクトがNIS1を利用する未来を予想しています。
また、それが私の希望でもあります。
エンタープライズ、コミュニティー問わず、多くのプロジェクトがcatapultチェーンで大量のTxを生み出すことを私は望んでいます。
次は、NEM財団としての公式な方針を聞かせて頂きたいのですが、可能ですか？
財団としては、自然な淘汰に任せずに、積極的にNIS1をブランディングして2チェーンを両方とも生存させ続けたいという希望があるのですか？
仮にそのような希望があるのだとしたら、その理由はなぜですか？
それとも、エンタープライズ用途でも、コミュニティのプロジェクトでも、出来ることならcatapultチェーン使ってほしいとあなたは望んでいるのですか？
この前提の部分がかみ合っていないと、ブランディングの話もできないと思いました。
（もちろん、最終的にどちらのチェーンを使うのかを決めるのはユーザーですが。）
1 Like
Agree, it is a beautiful triangle - Well expressed.
People tend to forget that in software especially enterprise, the more history you have, the more credibility you built. Software has a natural cycle which it needs to go through to test it out, identify the vulnerabilities, strengthen the code base and improve business values before any reputable company would look at introducing it as enterprise into their systems. Social opinion does not matter with enterprise software as it is not an app you just download on your phone. Business’es perceptions matters as they are the ones buying the product and in most cases they have Technical Architects that scrutinize the software before introducing it into their eco system. Any Tech Arch worth their salts need to take into account the tested time factor. Why because one vulnerability could be destructive to a business that did not follow due diligence.
It is imperative that a link is maintained between the software based on lesson learned was inherited.
Lol, a breath of fresh air to hear the truth.
I believe this is one of the goals. We will just have a instance of a private Catapult chain that would be publicly know as a public chain. Hehe. The private owners would be the public.
Then the private chain should be able to interact/communicate/make use of the public chain. This is still part of the vision as last I can remember, if not then we have problems. Public and private chain interactions is part of the future and addresses a lot of use cases, which is hard to address with today’s traditional implementation of networks and data handling.