How do people who do not use NEM Wallet (Nano Wallet) opt in?
(Ex: mobile users)
They download Nano Wallet and then do opt-out/opt-in if they care. It seems that defaulf option will be opt-in. So if you do not want to receive catapult tokens you need to do opt-out to do not receive them at Catapult launch.
What!? Do all mobile users need to buy PC to get XEM2 ? hahaha.
No, only if you care about tax optimalizations you need to manually opt-out that you do not want receive XEM2 automatically from start. Default behaviour will be that you will get XEM2 automatically and you do not need to do anything.
I do not understand. Can people who do not own a nano wallet get XEM2 from the beginning?
Nano wallets can only be accessed from a PC.
Where is that information written???
Your statement says that if you don’t opt out,
all users will be granted XEM2. really?
Based on Supernode owners opinions about migration it seems that this will be the way how to do migration in the best. Exactly like you wrote “Your statement says that if you don’t opt out,
all users will be granted XEM2”.
There will be maybe some workaround for multisig account (they mabe need to do manual opt-in because of technical reasons). But all nomal accounts should get XEM2 automatically without any other activity needed. And if somebody do not want to receive XEM2 from start he just opt-out and then opt-in manually in the future to receive XEM2.
Does the NEM community disclose information only to Supernode owners?
Closed and centralized. lol
You will never be satisfied and you will still be blaiming somebody. So do what you want anyway, bye.
I’m just asking a question.
Are you a member of the migration team?
I read all public information.
Don’t you think it’s strange to know the answer for some privileged classes?
Is NEM an open community?
I’m just asking open questions.
That’s one of the problems. We should have an open discussion. Instead, we have another discussion behind closed doors, where from time to time a little information sloshes through. I find this rather counterproductive, because it has stifled another open debate. Fortunately, we have so much time. Maybe in the future the NEM community will only consist of the less than 60 members of this group.
Even the process of inviting the SN owner reminded me of a KYC.
Yes claim procedure should be wallet-agnostic.
There is a proposal being discussed that would work like this. Nothing has been decided.
I agree the discussion should be a bit more open. Feel free to start a topic on this forum.
The migration committee is said to be conducting a survey in a closed group with some SN owners participating. I don’t think it would be good to become a “consensus”.
If you use whitelist voting, you can conduct a questionnaire only to SN owners. Even if one owner has 5 SNs, it should be OK to be 5 votes. Because it is the consensus rule of this world.
Discussion and questionnaire should be done in separate fields. I hope them that always think about what is more fair.
If the migration committee has a new proposal like the opt-out option, would you share it as soon as possible?
As of now, there is no new proposal to share. If there are any changes the Migration Committee will post them.
Thanks @Jaguar0625 and others
Opt In vs Opt Out
As stated above, there are options being investigated and discussed to see what is an isn’t possible at present. One of those is to allow an Opt Out process instead of an Opt In process, difference being below:
Opt In - NIS1 token holders make an active interaction to signal they want to receive tokens on Catapult
Opt Out - All NIS1 token holders are allocated tokens on Catapult UNLESS, they actively Opt-Out, if they do decide to Opt Out, they can still claim their tokens later via an Opt In process similar to the above.
Both of these would occur on-chain in NIS1 and both would allow NIS1 token holder to claim tokens post launch. The exact duration of that is being investigated still but as noted above is likely to be several years and that is being planned for, legal advice is also being taken to ensure we are taking legally compliant approaches. Opt Out alters a couple of other elements to the recommended approach (particularly around Multi Sig) which are still being scoped, that is the primary reason nothing has been released publicly on it just yet.
It is likely an updated communication will be issued in the next few days covering this.
Current thinking is that either Opt In or Opt Out will be actioned by sending a transaction to a known account with a specific message. A NEM Wallet (Nano Wallet) plugin has been scoped to make this simple and easy, but there is no reason any other wallet couldn’t do the same, or that it couldn’t be sent programmatically. Once the decision is firm on what is happening and how it is to happen, guides I’m sure can be produced quite easily, similar to the above, I would expect this to be wallet agnostic, it just might be easier on the official desktop wallet.
Regarding the SuperNode holders engagement. Contrary to intimations about closed door decisions, this approach has been taken to provide a way to allow members of the community who feel less able voice their opinions publicly for various reasons to have a way in which to express them. The “consensus” referred to above is acknowledged as not being community consensus but only consensus of that specific group. The group also generally includes a lot of longer standing members of the community and those who understand the technology and ecosystem well so serves as a useful challenge to assumptions by the committee.
That is not to say we don’t expect the wider community to also challenge assumptions, express preferences etc - we definitely do, it is just one more way to allow people to do that.
that u get coins without an action required
but to take concerns serious and allow people who want to delay recieve coins by signal it upfront
is in my opinion the right way to handle it
people who miss claim coin because a paper wallet after years cant no longer be claimed is a way more serious issue where we really did “steal” access from someone
only by default send coins towards same addresses on new chain we can avoid that.
people are used by how bitcoin position itself that private key ownership give ownership to that coins forever no matter of forks.
as long as same address schema is used its to be expected that key ownership automatic result in access to ur value.
be able to lose that access because u miss a deadline is a way more serious problem then some people from one country have to act in a few months timeframe regarding possible (i think in fact not even real) tax issues
they have access to original token, for which paper wallet was created, so I don’t think this point is valid.
In this context, I think it would be important to clarify the future of NIS1.
holders with millions wont miss in both szenarios. so we talk here about small owners with low amounts mostly and to make it as easy as possible for the small guy looks like the best path
and nothing needed to do than start new wallet import key is the most easy path. maybe even the new wallet automatic dedect the installed nanowallet and ask if u allow import keys if u provide password so even that can be done automatic
maybe we should focus more on the UX part of the question
whats the most easy user experience in migration
in opt-out 99% of users have nothing to do 1% maybe have to set an action
in opt-in 100% of users who want coins must set an action (upfront or after) so u never get coins without doing something