It’s encouraging to see the feedback on this thread. 
If you see discussion in Telegram or Twitter, please send community here so as the Migration Committee posts updates, more meaningful discussions can be had.
5 Likes
Looking forward to what has been discussed and who provided which input so far. (Unfortunately, I have no access anymore to migration discussions from NEM EU around this time last year.)
Here are my first thoughts from top of my head:
Obviously Catapult was communicated as V.2 of NEM for a few years and is already priced in in the xem price. So, it should be a goal for to maintain their value.
I’d like to see a snapshot at a certain height (+ all of the history on version 2).
Since there are a few applications running on NIS1, and the chain has been running for years while Catapult will be at a more infant stage - it makes sense for NF to officially support both for some time and have them run in parallel + provide guides for developers to make the switch.
6 Likes
In Japan, many people are concerned about taxes.
If we get a new XEM using the 2chain-snap-shot method. By that, if we are regarded as income at the market price when we get new XEM and we need to pay taxes, that’s exactly hell.
Japan has the second most super node in the world. They may quit node operations and sell XEM for tax payment.
That is really the worst. The predecessor profit is lost. Especially the efforts of the old NEMber are lost. This problem must be avoided absolutely.
We have great expectations for Catapult. But many people should not suffer from taxes because of Catapult. And there is no need to hurt part of our lives.
The NEM Foundation said Japan is one of the important markets, does the migration committee include Japanese legal or taxation experts or something? I don’t think so. So I’m more worried.
9 Likes
I stayed quiet for a long time, but I feel that I should give some input to the migration topic.
I would raise the question, why do we have this discussion at all?
From my understanding there are two main reasons:
(1) NIS APIs are not compatible with Catapult
(2) NIS database / data format and data structure is not compatible with Catapult
From my understanding, if those both points can be solved, a way forward is obvious and there won’t be a discussion like this.
I don’t have enough insides to propose solutions, but I would like to share my opinion and raise some questions.
Both points from above make it hard to go forward in a single event, as existing solutions must be adjusted and data from the current chain is required for them to work as expected.
Regarding (1): Would it be possible to create some kind of “Data Translator” that supports (most of the common) NIS API calls and translates this to Catapult requests?
If this it is possible to support the most common NIS API calls it would offer a way forward for most of the existing solutions out there without the need of an immediate adjustment.
The “Data Translator” would be placed in the middle of the existing solution and the Catapult chain.
Regarding (2): History must be migrated - at all cost. The current chain is NEM, it’s blocks are all that matters, if you start with a new chain without keeping history it is just a new coin - it’s not NEM anymore.
NEM is THE platform for timestamping and proof of origin, this is imo. the main attribute that gives value to NEM at the current time and that makes it stand out. If you lose history with (sorry devs) “just an update” you go against the fundamentals of blockchain.
If we start new, with just make asset/coin swaps possible or airdrop balances to a new chain - it’s just a new coin, it is not NEM and it should get a completely different name.
Realistically, no one will be able to keep NIS alive in the long run imo., tech is outdated and it will fade away.
If I would be a business having all my secured history in NEM (and this is the only fundamental reason having a blockchain at all) and it is not taken over during an update - this would be the time for me to move the business to a different platform as the main purpose is lost at this point.
I would also lose all confidence as future updates are likely to discard history again - this makes blockchain useless.
From my understanding a data migration can be an archived (even if it takes longer) and there should be no discussion about this – keeping history is a must - otherwise you end up with a new coin (with no trust) and NEM as we know it is dead.
If you look at the current situation - there is huge competition out there, Catapult is really great tech but there is only one try to get the attention it deserves. Kept history will bring trust to the platform, a new coin is just good for speculators, but it will destroy all value NEM has built up over time as a blockchain solution.
Just my 5 XEMs.
Have a good day.
Owon
9 Likes
Definitely share your sentiment here. Japanese Nembers are the most loyal of all, perhaps without them NEM would not even be (anymore). Therefore this XEM migration thing ought to be the highest priority, even more important than “Catapult when?”. How would an opt-in solution be considered in Japan from a tax point of view? I think it’s an absolute must for Foundation to make sure there are no tax implications for Japanese Nembers. Shouldn’t be too hard to figure this out with Japanese tax experts.
4 Likes
it’s sad actually. This should be the time to look forward to the biggest release of NEM and looking forward to making blockchain history. Instead of that investors worry whether their token will retain value and whether they will end up with fiscal issues. This could and should have been avoided beforehand by announcing whatever happens with the migration NEM will retain its value and there will be no tax implications. I think now is the time for NEM Foundation to show they really care about the community and fix this issue ASAP. Might be the last opportunity to retain faith and loyalty from the community, there ought to be reciprocity in this regard…
6 Likes
I am Hokkaido from Japan. Thank you, Alex, for giving us a chance to say something about migration. Recently, I put my personal idea for migration using cross-chain-swapping between NIS1 and Catapult.
https://nemlog.nem.social/blog/30337
I am sorry for this article written in Japanese with a picture explaining my idea in English. But, basic idea is we can keep 2 chains as long as we can keep NIS1 alive. The people send their NIS1-xems to an exchanger (I thought we need use exchangers to send and receive crypto currencies), and exchanger will send them NEM.io (or someone who keeps all the Catapult-xems). NEM.io will swap the NIS-xems to Catapult-xems and send them back to exchangers. Then, exchanger send the same amount of Catapult-xems to people. All of these transactions can be made altogether, if we use cross-chain-swap function.
Hokkaido
10 Likes
thats the 2 chain 1 coin approach i did describe above. its clear as state of the art blockchain we need to find a way without 3rd party to move coins from nis to catapult chain.
regarding all the japanese tax fears that ideal solution no tax relevant event happens if u transfer from a address u own towards a address u own xem (coin name and trading value would be identical its XEM on both chains and not a single fresh one created) technical to power the bridges and bridge fees maybe the first 1 xem on new chain must be hardcoded “transfered” by burn it on nis side and create it in catapult genesis block. but all following xem can run over crosschain bridge transactions
6 Likes
I believe solution of 2 chain is best for all
also a gift that will attract a lot of new investors
like airdrop
all coins do AIRDROP
ONLY NEM does not do until now
so best solution is 2 chain for me
also why everyone from foundation post awfuls and unproffesionals twitter and crash the price of NEM
I think this started off falling when one of the Devs made some comment about not being wise to release Catapult in December. Price movement was a gradual decline before then.
6 Likes
I’m Salaryman from Japan. Thank you for give me chance to show my opinion.
I guess many NEMber desire new NEM2 public chain launch with all history of NEM1 in NEM2 native data.
Following procedure is my idea to realize such a migration.
Is it possible?
- Develop automatic conversion tool from NEM1 TX data to NEM2 TX data.
- Convert from all past NEM1 TX data to NEM2 TX data with 1st tool.
- At the same time, Regenerate structure of NEM2 blockchain with NEM2 TX data (converted from past NEM1 TX data).
- After 2 & 3 process catch up to NEM1 highest block height, Make both NEM1 nodes and NEM2 nodes (only regenerated from NEM1 TX data) online. In this period, all nodes reject NEM2 format TX and handle only NEM1 format TX.
- After enough nodes have done 4th process, Drop NEM1 nodes and only NEM2 Nodes start to make blocks with NEM2 format TX.
What I want to know is…
- Is it possible or impossible to convert from past NEM1 TX data to NEM2 TX data without each user’s private key?
If it’s possible, following is my opinion.
Development and test of conversion tool will be very very tough.But, in the future, on the private chain (for example mijin or open source Catapult), many enterprise user will demand their platform’s version up to next version (for example NEM3?).In such a situation, conversion tool will be very very helpful.It will strengthen NEM ecosystem so much totally.
Maybe development of such a tool is painful for short period.But for long period, it is very important.
I hope successful NEM1 and NEM2 migration.
Thank you for reading.
Salaryman
6 Likes
2 
1 Like
Not to derail the thread, but regarding the tax issue for new coins, (in the US, 100+ supernodes) the American Bar recommended that the received forked coins be treated on a zero cost basis, and report capital gains when sold … Granted this is debated on both sides (seek a CPA)
Source:
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/taxation/policy/031918comments2.pdf
4 Likes
even if going 2 chain path we should avoid two coins. by burn on old chain what u want to recieve on other or by utilize cross chain bridge protocols that can be done.
in both cases its a value transaction from yourself towards urself and no tax relevant event
2 Likes
Erm, am I alone in being slightly appalled that this subject is still up in the air? It’s been literally years in the making.
9 Likes
Hi Owon, thanks for the feedback. I appreciate the candor. I want to make sure there’s clarity that migration announcements are not specific to NEM Foundation. It’s a group effort between Foundation, Studios, Ventures, Tech Bureau with input from core devs.
Regarding the feedback “I think now is the time for NEM Foundation to show they really care about the community and fix this issue ASAP.” – I think it’s helpful to know Foundation doesn’t drive final decision and tax implications have been an important part of the discussion. All migration contributors do care about community and also this issue in particular. I do think it would have been helpful to frame up various tax scenarios (publically) earlier.
It’s important to know the migration group has been working with legal advisors on the various scenarios. For example, I’m American and the same tax concerns the Japan community has I have too since America and Japan have similar tax rules.
It wasn’t clear in the beginning of the migration committee if it would be one chain, two chains, etc. It’s not black or white. There’s stuff that came up that proved this to be a bigger challenge than many realized. There was a ton of research done by the teams to get to a place where we could confidently vote on how to move forward based on the information presented.
There’s a comment you made that I find interesting. NEM is THE platform for timestamping and proof of origin, this is imo. the main attribute that gives value to NEM at the current time and that makes it stand out.
I think this is too narrow of a view of NEM’s capabilities and would challenge you to think bigger.
“If you want to build a brand, you must focus your efforts on owning a word in the prospects’ mind. A word nobody else owns” – Al Ries
Let’s look at Volvo. Volvo was born as a practical solution to a practical problem. Volvo owns safety as their brand identity even though they score very high with comfort ratings. They don’t promote the other aspects because they wanted to 100% own the safety image. To this day it’s been a successful strategy for decades. So I’d ask you and the rest of the community… What is the benefit we want to own for decades to come?
I don’t think it’s timestamping for NEM now or in the future. Last year I used to think of NEM as the brand where you could tokenize the world but my own thinking evolved. We need to think bigger than that. I personally view Catapult as being the network of networks. A month or so ago we wrapped up the market research analysis (SWOT) for Catapult/NEM and shared it across the entities. It was great work done by the branding agency and Studios. It helped shape a clear picture of opportunities. There’s still some work being done on this so we’ll communicate more on this in the future.
Anyway, thanks again for the feedback. It’s nice to see longtime community members resurface and weigh in.
9 Likes
It should be pointed out that multisig accounts
make a single chain approach virtually mpossible.
I’m treating catapult as a new product. Some might not agree, but it’s how I see it.
Tax implications can be mitigated by letting members opt in when they are happy with the market price and can prepare when they want to pay the tax.
Having 2 chains operating makes sense and allows the continued use on the NIS1 chain.
Could open up some interesting use cases with both chains if cross chain support is added to old chain.
I agree with the suggestions of snapshoting the old chain much in the same way ardor did with nxt.
6 Likes
Thanks for the clarification Alex. Really appreciate the hard work you have put into the project so far and your dedication is much appreciated. You are right this is not a simple NEM Foundation issue.
You have set up NEM as a well-oiled machine, had to make tremendous changes with relatively little resources and little time during turbulent times and the rising tide of competition. There is plenty of professional planning, orientation, hard work and organizing going on, great progress is being made.
That being said, I think It’d be a pity if all of that hard work and dedication gets thwarted by uncertainty caused by the xem migration issue of the Catapult update. In order to retain confidence I hope the migration group will take into account the info in this thread and eventually present us with a series of alternatives mentioning the advantages and disadvantages, and then let the community vote (either binding or non-binding).
7 Likes
Hi Alex,
thanks for your reply, much appreciated!
This is not my point, I think you took that from a different post but anyway, thanks for the clarification.
I think I haven’t expressed myself clear enough and i feel you misunderstood me here. It’s not about reducing NEM to timestamping, the opposite is the case. It was meant to be an example that the current chain, the current NEM, is so much more than just a balance of assets in someone’s account that is just captured by an easy snapshot and applied to a new chain. A blockchain and especially NEM is there to proof that a specific event happened in the past. This proof gets more and more secure with each and every new block created. This applies for all events happened, may it be a timestamping event, a message, a financial TX - everything. The NEM blockchain has proven to do this for a long time now with never having an security issue, and people payed TX fees to get the events recorded on chain. If all that is discarded and forgotten during an “update” (sorry for the term), you lose a lot that makes NEM valuable today (including trust that NEM is a consistent platform).
I’m not able to tell if a one chain approach is technically achievable or if Catapult’s logic is too different, but because of my points from above we should do everything possible to follow that path. And it will void out all discussions about having a second coin and how it is taxed - which is also a big concern on my end btw.
Thanks again for your time and all the hard work you do!
Cheers
Owon
3 Likes
I don’t know how others have been affected tax wise with airdrops in the past such as ardor and ignis.
Cross chain transactions as suggested sounds an interesting alternative but I would imagine require a huge amount of work on NIS1 to make possible sending tokens between both chains possible.
Keeping both chains going independently gives everyone the best of both worlds and there are some interesting use cases for NIS1 which could come out of making it open sourced.
4 Likes
This is an opinion from an engineer who previously migrated an internal system of a company.
The highest priority is to ensure a successful migration.
Even if it doesn’t succeed perfectly, it will have to limit the scope and impact of the bug.
I do not agree to consider the low priority content and migrate in a way that increases the risk.
From an engineer who previously failed to migrate 
11 Likes