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.
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 
We don’t know what’s problem.
We can’t give feedback.
Because we don’t know the problem.
nem2Slack hasn’t talked about any migration topics.
The migration team have obviously spent a lot of time researching this problem already. Can you share what their list of potential options are and the perceived pros and cons of each as they see it? It would be good to know what the committee is considering and make have some insight into their thinking so far.
It’s obviously a really important decision and as far as I can tell there hasn’t been much communication of what is being considered and what the preference of the committee is. It does seem pretty late in the day to open this up to the community, I guess by know you must have a pretty good idea of the route you want to take.
This just an idea that pops in my head:
1- Make a snapshot of every balance at a specific block number in the old chain (including every mosaic with the correct timestamp) and start the new catapult chain with these nemesis balances at block height 0.
2- In the new catapult nodes, keep the whole pre-catapult chain available, where node owners can turn the loading of the old chain on or off in a setting.
3- Make sure this update is mandatory for supernodes a while before the actual snapshot so the whole network updates before catapult goes live.
That way if anyone needs to verify any data from the old chain they can access it through the nodes that have the old chain loaded. In time the old chain will no longer be needed and nodes will drop loading the old chain.
And please just get some decisions going please, if we are close to a release there has to come some news to the outside, or the price will drop even further. No info on supernodes, no info on migration, …
Please don’t give any opinions.
First, please clarify what is the problem.
If the migration team thinks the community ’s opinion is noisy
Please share the problem first.
if this is the direction and i full support it
then a 2 chain 1 coin approach and move XEM between chains as needet is the prefered one because there we can also show our cross chain value transaction capabilities
and once again such a approach would be tax neutral in any jurisdiction because its a transaction from a address u control towards a address u control its not a ownership change its not a sale/buy/trade event its nothing else then move a 1$ node from one left leg pocket in right leg pocket. just change of local just keep ownership
it also solve give supernodes a role in ecosystem issue because it would be world best secured bridge protocol if its monitored by a few hundret independet but together consensus creating organisations/servers
2 chain one coin would be a great approach if its possible, I just dont know how much work would be required to make this work.
Im sure @Jaguar0625 will be able to shed some light on this, but I would imagine it would require significant changes made to NIS1 and possibly to the existing catapult build.
catapult launch dont have to be slowed down because of this
u can start without working bridge and manual move the first coins via burn on nis chain
only downside this coins will never be able move back
but still to claim 1 XEM burned on nis is 1 XEM created on catapult is doable this way in manual mode without full setup supernode powered bridge protocol stack in operation
the main concern people have is tax relevant events and value invested in each single xem they own dont move 1:1 towards catapult
a 2 chain 1 coin approach would solve that both because there is only once coin with same value and it doesnt matter if u buy an xem on a exchange who still only interact with nis and accept deposits on a pure nis node or if u buy a xem on an exchange who only interact with a catapult node. if its clear that in both chain together is the hard limit of 9 million coins and they can free move between chain then its clear 1 xem is 1 xem and there is no fear of catapult needed to devalue ur hard earned XEM u own. also there would be no timewindows that u can miss for swap/conversion/migration because in fact no migration is needed we can use services on both chains and i expect that wallets after some brain invested will soon be able show ur value on both chains and in background move xem between chains as needed so in fact its visible as one solution
see it as a mini sharding with 2 shards
and once we have this technology nothing stop us from launch more shards and we have a additional scaling layer.
add chains as needed maybe even chains specialized for different purpose but bridge connect them and make sure all chains powerd by the same XEM currency
this i would call added value for XEM owners
some ideas from EOS is very cool
EOS will have 2 chain
and also give to EOS holders free EOS from these split
that is what I talk must NEM DO
SIMPLE AND EASY that is big
a chainspit into two chains with 2 coins is a hostile thing where 2 different opinions there for future of coin
only one will redeem to be the real thing other one falls into nonfactor pretty fast
this is a path that leave losers behind that people who did bet on wrong chain
NEM goal should be a solution without losers
noone supporting this project since years deserve to be on the loser side of a chain split
update:
people who ask how a chainsplit create losers and choosing side
it works like this people sell the coins on the chain they dont belive in and buy coins of the chain they belive in
this means a chainsplit with 2 chainz create destruction of one chain and everyone who not dump fast enough is fucked and the quick dumper on the right side can increase their share on the winning chain
do we really want such a “highlander” szenario? where one chain value have to be canabilized by the other one?
only a szenario that dont create new coins with new cointracker is a good one
if its with one chain or 2 chains is not that important
important is that it is with one currency
which is possible as i explained multiple times already
yes we will have people voting for 2 chain 2 coins
each community have vultures ours too
this are people who think they can play the trade pump dump game better then others
no way we should have this mindset influence our decisions
any path that accept leaving a trail of losers behind is a bad path
I agree, there ought to be one chain to rule them all. It’s short-sighted childish supposition to think that more coins equate to more value, value is derived from scarcity, not abundance. Also look at how NXT-Ardor played out, people didn’t know which token to buy anymore, at the end of the day neither of the tokens really took off. It’s clear that are only 9 billion xem and there will only ever be 9 billion xem, no copy-cats, dillution and silly games. 9 Billion is the limit for this hopefully in the future important industry giant network of blockchain solutions worldwide.
SJM211 +
GodTanu +
our discussion here is meaningless without understanding the problems that the migration team faced.
btw as i remember 9 billion coins was chosen because it was a Java limit.
So maybe it’s a chance to increase amount of coins? 
exactly this is the perfect project to watch when u want to learn how to NOT do it!
as the first big real altcoin first big platform with assets
they managed to become invisible and split into 3 nonfactor coins
keeping alive a old codebase no new project would use
and a new codebase thats splits into 2 chains (coins) parent and childchain that both also didnt get tracktion
this is exact what we should avoid
i trust in foundation ability and reserve fund managers to understand how important it is to have value linked to XEM and nothing else
all other things are doable because what u can think u can code
and im sure we have people who can think clever things
just give them the time to code it
any catapult release pre may 2020 is in time
just we should not release after BTC halfing but upfront
u can expect the BTC halfing to be the spike of BTC dominance and value then flood in altcoins and XEM must be in interesting shape at that moment
yes but EOS is much bigger now from NEM and split at 10 days at 2 chains
and give free money to holders
if anyone here does not want free money
is ok
i want free money
like BITCOIN do with hard fork like ETHEREUM do with hard fork
like EOS WILL do at 10 days
so thats my opinion
if not give some trick to invest at your coin why someone to invest at you
look what ceo of binance had do to support BNB coin and you will understand how important is what i tell
time had change and you not give something you will not go anywhere
also catapult roadmap is q3/q4 2019
so may 2020 is not option
because may 2020 will bring summer 2020 and then will bring end of 2020 and start of 2021
is not option
ROADMAP FROM NEM FOUNDATION TELL CATAPULT OUT
AT Q3 END OR EARLY Q4 OF YEAR 2019!!!
do u belive in free money?
everything have a price
even free things
as explained above the free coins and the profit by sell them and dump one of the two chains into a 90% or more value loss compared to the winning chain
is in fact not free because u steal the value of that people which come to late and see 90% of their coin value on losing chain disappear in a few days and even winning chqain is losing value but way less
u might say but hey the got coins on other chain too
thats right but while all that vultures who destroyed one of the chain then increase their share on other chain that ones who didnt dump didnt increase their share on winning chain
so in the end they nice guy lose value comared to the vulture mindset guy
a chainsplit into two looks value wise like this
CoinA CoinB
50 50
after a day
CoinA CoinB
45 20
after a week
CoinA CoinB
40 4
so that one who didnt dump and shift value to wining chain lost over 10% of his value
that vultures who dumped one chain and buy more of wining chain managed a value gain
even if the price per coin on wining chain did decrease
I agree with GodTanu.
Firstly, we should know the optional solutions and problems which are faced by Migration Steering Committee.
Otherwise, who can give feedbacks?
NEM Community need transparency.Thanks.
