Isn’t this very centralized? I thought one of the big pros of nem was the decentralized part. Wouldn’t it be better if buying a namespace etc would be treated like a normal fee (so the harvesters got the xem)?
Giving harvesters the fees would lead to harvesters waiting to be able to harvest the next block and then put in many own namesapce provision transactions into the block. That would basicly mean they can get namespaces for free, so it is not a good idea 
Couldn’t that be solved somehow? Like making the account that the xem currently goes to (for namespace purchases) spend all it’s balance on transaction fees (but implement the account/the feature directly into nem so it’s decentralized).
Anyhow you don’t see a problem with this being centralized at all BloodyRookie? I’m sure many people in this community would see this as a big flaw if this was the case in bitcoin or some other crypto.
If there are funds of any kind, someone must have control over it. If it was a single person, then i would say it is a flaw because a single person can fail in many situations. If there are several persons involved in controlling a fund then the chance of failure drops considerably. It even drops more if the persons have been around for a long time and have contributed to NEM in a crucial way.
Having funds is important in order to be able to pay for third party development (for example the mobile app), marketing, payout for supernodes and so on.
So, all in all, I think our approach is reasonable.
It’s true that it’s much much better that the account is controlled by multiple people and secured by multisign compared to if it was only controlled by a single person. But I still don’t think that is nearly enough, maybe for a company or for a product that handles a game or an in game currency, but not for NEM that aspires to be the internets, or maybe even the worlds currency. 6 people can easily be forced to do something against their will (or even worse harmed or killed) by a mafia or a government. As can 20 people be, as can 100 people be etc.
I don’t think such a crucial part of NEM as namespaces should be centralized in any way. I completely understand that a project as ambitious and big as NEM needs fund to be created and started, which is why I was completely okay with and backed the relatively big development funds (i.e. all xem that was created that the developers have/had control over). The difference is that those initial funds would eventually be spent and placed in the hands of NEMs users, the namespace account will “always” be there with centralized control. Like for bitcoin, funds for development on NEM can come from elsewhere than from fees placed on its users.
The coins developers/“guardians” can easily want to pull the coin/project in a very different direction (or no direction, as what happened/happens with bitcoin and the blocksize debate) than the users. I want NEM to be open and decentralized enough for it to be able to live on even if that is not the will of it’s main developers.
So what do you suggest? Just get rid of it by pushing random harvesters? We already got the supernode program for the node owners.
I don’t know what is the best idea, but yeah, I think sending the XEM out to random harvesters (or even better distribute it based on importance and vested balance) is a better idea than the solution currently in use. If you do that you could maybe cut down on the funding to the supernode program and use those funds for other things that are needed as well.
You don’t need a node to harvest, you can just harvest on any available node. So basicly you are just distributing xem to rich/important accounts and that is not what you want i think. Supernodes on the other hand are tested and only good nodes get rewarded, that is a much better concept imo.
Okay I see, maybe it’s better to give it to supernodes if that can be archived in a not to centralized way. I have gotten the impression that the importance was a “fair” way to distribute the xem from the fees etc? Wasn’t that like one of, or even the biggest, argument for using nem over nxt at the start?
But it’s not nearly as important to me how the xem from the namespace purchases are distributed as it is that it’s a decentralized system.
But every other fund works the same way, why complain only about that namesapce fund?
What other developer controlled fund gets new xem?
Not talking about new xem but funds in general. Only two funds get new xem (namspace and mosaic fund).
Yeah but the “getting new xem” is the part that i think is problematic. The other funds xem will eventuella be spread to nems users and disappear. As I said earlier: I’m sure many people in this community would see this (xem from namespace and mosaic purchases going to developer controlled funds) as a big flaw if this was the case in bitcoin or some other crypto.
I don’t see it a big flaw. But you are free to raise your concerns to the community.
Better to discuss this in another thread.
However, since it’s now clear that it’s not practical to create a huge amount of mosaics, the question arises how an application could master thousands of individual properties?
To become more specific, I’ve got an idea for an app which needs 10k identifiable and tradeable properties/assets. One mosaic with a quantity of 10k would not fit because they can’t be distinguished with individual information.
So is this even possible with nem? Any ideas for this?
If you had your own private Mijin chain you could have all the mosaics you could want for your game (and other games too and it would be fine). You would be able to service millions of accounts with millions of transactions per days and fees to set mosaics and tx fees would be 0 out of pocket expenses. Transactions would also clear with blocks that were exactly 15 seconds apart. What would cost you is the monthly Mijin server fees to run your own private ledger.
The good thing about a Mijin ledger though is that any of your apps could connect to it and the users would all have control over their own tokens. It would also scale extremely well and all for 1 set monthly cost. (I’m not sure what that is right now, but I was aware that Mijin was for a time offering 6 months of free service for a while).
While a private blockchain might suite to the game scenario, that’s not what I’m anticipating for my app because it would stay on its own feet once it’s released. I don’t want an app which only runs as long as a company takes care for it. That’s so 2000 - 2015 
The app won’t create millions of transactions and so for, it just needs 10k representatives for properties.
The question if it is anyhow possible to master 10k properties with 1 app on the PUBLIC blockchain is still open. If not via mosaics, maybe with some tricks via messages? I can’t believe NEM is not cappable of doing this.
You mentioned fees were a lot cheaper for Mosaics, NameSpace, Sub-NameSpace etc., now that XEM has gone through the roof and people are starting to go with NEM when will we see those fees lowered to a reasonable amount… I am very curious and very interested in applying to a project I am working on and would like to know if you have a timeline on the fee adjustments… Please let me know - BitRebel
i guess the next release should adjust fees.