Election Concerns

Foundation Elections
#1

Hi I have just read this - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=654845.38120 and am concerned for NEMs future.

The main points are - (copied from bitcoin talk post)

Lon Wong was the NEM Foundation president for 2017-2018. He suddenly “stepped down” in April 2018. In reality Lon was forced out because he was caught putting NEM resources and employees to his own company, ProximaX. In other words, stealing. And abusing the trust placed in him to act in the best interests of NEM.

In fact, ProximaX is a fork and can be seen as a competitor to NEM and would likely step in to take NEM’s place if NEM did poorly. This was all covered up".

Lon’s lifetime friend Stephen Chia is the regional head of NEM Southeast Asia.

Stephen is on the NEM Foundation council. Stephen owns a large stake in ProximaX in his public accounts, and may own a lot more privately. Stephen stands to profit if ProximaX over take NEM’s business.

Stephen is now running for president of NEM, and Lon has promoted his campaign.

"Nelson has been asked directly by the community if he is taking money or working for ProximaX and has not yet answered direct questions. Is he acting as their employee? (Almost certainly yes.)

In the last 24 hours the council took a vote to switch the elections to POI voting, which is how all previous voting have been done. All other council voted yes but Stephen and Nelson blocked it.

The council wants to review and possibly remove some election voting accounts which cheated the spam prevention. Stephen and Nelson seem to trying to block this.

The reasonable conclusion is that Stephen and possibly Nelson are profiting from ProximaX, and seeking to cheat the election by blocking POI or other fair voting and paying non-community members to register. With their 80+ accounts they can win president, vice president, and stack the entire council with ProximaX people, against the community and NEM employees. They can massively divert NEM funds into ProximaX, or just crash NEM and ProximaX would rise in importance as NEM falls.

These are the key points of the post.
If there is any truth to this, NEM’s future is definitely in doubt, due to a massive conflict of interest.

I myself am a longtime holder of NEM, and am so disappointed in what I see happening, and really hope this is just scaremongering.

However, should there be any truth to this article, then actions must be taken before it is too late, and NEM becomes a casualty of this unfortunate situation.

2 Likes
#2

if you did not follow up with Jaguar s notes about Proximax, here you go:

1 Like
#3

@nevermined Pretty sure someone has posted pretty much those same words here maybe slightly edited.

#4

Thank you I had missed that. I also read the posts with Jaguar as suggested by Dorian.
To be honest, I am none the wiser.
I just hope Nem can survive this.

1 Like
#5

It is not uncommon to have several representative positions for different companies. But I think that it is unusual to have this function in a competitive company.

I have shared this post with you to have insight into the connection between proximax and nem. As far as I understand, both could benefit from each other.

How come that no one has a problem with the fact that the same people who until now have either been decision-makers or at least defended these decisions in public are now standing for election? Of course, the decision makers bear more guilt. But defending something naïve and complaining about negativity and the like is just as wrong. Defacto not having a real choice weighs more heavily for me than POI or the Proximax story.

4 Likes
#6

Well to tell the truth I cannot really see the context of that post in the thread/conversation on Bitcointalk?
Has that person actually replied to anyone or has that post just being dumped there?
Look I am not registered to vote and have little knowledge on the inside politics, yet the post does not hold a lot of merit if it is just a random cut and paste.

I am confident Nem will work through these issues, or to be clearer, I do not think this is big enough to drop Nem and if anything it might just identify some avenues for improvement and new ideas (Just a layman’s view).
Dan

#7

I’m not sure either at the Bitcoin Talks posters motives.
However, the reason I posted on here, was due to my concern for Nem.

I reasoned that if it was complete rubbish, someone on here would tell me so.
Or if there was some substance to the claims, there might still be time to do something about it.

The team have done a brilliant job getting Nem this far, and hopefully can continue to progress without further cause for concern.

1 Like