Election conversations: Key Metrics to Track & Measure

Hi all,

I would like to open up a conversation on key metrics that members would like to see when it comes to council reporting for 2019.

The NEM elections are coming up next month and I am running for the position of secretary and council member. A policy proposal is to provide regular reports to members on key metrics which will be tracked and measured.

Below are some of my thoughts and I would like to open up to the community for further suggestions. This list below is just a rough idea and not set in stone. I am sure there is more we can add or remove. It will still be pending council approval, community feedback would be important.

- Public Chain activity

o On-chain transaction volume
o Transaction count
o Count of nodes
o Namespaces created and transactions
o Mosaics created and transactions

- Github

o Contributions
o New commits
o Open and closed issues

- Use Cases

o No of projects using the NEM public chain (break down by region)
o Average on-chain transactions per use case

- Exchange

o Count of exchanges
o Total trading volume
o Trading pairs of FIAT to Crypto, Crypto to Crypto

- NEM Forum

o Postings and comments
o Overall engagements

- Social Media

o Reddit subscribers - active users, posts and comments
o Twitter - tweets, retweets, mentions
o Google search trends
o Facebook/Instagram/LinkedIn - likes and comments

Have also received feedback and areas to look at (open for discussions on how to best track practically):

  • Average project/customer acquisition cost
  • Return on investment on conference/sponsorships/events (i.e conversion of leads into successful NEM projects)

Reference - have taken some of the metrics from CoinDesk Crypto-Economics Explorer thanks to @Dan_V’s suggestion. This should definitely been brought up before the elections, there has been good weekly regional progress updates previously and we can work towards building a more robust ‘track and measure’ system for the year to come.

Looking forward to a productive discussion!


As we discussed - the most important yardstick from a developers point of view will be seeing a healthy set of Github repos, well designed Readme’s, CI badges and transparency around the development issues - we have lots of separate repositories as many of the NEM products, SDK’s etc were created by 3rd parties for bounties, nothing wrong with this but they should have been brought under a single repository / organisation header long ago, the respective writers can still maintain the Repo but unless everything is in one place, the tools such as coindesks will never pick them up.


Agree with you here @Dan_V I’ve been helping our dev try to find all the SDK’s, etc and it’s sometimes like looking for a needle in a haystack. That’s not to cast blame on anyone, but gathering these all into one easy to find, easy to search repo is of upmost importance. Also sorting through the out of date and dead repos as well.

Nice points @jason.lee I hope everyone reviews them.



Yes. Having a single repo is a very big task but much needed. This metric should be closely monitored especially for 2019. Lots to do!


This will be a challenging task but after reflection, would really sense especially to enterprise solutions and large projects considering NEM. Getting it done will be the real determinant!

Should this be a brand new repo or just bringing it all to one existing one? really need to consider how to position this.

1 Like

Great conversation! I would also like to caution or inject looking at qualitative measurements as well as quantitative.

The above metrics are easily measured but may not holistically encompass NEM success. Most of these unfortunately generate short-term behavior gains, but may not point accurately enough to large / long-term gains.

Gaining Tweets/Subscribers, count of exchanges etc, can be easily influenced/manipulated.

My other metrics I’d like to see:

Outcome focused based Metrics

  1. Conversion Rates (from other chains to NEM)
  2. Number of Corporate or large firm Adoption
  3. Number of Government bodies / entities utilizing NEM - Federal / Provincial / Municipal levelts
    • Also include caliber: POC, Trial, Beta, Full-Launch
  4. Invitations / Speaking Opportunities (non-paid) to prestigious organizations. ie UN / Government Events / Large Industry conferences (non blockchain / crypto)
  5. Media Mentions on NON-Crypto focused publishers (Global Media, like BBC, Reuters, Bloomberg, etc)
  6. Number of Corporates / Associations we actively engage with (Chamber of Commerce, DevOps groups, Agile Development, Accountant Societies)

Activities Based Metrics

  1. Open conversations with Governments measured by depth of conversation
  2. Open conversations with Corporate measured by depth of conversation
    - Again can be POC / Training / Trial / Beta / Full-Launch
  3. Open conversations with Education Bodies
    • Universities, Government Bodies, Private Institutions, etc

Objective Based Metrics

  1. Numbers of Dev Trainings Completed
    • Can be included Blockchain Basics
    • NEM 202
    • Designing “intelligent” Smart Asset systems
  2. Number of Business Trainings completed
    • Can include topics on Strategy / Legal / Accounting / Marketing
  3. Number of System Integrators trained / introduced

These are some areas we should be focusing on. But plenty more can be reviewed and I encourage feedback for all of us, whoever ends up being on the leadership board.


Thanks for sharing @Kimble_Ngo, the metrics suggested are good points, ultimately, it should end up increasing public chain transactions, drive economic sustainability for NEM and increase rate of adoption, it should lead to these outcomes.