Migration Committee Community Update #1

Catapult Migration
#149

There’s no perfect migration option.

I think that 2 chains option is the best one and that’s why:

  1. There are risks and attack vectors on NIS when the swap takes place. At the moment, the swap is also impossible due to technical reasons. The development of such a mechanism takes time and creates risks here as well, because it is a code and it can have bugs.

  2. NIS is very important for the success of the catapult network. The internal NIS model cannot be changed in any way. Any change to the swap process is a disadvantage for the catapult network. The NIS network cannot be switched off. Exactly when one of the officials says, “Shut down,” the value of the catapult network will be zero, and the media will publish news in a minute with much worse headlines than “theft of coins” or "bankruptcy.

  3. 2 networks should exist in parallel and it is important to understand further plans, at least to support the viability of NIS, at most the roadmap and plans. We have to understand that in the long run the network may die, but this should happen as a natural market process, not as a guideline.

About taxes. What should people who have bought a coin for $2 do? I am very rude to the report now, but why should we care about it at all? The Foundation is engaged in the migration process, not the speculative component.

If you think straight and rationally, these people have already lost 98% of their investment. The only way to minimize their losses is 2 tokens, 2 different token prices. It is better to have 2 tokens of 30-40 cents than 1 - 50 cents (this is if we look at the speculative component).

The important question is, what about NIS? What kind of support and development will there be? This is the key question.

NIS has a very important ideological significance for the catapult network!

4 Likes
#150

@MrNorberg, your point above is correct and it is actively being worked on at present and there are several way this can work, I’m hoping the migration group can share this shortly, it is very important, but so are all the other areas so as a group we are trying to focus on each in turn. There is no way for any option in which NIS1 continues to work without appropriate planning for NIS1 and to a large extent some of that is separate to bridge, allocation, swap discussion since they all accept its continuance.

2 Likes
#151

Marketing and token naming are different issues.

1 Like
#152

Thanks for the response Rene. I want to summarize that in the context of the larger debate here.

I think that you are saying that yes it affects you, but that you are prepared for and have expected it?

2 Likes
#153

Yes, correct.

3 Likes
#154
#155

Apart from the tax and technical aspects of migration.

Yep.

A very simple example is PundiX. There XEM was integrated. With this you will be able to pay with XEM on all XPOS(with Xwallet) worldwide. It’s not perfect, but at least …
After the migration there are enough resources to continue an SN program(NIS1). This can be pretty attractive and then adapted piece by piece.
NIS1 closed or open source is also a question. Which of course opens the door for other Forks.
It would be really interesting to get some feedback from some projects working with NIS1.

1 Like
#156

It has nothing to do with speculation, the Foundation/Migration team needs to be concerned with the Economics of the ecosystem. Two chains means dividing the ecosystem creating a weaker XEM and a weak Catapult Token, which further drives XEM into a downward spiral as the economic trust of XEM has been hurt so fewer people from the XEM ecosystem will transfer over to the Catapult Token, instead they will feel burnt and move into other coins. The Catapult Token will start off from a weak base and have to build up just as any new coin launched will have to do.

Check out Wavesplatform and Vostok and see what happened there!

1 Like
#157

" Two chains means dividing the ecosystem creating a weaker XEM and a weak Catapult Token, which further drives XEM into a downward spiral as the economic trust of XEM has been hurt so fewer people from the XEM ecosystem will transfer over to the Catapult Token, instead they will feel burnt and move into other coins. "

Why

" The Catapult Token will start off from a weak base and have to build up just as any new coin launched will have to do. "

No

Anyway, with catapult we have two strong chains. Now it’s the question what we make of it.

1 Like
#158

You can be disillusioned by your opinion, however market forces will prove you wrong in due course should the current proposal be executed.

#159

Market forces like pump and dump groups?

#160

Yes, that is one market force whether we like it or not. Another is people selling and exiting NEM due to the fragmentation of a two chain migration plan.

#161

We have the opportunity to counteract. What would your ideas be?

#162

A seamless migration, one chain/token supporting both NIS and Catapult network protocols and API.

#163

a wish

#164

lol, it can be done and I have done it for banks, payment processors, and financial institutions professionally for the past 20 years. If you think its a wish then its already an indication you lack the experience to be commenting as anything but seamless in these industries would not be accepted.

#165

Yep

I’m sorry for my insolence.

But maybe that’s exactly why we stand where we are.

2 Likes
#166

The main thing missed here is this type of migration has already been played out with other coins. By creating a second chain and issuing catapult tokens whilst keeping the original XEM holdings (ie: no swap and burn) results in the following market behaviour.

Pre launch date the XEM price is driven up by market speculators, they opt in for the Catapult tokens, once Catapult tokens are issued/launched both XEM and Catapult tokens get dumped which crashes the price of both tokens. Such market behaviour then negatively effects the genuine supporters of NEM as they get burnt and are left holding two weak tokens and emotionally it weakens the projects support.

Furthermore I am not saying swap and burn is any better as it has the same effects as a contentious hard fork for both coins, destroying value and splitting the ecosystem.

Without a seamless migration maintaining one chain/token, but support two network protocols/API layers, it will result in a negative change in economics of XEM and fragment the community.

1 Like
#167

The best option is a 2-way bridge. In this way the FUNCTIONAL supply can remain 9 billion across both chains with no economic disruption or any other associating gaming problems. So 2 chains 1 coin. So 1 market, XEM.

#168

I am with you on your views with keeping the economics the same (ie: 9 billion on 1 token) and the foresight of the negative market consequences that would occur with the proposed two token migration plan.

Technically one way to achieve that is with a bridge and in concept it achieves the same as my network protocol and API proxy layer/wrapper. I think it better to debate the technical implementation of how either of these would work rather than stick with the current migration proposal which is picking negative economic consequences and prioritising arbitrary launch dates over the coding needing to be done for this to be done right.