Migration Committee Community Update #1

Catapult Migration
#21

Agree to NEMquisitor.

catapultXEM must be completely equivalent to NIS1XEM.

2 Likes
#22

Doesn’t matter what you do to assure - the orderbooks for NIS1 XEM will be empty. No one is going to hold millions of coins they could sell for face value before that happens.

#23

What big exchanges want to maintain listings for a dead coin? Seriously? Are you guys delusional? You guys also realize NIS1 is listed on Bitmax.io in the margin trading market - which means it can be shorted to hell, right?

1 Like
#24

the minute snapshot took place Xem will be dead value wise everyone who got his new coins will dump the old and buy more new. who dumps last lost most. new coin will suffer heavy becausr it need ages replace all xem exchange trading pairs with new coin.

its a very bad decision to create two coins

i understand why u go two chains path but as described in other thread there many ways how u could crosschain transfer xem between chains or even only one way but still dont double coin amount

i will play ur game by the rules u set up but it means nis chain is doomed

why just why u didnt ask for feedback before present final decisions

1 Like
#25

This is a potential disaster to NOT swap and burn but basically airdrop “free” coins to current XEM holders. This is the fastest way to achieve the result expressly not wanted by the Committee - the centralization and destabilization of NIS1. There are multiple problems that will ensue from this “opt-in” airdrop if there is no corresponding burn of NIS1 XEM:

  1. No one will be buying NIS1 XEM speculatively. There will be no price support so node operators will have nowhere to redeem their NIS1 XEM transaction rewards.

  2. Some exchanges may very well decide to only maintain a market for 1 chain - depriving one of even the opportunity to trade. Binance already pulled XEM from US Binance and we shouldn’t try their patience with the main Binance.

  3. As the value of NIS1 XEM plummets SN operators will be sitting on potentially huge financial loses that far outstrip anything they make from transaction fees. They will simply respond by shutting down SNs and dumping their 3 million XEM, putting tremendous downward pressure on a falling market. NIS1 Chain security will take a dramatic hit.

  4. Market manipulation games. Big holders of NIS1 XEM may dump their tokens to drive the price down only to buy them back at a ridiculous low to then swap for Catapult tokens; becoming even bigger whales. This will greatly centralize Catapult XEM supply.

  5. If NIS1 chain is dead because there is no security what happens to the image of NEM as those projects are left stranded? Doesn’t set a nice precedent for the future of NEM and anything built on it.

Swap and burn is absolutely necessary to secure NIS1.

2 Likes
#26

isn’t it what this sentence means? surrender their XEM should = burn their XEM

1 Like
#27

That was one of the options, not the final decision made.
Please keep sharing your feedback.

#28

I can understand that burn will make both-chain(NIS1,Catapult) weak. But how to prevent Sybil Attack without burn?

[ Sybil Attack ]

  1. opt-in with address-A
  2. send xem to address-B from address-A
  3. opt-in with address-B
3 Likes
#29

make sure XEM ticker stay with main chain old prove of concept beta chain based on old nis technology should not block our XEM exchange slots or steal years of brand work

u could rename it XEMn with n for nis

if xem ticker stay with new mainchain i dont care much if burn or opt in claim

as long as its clear 1 xem on old chain can claim me 1 xem on new chain and the coin max there is also 9 billion xem

for projects who dont migrate to play with XEMn on old prove if concept chain i font care. any serious project will migrate soon to catapult

make sure most exchanges swap xem for users to new and have xem ticker and markets migrated to new old Xemn should be withdraw only providet after the swap

#30

Thanks for the update. A couple of questions:

  1. When the time to opt-in for Catapult token allocation starts, will the NIS1 XEM currency still be tradable on (major) exchanges?
    This will determine if the speculative trading market will be at risk of being gamed by big players in order to obtain more XEMs; and therefore more Catapult token allocation for them.

  2. Will there be any kind of filter for claiming the Catapult token from (known) bad addresses? E.g.: CoinCheck tagged addresses, etc.

2 Likes
#31

Good question!

#32

Great point! Could be lethal!

#33

Haha the Committee in their infinite wisdom has decided they want both tradeable. So yes XEM will dump to 0 instantly on swap then big players will probably buy the depth and get even more catapult tokens and have more power. I’ll bet someone on committee is thinking to do exactly this. Very corrupt operation we have here.

4 Likes
#34

So no community vote on such an important matter? Just a fait accompli decision from on high? How is that “decentralized” when even the biggest holders have no actual say in something like this?

So what are the audited XEM holdings of these Committee members? Is someone making decisions that might benefit them financially at the expense of everyone else? Conflicts of interest are important to disclose when such power is achieved.

4 Likes
#35

There will be block height announced that is reference point, all opt-ins will have to happen BEFORE that block height.

So in case you describe at block height X, only address-B will have balance, so address-A won’t be seeded at all.

4 Likes
#36

I totally agree! SWAP AND BURN! I actually automatically presumed this was the case, hence I asked the questions. We need a swap and burn in order to prevent tax implications and the illusion that there is uncertainty regarding the future of NEM1 compared to NEM2. I don’t think there is a conspiracy though, but hopefully Migration Committee will elaborate its views soon and take into account your considerations.

3 Likes
#37

Does that really address the problem? At block height X there will be a snapshot and only address B will be seeded on the Catapult chain with XEM; got that. However, the way this proposal is currently written seems to mean that NIS1 XEM can be opted-in at any point after the snapshot as well - that being the point so there is no rush to migrate, tax reasons etc. So in theory wallet A XEM could be seeded on Catapult at block height X and then that NIS1 XEM could be moved to another wallet which could then be seeded post-launch as well. I assume this would be a manual process though and not an automated one made upon request at this point? It still seems possible that someone could collect at least 2x.

#38

Thank you. I understand.

#39

However, the way this proposal is currently written seems to mean that NIS1 XEM can be opted-in at any point after the snapshot

I misunderstood because of same reason. I can not understand about treating any tokens that are not claimed by the Nemesis block yet.

#40

exactly, the problem is late opt-in through “legal entity”.

  1. opt in with address-X before reference point
  2. move coins to exchange after reference point
  3. move coins out of exchange and do late opt-in through “legal entity”
  4. repeat 2. and 3.

Legal entity has to accept my coins because there are other people eligible for late opt-in on that exchange and XEM token is 100% fungible.

I honestly dont see any solution for this situation that would stop pontifier from screaming “who has my coins” for years to come.

is there some?