If you allow everyone to keep their NIS1 coins after the swap it is a no-brainer to dump those coins for cash and/or to buy more catapult coins. Everyone will do this and the NIS1 XEM market will be DEAD. That is why a burn must occur to even start to maintain the value. There will be no speculative interest in NIS1 XEM as it is and it will probably tank anyway. The only difference is having a viable market at all exists or not and whether exchanges are willing to list them both. This is so obvious but they refuse to burn for some dumb unspecified tax implications that shouldnât be a factor in such a heavy decision about the markets of these coins.
Is there a possibility to opt-in before the snapshot?
There is absolutely no doubt that the lawyers are wrong about the risk vs. a burn. You will have a weak NIS1 XEM market to begin with and the NIS1 chain is going to become centralized as hell under that condition if you do not burn. Many fewer people will run a node without an economic incentive to do it. If the old XEM is literally worth 0 on the open market and cannot be swapped for Catapult tokens there is no economics there. How you plan on going years without becoming centralized in this circumstance I do not understand. Keeping an active market with a burn so the total value of NEM can be reflected across 2 different orderbooks (if exchanges even list both which is an assumption) is the best way to deal with this. Keep the 9 billion total across both chains. How many exchanges do you think want to maintain a listing for a dead coin?
I fully agree that the burn is the only option to create long term value. The should consult with laywers who have knowledge in cryptocurencies. These laywers that they have consulted probably do not even know how these markets work.
Bots will race to dump their big staches before we can while Catapult will probably will be half price or less, so donât think liability issues will not come your way after big losses.
The burn will centralize the coins that remain available on the old chain. As to nodes, yes that will be more centralized after the migration, that you cannot overcome.
As for the listing of a dead coin, I do not see a problem here. Ideally we would want everyone to migrate at once, and then there would be no market possible. No listing = no market = no orderbook = no problem.
2 Likes
It doesnât have to be completely dead though if the coins are burned instead of dumped. Market could maintain at a level commesurate with the utility of the chain. It will still be viable. So there would be a viable incentive still. It would also give the fair valuation of catapult within the context of the migration being incomplete. Also what if old XEM after the snapshot will not be eligible for conversion to catapult tokens if it is transferred to someone else so it will literally have no market value or swap value. It will literally be 0 if you do not burn in which case I couldnât understand why the chain would continue to run at all - and only would in the most centralized of manner at that point. On the other hand if the old XEM still has swap value even if transferred to some other wallet that was not part of the snapshot then it could literally be valued equal to that of a catapult token so 2 markets could run in parallel and trade very closely to each other - close to 50/50. Only burning to maintain current total supply could allow that though.
Would it be possible to hold a vote on the options for NEM transition? For instance voting on whether or not there is no old XEM burn with swap, there is a burn or there is a lockup like ETH is doing? How is it that the Migration Committee is empowered to make these decisions unilaterally?
This is an incorrect assumption, they have plenty of blockchain experience and experience with Nem specifically.
lockup like ETH is doing
Not possible on NIS1 without changes to the code of NIS1 which has a fairly high amount of risk to it from discussion with the various development teams.
Many fewer people will run a node without an economic incentive to do it
There is work ongoing to address the economic incentive for doing so, as mentioned further up there thread somewhere. There are possible options for this, just the need to be validated before being suggested.
the NIS1 chain is going to become centralized as hell under that condition if you do not burn
I disagree with this one - if every engaged holder migrates and remove NIS1 xem from circulating supply via burn, then circulating supply becomes small and its easy for anyone with a large holding not opt in and have a large percentage of circulating supply. As @meyns mentions above, burn centralise supply more than allocation, @meyns is also quite right, as are you, that node assurance then comes into play to ensure nodes stay decentralised.
1 Like
I doubt there is a large holder that would not opt-in to catapult. That would be financial suicide. Reigning in hell instead of serving in heaven. Also it would take more than a few of them to matter and that isnât going to happen. So I see no reason to not burn the tokens. If you have no viable market for those old tokens it isnât going to matter how many there are - but having fewer can sustain the viability and secure NIS1.
Just because you disagree doesnât necessarily mean you are correct. That is why we should have a vote - burn or no burn (since ETH-style lockup isnât possible) as both sides have strong arguments for how the economics and chain security could play out. So why doesnât NF and NEM Ventures initiate a vote on this? Easy to do.
(sorry for slow reply, hit some forum limit which timed me out)
Jag has put a vote up on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jaguar0625/status/1173627953558818817
A link is present in the announcement to get feedback data from the community: https://forms.gle/PzTc9nE2eDbhFGmG8
There will both be taken into account as will all the responses here
How is it that the Migration Committee is empowered to make these decisions unilaterally?
It is made up of representatives from the various entities that the community have voted to place trust in and/or the core team have placed in positions to help effect positive impacts on the ecosystem. Itâs not just a group of random individuals.
It is also important to note this is not (yet) a hard and fast decision, it is a strong recommendation from NEM Foundation, NEM Studios, NEM Ventures and Tech Bureau with review by the Core Devs to ensure technical viability, to the community and the core team which is now being discussed to assess levels of support.
Each of the options has pros and cons, after a lot of discussion and assessment, this is the one that the group are presenting as the better option.
I respect the fact that in your opinion it is not and that is fine, disagreement leads to healthy discussion, providing we all stay friendly. Likewise if the option that is your preferred one was selected, there are people in the community that disagree with that options. As several people have stated, none of the options is without its challenges, when taken as a holistic view, this is the committeeâs recommended option however.
Based on the questions, Iâm assuming you are Ed from TG right? Just so I donât go over same content in two places
2 Likes
Iâve had several tell me they wouldnât do it immediately for their own reasons, not for lack of belief in Catapult, just that certain timings work better for them and they have no immediate rush to do so with the post opt in support. They are also free to see how it goes and not opt in until they are happy it is going ok.
1 Like
Just because you disagree doesnât necessarily mean you are correct
Valid point, I donât think I said it did and didnât mean to if thatâs how it reads, I was presenting the counter side to your point, it also applies both ways.
1 Like
no this is not what should happen
exchange convert his XEM balances to XEM on new chain
exchange if he want to list XEMn (the nis based NEM beta chain)
open a new market for XEMn or XEC (XEMclassic)
if he dont want keep old chain listed he provide a withdraw only option for old coins
this way is taken care that years of branding isnt lost in a network upgrade
its clear that the main chain keep the cointicker XEM
and the old chain have to get a new one
ETH and ETC was the same
there ETC didnt change software code but still was the non mainchain that had to get a new cointicker
and the chain that needed a mandatory new software but was seen by all major player as new main chain did keep the ETH cointicker
thats what we need to do
and not block our main chain success by start with a unknown cointicker
1 Like
why you are focusing on exchanges to do it??? it should be done by account owner directly .
seems some exchange-owners are looking for profits 
First of all: Thanks for all the work and effort you put into the migration concept and thanks for presenting it to the community in the forum!
I see that my favorite one chain suggestion is not gonna happen.
Still â I would be in favor of a one coin and burn approach.
Make a one way swap from NIS to Catapult possible (ex. by transferring coins to a NIS sink address that are credited then to the senders address on the catapult chain).
Why?
-
This will avoid a dump of NIS coins, assures overall value, avoids coin x2 with value split, avoids speculation.
-
XEM is XEM â there is no need to have a new coin with new name. Its âXEM on NISâ and âXEM on Catapultâ. Even if an exchange still trades âXEM on NISâ it does not really matter, coins can always be updated to âXEM on Catapultâ by everybody. If a ticker still displays XEM on NIS, doesnât matter as it has the same value as XEM on Catapult. No need to decide which chain keeps the coin name âXEMâ. No confusion for users â nearly no chance to game people by misusing terms and names. XEM brand has a good reputation and can stay for both chains.
-
The issue currently raised with migrating exchanges (many users are linked to one big account) is gone as you are able to move single coins instead of whole account balances at a specific snapshot height.
-
The mentioned concern about centralization with less coins in NIS can be solved by keeping some of the millions of XEM out of the various founds on the NIS chain. If centralization becomes an issue, use those funds to harvest and run some trusted foundation nodes. There wonât be the need of launching an expensive âkeep NIS aliveâ program which seems to be planned in the suggested committee approach.
-
Tax wise also a huge benefit to move and burn imo. as it is virtually still the same one coin with just the option to be moved it to a new chain that offers more functions â and it can still be done when the user wants to move. Iâm not an expert here but I think as it is still the same coin, there is no taxable event triggered for the most of us â you may correct me if Iâm mistaken here.
Thanks in advance for considering my arguments.
Owon
3 Likes
im not focusing on exchanges i just explain how exchanges should handle it
that i have my coins in my control and i opt in every single one and dump all nis coins after got the catapult ones is clear
noone should spend a thought on old nis chain after snapshot form economy perspective the only reason they took the leave a zombie alive 2 chain path with 2 coins is because they have failed 2 tasks
1st they failed adding a component on nis client that can read old nis blockchain and this way create a one chain possibility where after trigger block only new catapult ruleset is used but still all old nis generated blockdata is readable
2nd they also failed that after 1 chain wasnt possible to them to create a 2 chain szenario where both chains use same currency and the coins are moved via one way or even 2 way bridges between chains. there is absolute no need in a time where brdige protocolls used for so many chains already to not utilize this technology to transfer coins towards new chain.
i hear so much technical explainations why this and that was not done or not considered
but in the end the message is that they didnt look outside the NEM technology bubble and didnt utilize technology which is available and adaptable to be implemented on NEM too
its not needed to add a free configurable smart contract engine to make bridges happen u could also only support pre coded bridge protocolls where the only configurable options are the keys of the bridge servers providing the consensus. this would have beed the ideal thing to give supernodes a additional purpose to act as bridge consensus servers and it would have prepared for a future where a whole web of blockchains could transfer values across chains with bridge protocols
aim for establish NEM as the network of networks as alex mentioned one time sounds like a bad joke if they not even able transfer value between 2 chains
i would be more than happy give it another quarter year waiting time for catapult launch when they can add cross blockchain bridges and make sure there is only one XEM even if it could run on two or later more chains
1 Like
this is a poor man solution if they cant get bridge protocol up and running basically a one way semi manual bridge
but still far superior to the 2 chain 2 coin szenario they gave us as their prefered path
i would see this as a minimal compromiss to adapt their plans and still be ready for a fast catapult launch
Weâve been working with the branding agency to explore strategy around name/tickers/branding. The work is still in process so regardless Iâll bring forth your suggestion to the agency for consideration.
2 Likes