So vote or no vote? If not, why not?
Amen and well said! Now let’s vote!!!
A one-way or two-way bridge would be awesome. Would also apply to all mosaics I guess by default as well…? could be a solution for their migratory issues too.
I vote that you just stop talking. I’m mean seriously.
Are you really that arrogant to think that just because you keep saying something, that it must be true?
What makes you more intelligent or qualified to know the best way forward - than the combined efforts of everyone involved on the migration committee, plus the core team.
Time and time again it’s been made clear that your preferred burn route has been considered - and found wanting in some areas that meant it wasn’t recommended. Accept it and move on, or just sell up.
3 Likes
if voting then not some twitter vote as jaguar created that say exact nothing u have no idea who is stakeholder what mobilized the 160 voters
voting only POI based its the coin owners who are affected and their voice should be made visible but after present them a few more szenarios more then just the paths the migration comitee did consider
they didnt even think of ways to move XEM between chains and have only one ticker
i really cant understand how they didnt add this option it really looks to me like a lack of knowledge what was done and could be done outside the NEM box
if u can think it u can code it
and its not like im talking hypotetical stuff
coinbridges are reality at many projects
for coins and also for assets
native coins assets and even NFT bridges already exists
and its not only a ethereum thing
look for example tether is hosted on multiple very different blockchains
bitcoin (omni layer) ethereum and tron
and still 1 tether is 1 tether no matter what chain he runs on top
same should have been the goal for XEM to be the same XEM on nis and catapult
1 Like
Who are you? Oh right, I don’t care.
to my understanding the involved people also had different opinions
and that they involve us the community is to get more feedback from more people
i dont think this proposal is set in stone yet
because then a discussion would make no sense
Yes, it should be a real on-chain vote. Not a straw poll. This is important.
1 Like
Tax perspective
Catapult XEM has zero acquisition price.
The acquisition price of the existing Old XEM cannot be maintained.
In Japan, after profits and profits / losses are determined,finally taxed.
This means that people who purchase XEM for $ 2 will also be taxed. They have no profit.
This is contradictory.
In order to rescue them, the loss of the old XEM needs to be confirmed.
If the old XEM is delisted on all exchanges, the loss cannot be determined.
To avoid this, the Foundation should reserve a place to throw away the old XEM.
Is this possible?
オプトインで得るカタパルトXEMの取得価格はゼロになります。
既存の旧XEMの取得価格は維持できません。
日本では利益/損失が決定された後、最終的に課税されます。
これはXEMを2ドルで購入した人にも課税されることを意味します。
彼らには利益がないのにもかかわらず。これは矛盾しています。
この矛盾の救済措置として、古いXEMの損失を確定させる手段が必要になります。
もし旧XEMがすべての取引所で上場廃止になった場合、彼らは損失を確定することはできなくなります。
このような事態を避けるために古いXEMを捨てる(売却できる)場所を確保する必要があります。
財団で対応可能ですか？
Thank you for this effort.
I’m no expert in tokenomics, but the idea of having 2 coins doesn’t make sense to me.
The whole community has been waiting on Catapult for years, so who’s going to want to be looking in the rear view mirror at an inferior chain once Catapult is live? What incentive & value is there to keep this chain going? Maybe I’m missing something, I don’t know …
Also, I believe XEM ticker should remain. Rebranding can happen at the web & marketing level, but hope the XEM ticker can stay. Lots of brand equity tied up in that name.
To keep 2 chains, will the Foundation broaden its scope to include the old chain to promote and educate its use as well?
I think is the best scenario. Give xem holders, business and exchanges flexibility. I don’t like the centralized idea of the hard fork. I like to choose when.
Most important is if how good it’s going to be catapult. If there is no adoption price will go nowhere. Xem is on 26 now…remember when NEM was on the top 5?
To be fair, you are blowing up the forum post. Every time i check there are tens of more messages and a lot of them seem like just you shouting into space or repeating. It would be best if people can just make their points succinctly and move on, to make the thread more readable. It’s good to have a back and forth, but it’s getting overwhelming as is.
No offence intended, you raise some good points. Just… well, we get it.
3 Likes
Two chains? Fine by me.
3 Likes
Many here are saying to do things that have already been explained by @DaveH and the committee why it’s not feasible.
Please, read the post fully and don’t draw conclusions before reading the reasons made for the decision.
And if anyone here is truly technically and legally minded and has a solution that is better, than by all means describe in detail here for us all to study.
Some ideas and suggestions sound great (and easy) for sure when written down, but try and implement them or make them happen is a much different story.
Yes, I agree that there is no easy way forward, but even Ethereum is not going to be doing what people here are asking NEM to do, and they have way more resources with devs to try and keep one chain.
Please everyone, keep it civil, and look at the bigger picture here.
NEM has matured into something way bigger than what I ever imagined it would be.
I see Catapult as a new product with way more potential than many realise.
Catapult deserves new branding and a fresh start and I’m in full support of any rebrand efforts.
NEM can still have great use case potential and be upgraded to work alongsidde catapult as part of a greater ecosystem anyway and still hold value.
I didn’t see any issues when NXT created Ardor and Ignis. Their market cap is overall unaffected as a result of the airdrop.
I think any news of a new chain and token will attract more investors when the news spreads anyway. I never saw any major dump with NXT and it still holds value today.
I still see XEM trading for years to come and even if it’s a small percentage of the catapult tokens in value, I’m sure many wont be complaining in the months post launch.
As far as Tax issues go, the opt in process can mitigate that for those who don’t want to be tax liable overnight as a result.
Either way, I never heard any such complaints when Ardor and ignis did this. What about other airdrops?
The fact Ethereum are doing this very same opt in token allocation should say alot.
I hope this helps. Its OK to disagree with each other. And remember, it’s hard to make a solution that pleases everybody.
4 Likes
With regards to having a broadened scope to include the old chain to promote and educate its use, that is 100% being discussed right now and there will be a strategy in place even as we put a massive focus on Catapult.
Rebranding is sure to happen and agree that brand equity over the last few years has been established already. The change will be done with this in mind.
Thanks @nzminer, we are building an ‘academy’ for Catapult and this will allow us to scale the education, training and adoption efforts even as the rebranding efforts are taking place. NEM will continue to be part of the use case potential and case studies and will be part of the history that we have.
There have been many scenarios played out and the time will come when NEM gets back to the top 5. One of they key focus areas will be in driving adoption and this is about reactivating past partnerships and onboarding news ones which are being developed, you can check out some of the partnerhips and engagements on www.t.me/newsonnem
2 Likes
if a 2 chain (in future even multiple chains) 1 coin solution path is taken this tax szenario is not true
there is no sell and buy event its just a transaction from one address u own to another address u own
no tax relevant event
cross chain value transfers is a fact that happens already on many chains with bridge protocols such bridge protocolls can be developed to connect nis and catapult and also other future other chains belong to our broad ecosystem
the logic exists already the code need to be adapted a bit to but its by far not impossible
we can even upkeep the decision to not supporting free programmable smart contract on our chains and make it part of code on base code level
utilizing treshhold encryption supernode networks and nems superior multisig constructs are mighty resources to make this happen even on our technology tree
a hint for starting research
a “easy” one way solution until nem bridge technologies is release ready is burn and claim and its if done well also a value transaction from a address u own to a address u own and as such not tax relevant
all this szenarios share that XEM is XEM no matter on what chain
1 Like
What are you talking about?
I think for the general good understanding it is that we have the opportunity to transfer to something bigger for free. In stead off making a complete new thing - with new tokens - the ecosystem decided to make everybody part of the success that Catapult could become; like Amazon switched once from a bookshop to a logistic platform thanks to believe of the original shareholders. Going from Java back to C++ did show the vision: Catapult could become that very lean piece of a component ecosystem that is needed for big players to use effectively smart contracts.
3 Likes
Frankly the NEM foundation needs to get off their arse and write some code to make a transition as seamless as possible to the end user instead of taking the lazy route. We don’t need two chains, just a single chain supported by two different API interfaces NIS and Catapult.
All that needs to be done is to write a wrapper interface that acts as a proxy to NIS’s API for Catapult. Supernode users then upgrade from NIS to Catapult before a specific block height/date or forfeit the centrally issued supernode reward. Providing this economic incentive is enough to get an upgrade of 51+% of supernodes (it has to date with NIS upgrades) the majority can then blacklist network communications with the old NIS supernodes.
This method of providing a NIS API proxy through Catapult means you don’t need to worry about upgrading the entire eco-system as old wallets and applications would continue to work through the NIS API proxy layer handled by the Catapult daemon.
In terms of market value NEM has been dropping badly over the past few weeks, clearly the market is voting against the NEM foundations ability to come up with a real migration plan. The Foundation needs to start earning is 210 million XEN funding and start writing code that provides a seamless transition for the majority of end users!
stop see blockchains as islands the future is heterogene interoperable chains with values have the ability to be moved accross them
NEM if it wants to be a factor in that future need to be a forerunner and not like in this non ambitious primitive migration proposal (which is no migration at all…)