that’s correct I had tell about wrong twitter post
come one NEM Foundation and dev core
get out with catapult
ASAP
with 1 or 2 chain is good to be out at end of 2019
no one care if nem have 1 or 2 chain if BITCOIN IS at 100k and nem still wait decision
you need do something right today
we need date about CATAPULT OUT and airdrop promotion programs
This seems like a complicated setup that needs a new consensus mechanism as well as oracles/supernodes to perform any optin.
The idea of a bridge or lock sounds somewhat right, i have come across many different migration scenarios and some of them included balance locks.
Locks are OK in that matter, for example catapult could have a sort of “OptinFundsLock” that is even illimited where funds are locked until the user signs (intend of optin). But it is undesirable to have funds locked for indefinite amount of time in an emerging blockchain network. Also, this would require further development of catapult AND some development to NIS.
Our decision making process for the migration was initiated with NIP8, our thoughts are that we needed to provide a solution for data migration that will not further delay catapult launch.
Hope I addressed this correctly, thank you for taking the time to give your feedback on this 
3 Likes
@corporal_clegg
The current migration plan would affect us as LuxTag mainly with the possible lack of transaction historical data. This has affected us in the past with NIS1, where not every node has “historical data serving” enabled. Since then, we have created plans to address this matter.
In specific, i.e. LuxTagged watches though created on a decentralized platform still require a centralized approach for verification and transfer. This is by design as we anticipate the transition to NEM Catapult. With a successful migration, we will start preparing an open standard for others to build on our ecosystem.
Greetings, Rene / LuxTag.io
4 Likes
There’s no perfect migration option.
I think that 2 chains option is the best one and that’s why:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
@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
Marketing and token naming are different issues.
1 Like
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
Yes, correct.
3 Likes
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
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
" 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
You can be disillusioned by your opinion, however market forces will prove you wrong in due course should the current proposal be executed.
Market forces like pump and dump groups?
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.
We have the opportunity to counteract. What would your ideas be?
A seamless migration, one chain/token supporting both NIS and Catapult network protocols and API.
a wish
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.
Yep
I’m sorry for my insolence.
But maybe that’s exactly why we stand where we are.
2 Likes