I’m not following all the discussions. I expected Catapult to be a major update like SYS4 was to SYS3, which was a transparent and automatic process. Could someone tell me why there is a demand for not converting to the new tokens? Is there expected to be parallel chains like ETH and ETC?
The exact info is not out yet, but yes you can expect two parallel chains after the catapult launch. It is a big upgrade, but the changes in the blockchain technology used (mainly for multisig) has demanded a new blockchain start.
Also the node software is built up from scratch (again) in a different programming language, and it is very different from the original node software.
2 Likes
The time it takes to figure it all out might be just as hurtful for the project as choosing the wrong option (whether that be opt-in or opt-out). This is crypto, we need quick and clear solutions, not endless poltics while competitors are making leaps. It seems like there is a lot of bureaucracy going on, not sure whether that’s a good thing though; it’s slow and sluggish. Only ones benefiting from slow and sluggish bureacracy are the employees of NEM Foundation, as I believe they get paid by the hour. When will we get another update from the committee/Foundation?
2 Likes
Thanks for the summary. Perhaps then in order to answer the question within this discussion it would be valuable to hear and understand the motivation for people to stay in XEM.
I’m worried by the upgrade being optional. The one-way only conversion will cause the tokens and their value to be divided in a ratio x:y for NIS1:CAT. The current situation necessitates us to speculate where we want our tokens to end up. However, no matter which chain we choose, the value won’t equal the sum of both, and we can’t have both.
I’m sure this is a past station and this suggestion has no place here, but I’m a strong proponent for either mandatory conversion for everyone, or no burning and let everyone’s token exist on both chains. Let the chain value transfer organically.
In the current scenario the old XEM chain will live besides the new chain. You will have both after the launch and you do not have to choose between the two.
Although you could expect the new chain to take over the price and the old chain to loose its value in the end.
The opt-out option is only a means to delay the delivery of your coins if you would want to, for tax purposes. But you can expect very few people will use this.
1 Like
Any update regarding ETA of decision Out Out vs Opt In? Of all blockchain platforms I think NEM is most undervalued, it doesn’t have to be this way. Hope soon there will be clarity regarding the migration procedures, the date of the snapshot, the strategy of the upcoming NEM campaign etc.
Ah gotcha. In that case I’m definitely a proponent of opt-out. Is this something that should be a POI vote?
At the same time, this sounds like a complex undertaking for very few people. I haven’t seen the same amount of scrambling for any other token on my watchlist that did a major upgrade. Does it make sense to create a distribution system to please very few people? The usual and simpler option would be a mandatory participation for all tokens, and in stead of announcing way ahead of time that very few people need to opt-out, announce that they would need to step out of XEM into e.g. BTC to prevent double holdings for reasons. Just snapshot the thing and convert it to genesis. Sounds like a lot of monks work and headaches otherwise.
1 Like
That will be the token holder’s prerogative to decide what they want to do but giving them both options (and time in advance) would be the best thing do to.
Well, this could be expected but may or may not be the case. There could be a differentiated value between both chains as price stability for both chains would be important in the short to medium term.
If there is ‘mandatory conversion’, it’ll be likely that token holders will just leave things be as well and not move their tokens proactively, which could keep things stable. Well, that is just an assumption but anything can happen!
I disagree that investing developer resources into a complex and error prone process for the semioccasional wishes of some people by creating a weird Catapult genesis of confusion and one-foot-in one-foot-out is anything close to the “best thing to do”. It is an ugly thing to do, but some have expressed it to be convenient or necessary for reasons. That’s okay, we can all have something between no opinion and a strong opinion. This should definitely be a POI vote decision.
If it’s decided to move forward with the most convoluted upgrade in top ten trustworthy token history, and it’s time to discuss opt-in vs opt-out, I’d like to point out one more thing. Making participation opt-in will make people miss the call for action. Some people have acquired some portfolio of tokens at some point and just keep it under their pillow, living their lives ignorant of developments. People will miss the boat. This will make individuals angry at some point. People who have been here long enough will know what it’s like to have even one angry resentful individual waking up.
3 Likes
Since this video is relevant, am sharing it here:
Want to better understand the two Catapult Migration options - Opt-In vs. Opt-Out? See this video from Lewis our CMO, to learn more.
I vote for Opt-Out its way much better and simpler.