Migration Committee Community Update #3.1 - Opt Out vs Opt In

Public Communication: Catapult Migration (3.1) - Opt In or Opt Out

This is a joint message for our community on behalf of the Catapult Migration Group, comprised of the NEM Foundation, NEM Studios, NEM Ventures and Tech Bureau Holdings

It is a follow up discussion point from Migration Committee Community Update #3 (Revised Recommendation)

Translations :

  • Japanese: Link.
  • Spanish: Forthcoming
  • Mandarin: Forthcoming
  • Italian: Link.
  • Russian: Link.

Opt Out vs Opt In

The subject of this thread is to try and flush out more discussion around the pros, cons and preferences of the community about whether we prefer an Opt In or Opt Out approach. There is a brief definition provided below for those who don’t have any context on this and several links at the end of the article.

The original recommendation was to utilise a Token Allocation approach, which NIS1 token holders would Opt In to. The feedback from the Super Node group and community generally appears to support that approach but to allow holders to Opt Out from being included instead of having to Opt In, there is a subtle difference:

  • Opt In - NIS1 token holders make an active interaction to signal they want to receive tokens on Catapult, either before or after Catapult launch.

  • Opt Out - All NIS1 token holders are allocated tokens on Catapult UNLESS, they actively Opt-Out, if they do decide to Opt Out, they can still claim their tokens later via an Opt In.

The two options are both variations of a Two Chain, Token Allocation approach, so it is positive that we have narrowed the generally supported recommendation to a single approach - we are discussing details at this stagen to large concepts. Both options are envisaged to be delivered via a NEM Wallet (Nano Wallet) plug-in that generates transactions to known addresses with a specific message, they can therefore be sent by other wallets or programmatically, as subsequent post will be made to show how this could work.

The exact Post Launch Opt In period duration is yet to be defined, but is expected to be several years, at the end of that period they will most likely be burned. This aspect is the subject of a seperate discussion so will have its own follow up thread posted shortly after this one (insert link when posted)

Further input from the community, (particularly the Japanese & Russian speaking communities but others as well) is sought prior to solidifying this option. To date input has been primarily from the English speaking community and this of the 3 sections to highlight is likely to be the more contentious and impacting for holders.

Some strong concerns have been raised by some parties against both Opt In and Opt Out; questions have been raised in the forum as well. I will leave it to the community for a few days to state these to avoid influencing discussion in the original post, if its not forthcoming I will look to add it in a follow up post.

One item that cannot be avoided is that if Opt Out is taken, then a decision must be made on how long the period to be able to Opt Out should/must be between announcing it and the block height at which we take the balances snapshot.

Useful information when considering this topic:


that u get coins without an action required
but to take concerns serious and allow people who want to delay recieve coins by signal it upfront
is in my opinion the right way to handle it

people who miss claim coin because a paper wallet after years cant no longer be claimed is a way more serious issue where we really did “steal” access from someone

only by default send coins towards same addresses on new chain we can avoid that.

people are used by how bitcoin position itself that private key ownership give ownership to that coins forever no matter of forks.

as long as same address schema is used its to be expected that key ownership automatic result in access to ur value.

be able to lose that access because u miss a deadline is a way more serious problem then some people from one country have to act in a few months timeframe regarding possible (i think in fact not even real) tax issues

holders with millions wont miss in both szenarios. so we talk here about small owners with low amounts mostly and to make it as easy as possible for the small guy looks like the best path

and nothing needed to do than start new wallet import key is the most easy path. maybe even the new wallet automatic dedect the installed nanowallet and ask if u allow import keys if u provide password so even that can be done automatic

maybe we should focus more on the UX part of the question

whats the most easy user experience in migration

in opt-out 99% of users have nothing to do 1% maybe have to set an action

in opt-in 100% of users who want coins must set an action (upfront or after) so u never get coins without doing something

1 Like

also interesting point someone said under some tax laws
its even worse for u if get get something as a response to an action u did
this would create an tax event. when u get it automatic without an action just because same private key unlocks them (example ETC BCH in such countries no tax event was created )i think it was a german tax opinion)) no tax event is create until u sell such free coins

1 Like

This is a false equivalency. Your Ripple paper wallet will not (and should not) allow you to access coins on Stellar (a related chain with overlapping principals).

This is an opinion, and it is highly unlikely based on the history of crypto. There is quite high evidence that at least some of the owners of accounts with > 1M XEM have lost their private keys.

This could be viewed as a reward for engaged community members. If after many years coins are still unclaimed, are those users really contributing to and growing the CAT ecosystem?


I recommend opt-out.

I think that the scope of liability for the “Late Claim Trust” will be narrower with the opt-out method. The person who wants the catapult token at the time of Nemesis does not have to make a claim. It also prevents problems caused by many light users forgetting to opt-in. It can also be assigned to a neglected or forgotten account.


catapult is an logical upgrade that clone balances and addresses.
stellar was not such a upgrade but a fresh start of open source code without any links to ripple ecosystem

nem nis vs catapult chain from proximax is same as ripple vs stellar

noone expect get free xem on proximax because its a unrelated project

from NEM catapult all expect and also its clear started in migration statement that it is a logical upgrade

ur answer dont fit
lost private keys result in lost coins in any szenario
and its good this way

my statement was that people with millions of xem will set an active action if required no matter if opt-in or opt-out. and people who rare check their crypto and will have lot extra effort or miss timelines are the people with small XEM holdings who suffer way more from an opt-in required approach

is it on us to judge over people? private key ownership = value ownership should not be questioned

im very surpriced u have such a centralized approach mindset no wonder decentralisation comes slow at NEM ecosystem if core devs have such mindset

trustless permissionless decentralized that are the cornerstones of a true blockchain

it not on u or anyone else remove permission to stay in control over coins if u have the private key

nem catapult is not a fresh start its a upgrade just using a new chain because of dev shortcommings to provide a real upgrade solution

to defend that shortcomings as a feature to remove ownership rights from people is macabre

pro opt-out (default all addresses get nis snapshot balance automatic distributed on same address on nis chain):

noone can miss claim coins even 15 years in future ur old private key can still access coins. good example for paperwallets in save.

only very few coins in unclaimed coin pot

only coins in unclaimed pot from people who active wanted that (by manual temporary opt-out)

higher starting coinmarketcap if cmc see unclaimed coins not as circulating coins

effortless easy migration (no need to do anything upfront for most)

still possible a few months upfront of snapshot to temporary opt-out if that make sense for u (example tax reasons) can later claim from unclaimed coins pot

following core blockchain philosophy key ownership is all u need to prove coin ownership

only pro argument for other solution is u can never get coins without set actice an action which might be interesting for people who fear tax but forget to manual opt-out pre snapshot

as u see in my opinion far more pro points for default automatic no action required coin distribution and all that pro points logical count as contra points for other path

Maybe you should think about how long we need to talk about migration and how fast time passes.
Unfortunately, there will always be exceptions(accidents, personally problems about a longer period, etc.) in “real” life.
We should give such people the chance to participate even after a longer period of time.
And what are engaged community members?

From this perspective:

  1. XEM and CAT chains have same relationship as XRP and XLM (since there is no shared nemesis block)
  2. Every XEM holder gets a time-limited option to redeem for CAT tokens in a new chain
  3. If the option isn’t exercised, it is expired

This is dependent on how the relationship between XEM and CAT is viewed (and only makes sense if you agree with #1). Of course, there are other valid ways to view the relationship between the XEM and CAT chains.

1 Like

I am for opt out path.

1 Like

Opt-out is the better option.


Yep, opt-out is the best solution.
What nemesis block size are we talking about at opt-out ?


I am for opt out path to.


If not one chain, if not one coin, please let’s at least go for the “opt-out” path. I support opt-out

EDIT: After reviewing the post from Greg I agree to the importance of having valid signatures in the catapult genesis block. My vote goes to the combined approach now: Opt-out for all normal accounts, opt-in for multi-sig +

I think he means opt-out :slight_smile:

1 Like

I’m for opt out too. Makes it much more easier to handle, removes significant liabilities and requires no action on the user to receive their tokens. Not to mention I can’t face the prospect of helping all my friends go through the opt in process.


I’m supportive for the opt-out method, no interaction needed and if anybody really wants they can op-out.


yes fixed

I prefer opt-out. lots of people want to get CAT token easily. I concern opt-in occurs many unclaimed tokens. I think many unclaimed tokens will be a concern later. It’s better to have less unclaimed tokens, no matter who manages it.

1 Like

For me personally, it does not matter.
For general public, it is definitely opt-out. Catapult has been seen as an upgrade since its first introduction to the public 3 years ago. To take care of every NEM holders, they should not need to do anything to get Catapult coins. Only those who require special needs, like opt-out then opt-in later require some action from their side, which is fair.

Opt-out, and lets move on to the next things.