Migration Committee Community Update #6

The latest release of the Desktop Wallet is v0.8.8

Just a reminder for those unclear on Opt-In that there is a video that is helpful and gives high-level overview here --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LShCAb4_9I&feature=youtu.be.


Is the opt-in migration still a proposal or has the final decision been made? If not when can we see the final decision communicated to the public?

Regardless of whether I choose to join or opt out, I will respect the team’s decision if it is finalized.


Well done, nice to see you keep going.


I’m in the same boat. I prefer opt out but still respect the decision for opt in. The devs also prefer opt in from what I understand, given that we are treating catapult as a new product.


It is a pity to read that and I am disappointed. Why asking the community, if then their opinion does not count and is ignored? What are the reasons behind this decision?
I once thought I am part of this movement, however I can’t follow the latest decisions -


I would respect the recommendation to opt-in as well but would like a better understanding on the rationale behind a blanket opt-in vs opt-out for non multi-sig and opt-in for multi-sig.

Granted, this is a new chain and product launch altogether and there should be clear differentiation with NIS1 and other factors to consider.

If the community has any thoughts, this forum would be the best place and I believe the final decision is not made yet.

Other than that, glad to know the details are being worked out for the exchange outreach, branding and tokenomics.

I know this is frustrating for you (and some others in the community.) To be clear, though, the migration team DID discuss/consider the community’s feedback (as well as partner feedback, legal feedback, and Core Devs feedback) around Opt-In/Opt-Out.

It wasn’t a unanimous decision but it was a fair decision that the entire migration team is supporting. It’s going to be impossible to make everyone happy on this.

This will be discussed more in the migration proposal coming soon but from the notes in the past migration committee, this was some of the high-level considerations:

Migrate fewer accounts, but those that migrate are more actively engaged, requires user interaction which gives possibility for things like acceptance of white paper, dev contract etc explicitly, can be done relatively quickly because you can always opt-in later without the claim period pre-launch impacting you (miss opt out and you are opted in, opt in - only thing you miss was getting tokens on day 1 instead of when you opt in). May have some tax repercussions (ex. Germany) because there is an active opt in, in other jurisdictions means you can manage that individually more easily. IRS guidance doesn’t really cover this one.

Tax guidance for both opt-in and opt-out was “patchy” - guidance from the accountants anecdotally is there is an argument to treat opt-In like a Share Split or exercising of rights that are embedded within the XEM token you hold, so not an airdrop, an exercising of rights you have paid for. Conversely though, if viewed as an airdrop it could be income. Initial value plays into this calculation and there is concern in Japan particularly that NIS1 will represent a capital loss right now, capital gain on Catapult will then be 0 to whatever you sell at, but can’t carry losses forward there, so capital gain appears higher than it should be and in fact may be a net loss that needs to be partially declared as a gain in the end. It gets very complex.

Migrate more accounts (including dead ones), doesn’t require user interaction unless you don’t want to be included, may incur legal/tax issues for people who are not engaged enough, need to define an appropriate opt-out time before we can launch, probably feels more like a conceptual upgrade even if its not a technical one. May have some tax issues (Ex. US, Aus and Japan) because you received effectively air drop like tokens, to which you have the private keys, this is unclear though at present in regulations (including IRS.)

Final takeway for migration team: legal analysis and technical options were weighed / debated and the migration committee felt Opt-In was the best choice to move forward with.

Let us know if you have more questions.


Hello, I have a question about the opt-in process. As I understand, there will be a snapshot of NEM balances as a basis for the Catapult opt-in (pre- or post-launch). Is there already a date or block height specified for this or will it be communicated?

Thank you in advance!

Hi there,

We don’t have the date as of yet. We will communicate the date of snapshot across all of our channels (social media and the forums) as soon as we have it.

The process/entity for managing these unclaimed tokens has not yet been defined.

For Opt-In option, a very large amount of Catapult tokens will be stored on Trust account. It’s very important to secure this account properly.

  • When we will know how Trust account will be defined? How can we be sure that it will be safe and well secured for 6 years?
  • When it will be a known claim process for Catapult stakes (Opt-In after chain lunch)?
  • Of course, burning unclaimed stakes after 6 years is tempting (lower supply can impact the price), but was also considered by Committee that possibility of hack Trust account (which would be disastrous for the Catapult token economy) can impact on holder’s decisions before burning?

6 years later,
Importance is given to the Burn address.
Are you thinking about that?
Did you check for problems in the NEM ecosystem?

The burn address would be the Genesis account. This account cant harvest and the coins would become inaccessible, so the importance everyone else has would be a greater percentage of the total available importance, meaning security of the network would be unaffected.


I don’t agree the Migration Committee is supposed to be the group of people taking a decision about the Opt-In / Opt-Out choice. The choice between Swap and Allocation was allready enforced onto us and the community without a POI vote. Based on the communication of the Committee so far, I don’t trust any choices made by that group.
I don’t agree with this so-called decision to support Opt-In. The SN-owners group was created to collect feedback and opinions from important community members. In the SN owners telegram group, it was obvious the majority was prefering Opt-out. It can be assumed the community prefers Opt-Out as well. How is it possible to come to another conclusion? How is it possible to even consider an obvious controversial conclusion without putting this question into a POI vote? Time constraint? Ok, but go with the choice of the majority then.
I want Opt-out and if not, I will only accept Opt-In if supported by a community POI vote.

1 Like

This clearly means the community feedback was not considered as being important enough. Again, POI vote is now clearly required to make this choice.

I’m sorry in advance, but there will be truthful words below, but in a harsh form.

Technical points cannot be put to the vote at all! Why not? Such questions should be discussed only among developers and people who understand all the advantages, disadvantages and risks of this or that decision.

Jaguar started the vote three days ago. As you can see, 35% want to see the name “Catapult”, but this is impossible because of the trademark. Alexander and Laura have already talked about this before. But as you can see, investors want what cannot be.

Technical issues should be discussed and decided exclusively by competent people and not by a handful of investors “when the moon? when lambo?”. In the end, all responsibility will be solely with the Migration Team, but not with the community. In this case, there is no room for a decentralized solution!


I’m sorry, but I don’t understand the point of your reply at all. Unless, you’re not really replying to my message.
My remarks in my previous messages were not about a technical point. The Opt-In/Opt-Out choice is about how it should be done, a question about what procedure to follow. Both are technically possible.

I did not mention anything about the name or the work of the branding committee. So I don’t see how that has anything to do with my remarks.

And I undestand you might consider some to be incompetent, but I believe I’m not one of them :wink:

Not all responsibility is with the Migration Committee.
There is and should be room for a decentralised decision making process, although I must admit it probably requires some courage.

Nice video, as it also explains the Opt-Out System chosen by the majority of SN owners who voted.

Clearly people still think their opinion should be the deciding factor and if their opinion is not followed the others are obviously morons.

The current proposal is made after a huge amount of discussions between various groups taking in consideration all the opinions of everybody. (Including all the legal matters) Obviously if not everybody has the same opinion not everybody can be satisfied.
Get. over. it.

In my opinion (feel free to have a different opinion) this should be the final decision and it does not need a poi vote. The massas do not always know what is best.