Migration Committee Community Update #6

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.


Project Overview

Launch Date Targeting Q1 2020

What has been done to date:

  • 02- 07- 2019 Migration Committee set up
  • 15- 09- 2019 Initial proposal posted
  • 02- 10- 2019 Tokenomics drafted
  • Oct 2019 FC Release F1
  • Nov 2019 Decision has been made by migration team to support Opt-In.
  • 18 Nov 2019 FC Internal Release F2
  • 30 Nov 2019 Tokenomics recommendations made and shared to core

Future Milestones:

  • 03- 12- 2019 SDK/REST Gateway F2 compatible RC Release
  • 12- 12- 2019 Wallets ready
  • DEC 2019 Pen testing & review starting (dependent on RC Release F2 outcome)
  • 03- Jan- 2020 Branding guidelines/ toolset delivered
  • Feb - Mar 2020 LAUNCH
  • Mar 2020 Post launch re-evaluate and reconfirm future plans still stand

Based on the milestone timelines above, Catapult is still aiming for Q1 2020 launch. We will keep everyone posted as things progress.

Process For Catapult Launch

A common question from the community is in regards to what the process is for decision making to move the Catapult launch forward. This is the (high-level) recommendation from Foundation, Studios and Ventures to the core devs.

  • Migration Committee forms an initial proposal for technical options, tokenomics and brand and shares with the community for feedback. Technical Options complete, Tokenomics and Brand ongoing, expected to complete in January.
  • Feedback is absorbed and balanced between what is wanted and what is possible, across various stakeholder groups (Core Devs, Super Node Holders, Wider Community, NEM Entities, External Parties) and creates three proposals
    • Tokenomics - underway, expected to be shared internally by end of Nov at latest
      • POI is still being discussed and is underway, pending results of recommendation
    • Brand - underway, expected to be shared by mid January 2020 at the latest
  • A single summary proposal encompassing all three elements is drafted and put to the community for a decision. If it is rejected then it will be reworked but this may impact Q1 2020 launch and that must be balanced to avoid as a priority

Opt-In Proposal

The migration team is proposing that every account has to opt-in to receive Catapult tokens. This includes multi-sig and non-multi-sig accounts. Accounts won’t receive Catapult tokens or multi-sig configurations until they opt-in. Accounts can opt-in either before or after public chain launch. For those who wait until after launch, their Catapult tokens will be held in a custodial account until they are claimed when the owner opts-in. The process/entity for managing these unclaimed tokens has not yet been defined. After a specified period (6 years is the current assumption,) the proposal is to burn any unclaimed Catapult tokens remaining in the custodial account.


Front End Development

Progress involving revolving the front end development are as follows:

  • Desktop Wallet: The latest release of the Desktop Wallet (v0.8.5) is compatible with private blockchain networks and just got updated to work with the NEM Foundation Experimental Testnet for Catapult as well. The desktop wallet and SDK teams are cooperating cross-entities to integrate latest protocol version updates. An early beta phase has been initiated for this project of which you can view the source code on Github (here).

  • Mobile Wallet: There is currently no public release for the Mobile Wallet yet but the package has been worked on and will be released in the form of a Google Play Store App as well as an Apple Store App. (iOS)

  • Block Explorer: The latest release of the Block Explorer is available as a demo here and can also be used for private blockchain networks and with the NEM Foundation Experimental Testnet for Catapult as well. An early beta phase has been initiated for this project of which you can view the source code on Github Here.

  • Hardware Wallets: The hardware wallet integration for Trezor in the Desktop Wallet has started and has done good progress. The team at Labrys is currently working on the firmware integration of Catapult for Trezor devices A service provider of the NEM Foundation is also working on the integration of Catapult for Ledger hardware devices, this project is still in its early phase and has not been published yet.


Progress involving Catapult development are as follows:

The NEM Studios developers have nearly completed Fushicho 2 Server compatibility changes. REST and SDK teams are making final changes for F2 and will provide the latest release early next week.

Review and Testing: The next phases of testing are beginning including new performance testing and penetration testing by a third party, as we begin the open bug bounty program on the security review platform HackerOne. These efforts will continue through release time.

Depending on the results of said testing, lead times may extend to ensure quality management.

Brand Strategy and Go-To-Market

Brand Strategy

Branding updates can be found in the NEM Forums here.

Next week’s (Dec 5th) Brand Strategy Steering Committee’s agenda includes the following topics:

  1. Brand pitch review and timings

  2. Evolved design including 3D development

  3. Guidelines development

  4. Messaging translation

The goal is to have a brand proposal to share with the community mid-December.


Various members of the community, migration committee, and supernode holders group have expressed ideas/preferences. At present this information is being collated with a view to making a recommendation from the Migration Committee.

As a snippet of the general direction - the approach is likely to recommend:

  • Continuing the supernode programme but gradually phasing it and making it more accessible to other community members
  • Increasing the decentralisation/democratisation approach to node rewards/harvesting
  • Creating a tokenomics plan which has longevity, for a chain that is going to be here for decades/generations to come

The details of these will be shared in as below but feedback from the wider community, supernode holders, core team and migration committee all combine around these points.


  • 11/11/2019: A framework will be shared by MC representatives with a working group of long standing, significantly invested community members for input, it will be discussed for 1-2 weeks (shorter if possible) to identify a common position
  • Week starting 25th Nov documented approach will be shared with Core Team and Migration Committee for review
  • Following Week (assuming above review is passed) documented approach will be shared with the community, initially with the Super Node holders groups for a few days, then with the wider community. Several areas of the tokenomics impact Super Node holders different to the wider community, they have representatives in the working group so this is to give chance to answer questions on those areas prior to general discussion/questions
  • It will then be shared with the wider ecosystem teams for sanity testing/proofing (NF, NV, NS, Core Devs, Supernode Group & Forums). This is expected to be a relatively quick process due to the level of input received so far.
  • Assuming no major opposition, it will be included into the Migration Proposal; target is the last week of Nov.

Priority is being given to Catapult Tokenomics as they are more complex, NIS1 will be run in parallel, initially slightly behind.

Thanks for your continued support,

Migration Committee


Good job.

1 Like

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.