NCF Update - Happenings


Note: Any critiques made in this thread are made as a founding member of the foundation, original core team member, and NCF committee member - not as part of or on behalf of nem ventures.

Recently on telegram, and on this forum, a couple members of the community have raised questions over the NCF, more specifically legacy project milestone payouts, transparency, governance and accountability. Ill try to cover concerns and questions raised in this thread and provide a better insight into what has been going on since the venture vote passed.

If there are any further questions that the community would like answered, regarding NCF legacy procedures, please post them in this thread. If the question pertains to anything regarding nem ventures or proposals/projects post September 7th, please forward those questions here.

One of the major issues with the NCF in the past, was that the committee intended for processing project milestones was very heavily occupied by foundation members. Although the foundation has always been “hands off”, i very much disagree with this statement in practice. The Committee of some 22-24 individuals comprised of, usually, at least 50% foundation members. Without management and removing inactive committee members, this group often swelled beyond 50% foundation members which then had to be rectified by removing more inactive members - there wasn’t a shortage of inactive members both foundation and community.

Inactivity was understandable on all fronts. I fought for resources to compensate committee members but the foundation provided none while still heavily promoting the fund as a means for free funding. There were foundation employees in place who promoted the fund, processed applications and got the projects to vote - but that’s where foundation support ended beyond some volunteers which wasn’t nearly enough. The NCF was heading towards a total lock up.

I started to consider ways in which the fund could be legitimized. Nem Ventures was born of the lack of support, lack of resources and a need for efficiency, oversight and accountability - not just sustainability.

So, what has been happening and why does the above matter?

In light of the foundation being hands off, and Nem Ventures needing to draw a clear line between legacy NCF processes and Nem Ventures processes, it was also necessary for Nem Ventures (mostly me as my co-founders are new to nem and i was involved in the NCF committee) to go hands off.

As a result, i stopped processing payments. I requested that the existing committee set up a multisig account to process milestones, but this didn’t work due to the lethargy present in the existing committee and the large ratio of foundation:community members. No one reviewed anything properly and the cosignatories suggested comprised of 4 foundation employees, one of which is a current council member, out of 5 signatories suggested. Interestingly, it also showed that the foundation was “hands off” - until payments stopped flowing.

At which point it was somehow ok to get hands on. So why was “hands off” the reason for not providing resources for us to fix the NCF and potentially legitimize it into a legal entity?

Understandably, and rightly, the current cosignatories rejected these cosignatories which lead me to form a new smaller committee, comprised of only community members, on behalf of the old committee.

I wont name names, as they are key holders of a new smaller but still large fund and I have always disagreed with naming those who are key holders of large funds for obvious reasons. However i can confirm that this new committee of 5 community members comprises of individuals with very strong expertise, especially nem technology, start ups, and a very large degree of longevity in nem.

These individuals have taken charge of processing the legacy proposals and milestones and to date have been doing a brilliant job despite many complications that have arisen because of past failings, miscommunications, etc. There have been some set backs, disagreements and so forth, but id be concerned if there wasn’t. It is really not an easy job, as a lot of milestones are vague, in some cases out of scope, difficult to verify, over valued, and generally rife with contentions. The new committee has done a great job in getting past these issues however and the payments you see going out are a result of quite a lot of hours of review, debates and ultimately answers and resolutions.

I wont comment on the specifics of each milestone that has been paid out - if one of the new committee wants to step in and give some insights into them, that is up to them. Generally i have not reviewed the milestones to the same depth as the committee so they are better positioned to speak on that. What i can do is say that some projects have produced good results and were processed quickly, others required a serious amount of time, effort and conditions to get to a point where a milestone could be paid out.

With regards to the funding of the new NCF committee, after they had set up a multisig account, 10m xem was transferred to them from the main NCF. This is largely short of the total required but for safety sake, a lesser amount was credited. It’s expected that should all projects be paid out for all milestones, this will run quite a bit short and need to be topped up. So expect to see another large-ish transaction(s) to move from the current NCF to the new smaller account that is distributing funds to projects.

In terms of accountability: the committee is, and always has been, controlled by a group of private individuals with no real obligation to continue the work, nor are there any contracts in place etc. So its very much a case of just needing to trust those running it. Without a legal entity, or a full fledged DAO, trust in the mgmt is required. Its just the nature of the NCF.

Transparency: The transactions are all on chain, with messages denoting the purpose of each transaction. If the new committee would like to start making updates each time a milestone is made, that is up to them. They have complete autonomy now and should own that autonomy going forward. It would probably be useful for those who want transparency to outline what exactly they want insights into. Transparency is turning into a bit of a buzz word lately but its a very broad term than can take a few different meanings with varying outputs depending on the context in which its used.

Governance: The new committee is self governing, and not influenced by the foundation any more. I as well as the ventures team are included in discussions relating to project although we do not generally get involved unless requested. There isn’t really much more i can say on that front.

So, since the formation of this new committee, the foundation doesn’t play a part on either NCF in any form, project milestones are being processed more efficiently and in a more timely manner, and payments have resumed. The number of milestones to process in this way are finite, so these payments should come to a close in future. How long this takes is dependent on the pace of milestone submissions.

If anyone has any more specific questions, feel free to post them here and ill try to answer them.


Thanks kodtycoon.
I try note when NCF transaction send.
Because no one does it.

NCF projects milestones : 10000000 XEM

Copyright Bank Milestone 3 : 399725 XEM

Ethyl Milestone 2 : 1285434 XEM

Rocketshoes Milestone 1 : 1530921XEM

Origins Milestone 1 : 458715XEM


Thank you for the post-Kailin.

I was against NEM VC but now I believe that it’s the best happened to NEM. I went through the milestones of companies like Origins

Milestone consists of -
concept documentation
Architecture of network
Press release
Blog posts

Who authorized these milestones? All you need to complete above milestone is an MS OFFICE. It’s all the documentation and work of a clerk. No coders required. NEM gave $100K to Origins. What a joke? Why do you need $100K for the above tasks? Did they have to buy Microsoft stocks to write a document?

Why I was against NEMVC ?

NEM VC was not transparent about the formation of NEM VC. You kept startups in dark for months. This is not good for NEM because no one will recommend NEM if you do this again.

I hope you can resolve this by providing proper and timely updates. Which you are doing right now via Telegram and Forum. I’m happy about that.

I think NEM VC can become an integral part of NEM if you sail in the right direction. Evaluate companies and give preference to companies that can grow and generate revenue.

@GodTanu - You are NEM’s Heimdall :smiley:

Thank you


Hi LionHeart. Im glad you now support us. :slight_smile:

But let me explain… There is more to it than meets the eye from the outside.

Regarding Origins M1:

One of the big issues was that origins started their vote right as the freeze was being put on voting for NCF. Origins provided reasons as to why they wanted us to allow the vote to proceed, and it was granted on the basis that Origins then conform to the new guidelines and rules. So Origins is a bit of a unique situation.

You are right, that M1 of Origins is outside the scope of the NCF guidelines and it is not appropriate for NCF to provided seed funding. And this was hotly debated for a very long time. However, over the course of a number of months, some individuals in the foundation were in contact with origins and informed her wrongly that the milestones were ok. Which they absolutely were not.

These individuals either had not themselves read the guidelines, overlooked them, or blatantly ignored them, they also were not really involved with the NCF committee at the time so had no place in directing any of the projects as to the validity of their proposals. This is a result of the foundation promoting NCF as a form of funding to projects and completely disregarding the standards that we tried to maintain, and not taking into consideration the work that then needs to be performed post voting - milestone reviews. Without standards in places, this process is quite a torturous one.

Because of this, Origins were under the impression that their milestones were ok. From the Origins perspective, on one hand you have one or more authorities from the foundation, sometimes quite high ranking, stating they are all good to proceed, while on the other, someone without a title and is not a part of the foundation saying they are not and that milestones need work. Given everyone seems to think the foundation owns and runs nem completely, its easy to see why an external party would take the word of a foundation rep. This meant that Origins proceeded while thinking they were in the clear but really, there were many issues.

So, Origins then proceed to complete their M1, but its still out side the scope of the guidelines and this is a huge problem for the committee. Please dont quote me on this, but if i recall correctly, the solution was to process M1 on the condition that future milestones are brought into line with the guidelines. It also wasnt 100k dollars, but rather 50k.

Allowances were made due to the miscommunications from different stakeholders, that were not really the fault of Origins. Should we hold Origins accountable for the failings of others? I don’t think so. But should we also just proceed as if nothing is wrong? also no. So everyone must meet in the middle to resolve the issues. M1 was paid, in light of the miscommunications, but with conditions outlined by the new committee. If im missing anything or anything is inaccurate, some of the committee can step in :slight_smile:

So, NCF v Ventures.

NEM VC was not transparent about the formation of NEM VC. You kept startups in dark for months. This is not good for NEM because no one will recommend NEM if you do this again.

You are mixing up Nem Ventures and NCF. Nem Ventures is managed by myself, Dave Hodgson and David Mansell. Communications with projects has been quite good - any project owners reading this that disagree, please get in touch and we will make amends asap.

NCF was run by a group of volunteers, who dedicated their own time to keeping things running. The failure in communication is largely due to the large number of proposals, and the foundations continued push to promote the fund. As problems started to arise due to the increase in proposals, i requested resources so that committee members could be paid for their time - no one wanted to work full time for free, and yes, it would have been a full time job for multiple people for it to remain functioning at an even semi decent state. With this request for resources came a warning (on multiple occasions) that the NCF would grind to a complete halt if nothing was done about it. So the lack of communication from the NCF is completely unrelated to that of the Ventures initiative.

And thank you. We fully intend to become a value asset within the ecosystem and bring many good projects to nem.

Hopefully this clears things up a little. If you have any more questions or concerns, feel free to ask.


Sincere apologies

I mean "NCF members were not transparent about the formation of NEM VC

I’m again pointing out a mismanaged foundation. We have a big problem here. I want every startup in NEM to raise a Series A funding or conduct a good ICO or whatever. Basically, I want them to win.

90% of startups fail and some fail because the founders don’t know how to manage money and the project. It would be great if you can help Origins (I don’t know if this comes under NEM VC) and other startups that are already funded by NCF.

A $100K can do a lot in a startup. It’s not for documentation. NEM VC or the future/existing foundation must ask them to update the future milestones to more meaningful ones.

I don’t have any questions at the moment. I’m following Dave Hodgson via NEM VC telegram and via the forum. I’m sure we can expect quality startups in NEM soon.

Thank You


NCF members didn’t know until very shortly before. :slight_smile:

The proposal was writing and published in the space of like 2-3 weeks.

Ventures can provide guidance to the new NCF committee but it’s out of our scope and resources currently to assist existing projects beyond maybe a bit of advice. As for past projects, anything that went to vote prior to ventures passing it’s own vote falls under the legacy NCF processes. Anything after that falls under ventures. So origins is up to the NCF committee. Not ventures. So future milestone updates is their duty although venture will help if requested.

I hope we will too. That was largely the purpose and mission of ventures :slight_smile: thanks for the support.


LuxTag Milestone 3 : 1006896 XEM