That exactly the kind of projects should get support from the community itself.
People is pushing hard NEM, they should have the tools to ask a reward to the community instead of waiting for the Fundation.
This way should be more agile and create a more autonomous and stronger community.
I would like a mechanism to support contributors from NEM Foundation.
They are giving out results.
But they should get some support form NF too, like sharing/promoting in social networks. This has to be improved too
We have to push this from community perspective and find the tools to make that happen.
I expect some ideas like, less than 100.000 XEM just X % of the importance is required to fund that via community fund. Create a webpage to promote the community fund… Some ideas like this.
I am aiming to make the community stronger than dependent of NEM Foundation.
NEM foundation should help that happen, but it shouldn’t be lead exclusively by us
I am aiming to make the community stronger than dependent of NEM Foundation.
This is a laudable goal. At the current moment, I think that the community is too dependent on the NEM Foundation and is using as it a crutch in too many places. The point of blockchain is decentralization. Having a centralized organization dictating things top-down down goes against the spirt of that.
Japanese community has been most active and productive because they have started many projects on their own. They did not wait for “partnership” or “funding” from NEM Foundation, they just went ahead and built things. It is commendable, and it would be nice to see more communities follow their lead.
NEM Foundation should be a facilitator, not an authoritarian. It should encourage and teach others to build with NEM, but not tell them what or when to build. NEM Foundation is a key partner in the NEM ecosystem and the development of NEM but it is not THE ecosystem or solely responsible for development.
So true. People keep wanting to be compensated or ‘noticed’. I say build, build, build and the rest will follow. Do you think people find NEM development intimidating, despite it being one of the easiest I’ve encountered? Is it the lack of ideas? What is the reason for a lack of projects?
You make a good point, but I don’t think the situation is this black and white if you think about it… The main issue I have is that, while I agree with you, I also think that for the most part the foundation kept quiet about the features that were worked on being implemented along the way. I routinely heard people (myself included at times) say things akin to “I had no idea NEM was capable of this, or that”. I think there’s a difference between hype and marketing, you can (and should) give people a clear idea of what to expect from a finished product - marketing, without overselling it or raising false expectations - hyping.
So yes, many people in the community (programmers, devs, etc.) have been used to waiting for targets from the foundation, because that was the medium that was being cultivated in these past years (in my opinion). It’s difficult to imagine working on something if you don’t know what that something might be.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that the foundation, devs, anyone working on the blockchain could do a bit more to inspire the community, with clear ideas of what the blockchain is capable of, instead of lists of projects that should be implemented. In my mind it’s a fine line between the two, but one is saying “here’s what this blockchain is capable of doing” and the other one is saying “here’s what you should do”.
I agree with you that marketing/awareness has been lackluster to date and that there should be better outreach. I think foundation’s role should be to facilitate community projects, but not fund or dictate them.
one is saying “here’s what this blockchain is capable of doing” and the other one is saying “here’s what you should do”
In my opinion, the foundation should be focusing on the former of those and leaving the latter to the community.
Yes, of course the foundation shouldn’t dictate what needs to be done. But inspiring people goes a really long way, especially in emerging technologies where often times it’s difficult to see the full potential of an idea unless you’re spoon fed information about it.
Couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately there is always some “but”.
Recently I am working a lot on applications of Ethereum. And their development is much more organized than the deveopment on NEM, especially that the community is producing even 10x more code and in result tools. Ethereum Foundation is really doing good job organizing all the work. This link is just to see the difference in outputs:
Got many friends in the industry writing tools and improvement proposals on many cryptocurrencies, most of them are on “grants” for completing different tasks. In my opinion that should be the role of Foundation, finding good quality tools, enabling them for the whole community (most of Japanese creations are useless for westerners becuase they are either accessible only from Japan or only in Japanese language), and at the end rewarding the creator with some incentive.
I heard about cases of two community devs working on the same application, resulting in the dev close to foundation getting bounty. That’s why I am pushing for transparency in this area.
Now, the question is why to incentivize people for doing anything NEM-related. And my answer as a guy who was looking for a job as a blockchain dev and finally got one:
NEM isn’t sexy and having it in your CV won’t help. On most of my interview talks in the very blockchain-related high tech comapnies (I won’t mention names) the question was, how much of a smart contract for NEM have I created. Like it was some ICO on Ethereum.
I believe I am pretty close to community and trying to see community’s needs and more developers are leaving NEM for paid work or is interested in scam-ICOs than just spend time on making something NEM-based.
Honestly, when I started in NEM there was a thread on bounties available and I was going for it knowing some of this things may be needed and at the same time I knew I can learn more about NEM and crypto in this process.
In recent days, when developer encounter NEM, how can he/she “join” the process?
maybe it should be possible to lower the target POI% for these little projects proposals.
The number of exchanges is increasing.
As the number of exchanges increases, importance is biased towards exchanges.
I think that 3% will become more and more difficult.
A lot of good points have been made here, and are being taken into consideration.
One thing I’ve been campaigning for and really would like to see built is a migration tool. So many projects feel stuck on other platforms. The costs and hassle of migrating to NEM is unappealing.
If we can simplify the process, it would attract existing projects and developers. I’ve already spoke with several project heads who would most likely make the switch if we had the migration tool available.
There’s already huge incentive to build on NEM vs other platforms, but I think a migration tool would be extra bait that would provide great ROI for the NEM ecosystem.
With other platforms bugging out, requiring high fees, and transaction speeds so low - the timing is perfect to migrate to NEM. A tool to simplify the process will seal the deal.