NEM Foundation - Funding Proposal 2019

Project Proposals
#184

I was not initially convinced that was so, but I’m underwhelmed by the foundation’s participation in their own thread thus far. It’s only 10 days (3 left) before the vote, and they are literally asking for money. They need 65% of the votes. They have made a tremendous effort negotiating for our vote, but it’s more of a take it or leave it deal. Perhaps they are convinced of the result already, just like Cameron was when he initiated the Brexit referendum.

Seen as I’m not asking for approval, I don’t need luck. Therefore your friendly “good luck” is the semantical equivalent of communicating a welcome loss or departure. Just like your “thank you” in your initial response to me already indicated that you were not going to have anything constructive to add.

If your demeanor and fake lack of intellectual empathy is designed to manipulate people like me into voting no, then it’s really quite clever what you are doing.

#185

Very similar to my thoughts.

1 Like
#188

This grace period is a gesture. Time to ponder the deal on the table. :slight_smile:

#189

Let me try to explain a little bit about the grace period and the freeze to changes. In the past with some proposals to the community were given feedback and changes were made on the fly. In some cases changes were made right up until the vote, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse, but often times also flying under the radar.

People having read the proposal a few days before and went to vote were now voting on a very different proposal. The freeze in changes is to give the community enough time to absorb proposal and decide how to the vote and know there will be no last minute shenanigans and unfavorable edits in this proposal right before voting.

And so complaints that were commonly brought up by the community have now led to collection of edits in the proposal as outlined here. NEM Foundation Update - February 2019

#190

What NEM needs is competent leadership and competent management. In 1.5 months the new NF team was able to complete an audit, identify problems, handle layoffs, respond to feedback in a professional manner, and communicate a detailed solution. What is more impressive is that when facing bankruptcy they chose to pay their debts first and themselves second. How often does that happen in crypto? Regardless of details of the plan, I sure as hell want this team to keep going.

9 Likes
#191

Hi all,

Please see up date on response to Core Devs Questions from NEM Foundation

#192

We also have a technology update - Catapult Mobile Wallet walkthrough

We are committed to becoming a product-focused, revenue-driven organization and we hope this update showcases what NEM Foundation can do to serve the community better.

1 Like
#193

Thanks for summing up pretty much the main focus of what the new council has been doing. It has not been an easy task and we value the community’s feedback.

I would like to emphasise that this is our ‘last shot’ as a community, as NEM Foundation, to support NEM and the path to the launch of Catapult. I believe that this is the first time you have seen the council responding more than before (even though we still have much to improve on) and it would be the last time the community would be left in the dark on the Foundation’s KPIs, roadmaps, activities and movements.

This is a post that was shared as a response to the Core Devs and I emphasize that we will continue to be guided by the community.

Reference: Core Devs Questions for Active Proposals

1 Like
#194

Hi, I’m reaching out to find out why the vote is required for the NEM Foundation to receive funding. If the wallets (unconventional marketing, operations 1 and 2, marketing) that you guys will use funds from are all controlled by a multi-sig of foundation members, can’t you just take the funds out yourself without asking permission from the community? Or are they locked up and bound by time period withdrawals?

#195

Hi, Spencer. The reason why we are doing that community vote is to get the approval from the community first before we apply those funds from the co-signers. The NEM foundation and the fund co-signers respect the opinion and choices of NEM community very much.

To be clear:
The NEM foundation is not going to get any funding if the community is saying NO to that.
On the other hand, even though the community is saying YES to the proposal, we still need to get the final approval from the co-signers to get funding.

Hope this explain your confusion well.

2 Likes
#196

Hi, Spencer. The reason why we are doing that community vote is to get the approval from the community first before we apply those funds from the co-signers. The NEM foundation and the fund co-signers respect the opinion and choices of NEM community very much.

To be clear:
The NEM foundation is not going to get any funding if the community is saying NO to that.
On the other hand, even though the community is saying YES to the proposal, we still need to get the final approval from the co-signers to get funding.

Hope this explain your confusion well.

1 Like
#197

If the community vote Yes, I don’t see a reason of the cosigners deny the releasing the funds ASAP.

1 Like
#198

We can only hope for the best!

1 Like
#199

Here are a few notes to the election.

  • Take your time in the decision-making process.

  • Inform yourself enough about all projects.

  • Follow the discussion in the forum.

  • Let your feelings out, and decide for the future.

  • To all involved actors, do not forget, this is not about personal success, but about success for all of us.

Good luck and hopefully God blessing for the future.

これは選挙へのいくつかのメモです。

意思決定プロセスに時間をかけてください。

すべてのプロジェクトについて十分に理解してください。

フォーラムの議論に従ってください。

あなたの気持ちを出して、そして未来のために決めなさい。

関係するすべての関係者にとって、忘れないでください、これは個人的な成功に関するものではなく、私たち全員にとっての成功に関するものです。

幸運を祈り、そしてうまくいけば、神は未来のために祝福します。

5 Likes
#200

Maybe I’m wrong in this assessment, but it appears that Foundation and other entities did not liquidate more XEM reserves for fiat at key times, such as the Coincheck hack, when it became clear the stolen XEM were going to flood the markets.
And again when markets were giving obvious signals, such as the death cross in March 2018.
And then again during Consensys, when XEM temporarily doubled in value, but was still far from achieving golden cross.

Now moving averages are reaching a pinch point, with golden cross likely to visit XEM the first half of this year. Volumes are increasing, and volatility is minimal. LTC, ETH, and other prominent cryptos are in similar situation, with 50 day moving up towards a falling 200 day.

Catapult will be a significant catalyst for XEM price action. And fundamentals are strong throughout the crypto-sphere.

It would be frugal to take market conditions like these into consideration when spending the limited XEM reserves that exist. $1 spent today will effectively be $10 in the future.

Right now is arguably the time that critical NEM entities should be accumulating XEM, to fill their reserves, to sell during bull, so that survival during the next bear cycle in years ahead, isn’t so questionable.

But now we are in a position where XEM reserves need tapped, to accelerate NEM development and adoption, while at the bottom range of a market cycle.

It would be good to have a plan beforehand. EG. if we reach 15 cents, we sell X amount. If we then drop back to 8 cents, we rebuy X amount. If we hit 50 cents, sell Y amount to cover expenses for T time. …

A plan like this is one of the most immediate things that can be implemented to conserve XEM reserves and increase Foundation & Labs sustainability.

After much review, I’ve decided that I can support both proposals, although not conclusively, as there may be details that need cleaned up after the fact.
The plan forward isn’t entirely clear, but I feel that trust can be extended to some degree.

After polling, if proposals are approved by community, I would hope there would be coordination between parties to form a plan of action, establish a joint contingency plan, and further reduce expenditure as realistically as possible, especially in the short term. Even if it means reduced pay until markets recover.

Also, to limit risk and liability, funds probably should not be issued in lump sums post approval. There should be some sort of financial oversight.

How this would be done, I don’t know. Maybe a joint SRO? Self regulation between NF, NV, and NL? Or NF, NL, and core devs? With each party having to sign off before any one entity receives they quarterly allotment?

I’m starting to just throw ideas out there, and these details can be shored up after polling. So I’ll wrap this up by saying: At this point, unless there is some significant reveal I believe I will be voting yes to both proposals, but leave full veto and amendment power to core devs.

Some of the points I’ve made may have already been addressed. There is so much documentation to read, history to recall, and other dynamics - that it’s hard for the average community member to make a fully informed decision.

Things do seem to be improving, though. Thanks to all who have contributed.

4 Likes
#201

The three projects should be as independent as possible. But that’s a good point.

#202

NEM is moving to a new open source project model run by a (PMC) which is a Project Management Committee which is independent of the Foundation and NEM Labs. The beauty of this design is any entity or org in the NEM ecosystem can contribute code and have it on the NEMtech github. Of course it has to be good code and a valuable contribution to the community. We don’t want 10 crappy paper wallet generators on there of course. So in someways, having a nemtech github will make it much easier to see who is working on what and we will no longer have 4 PHP SDKs or 3 Javascript SDKs and so on. We will just have the one great and official Javascript SDK and that could be contributed by NEM Labs, or ProximaX, or NEM Foundation, Tech Bureau or any other company in the ecosystem. In addition, any other company will be able to contribute code to the nemtech github (again assuming it is a good pull request).

That said, as we are working towards building code that gets contributed to the PMC, we will be reaching out to each other to make sure there are no major duplications.

2 Likes
#203

Slide #28 - Request for Proposal

Proposed suggestion:

In order to obtain an objective review of proposals submitted, there should be a committee of at least 3 individuals to review ALL proposals submitted which have not been eliminated due to not meeting the criteria of submission.

The committee would collectively agree upon the Top 3 proposals and submit a recommendation to the CTO / CFO for selection. A one person review has the potential to lend it’s self to biased recommendations.

**Also - RFP criteria should be clearly defined with a checklist in which the respondent is required to meet. Not submitting a proposal on time should NOT be the only criteria in which a respondent is eliminated.

1 Like
#204

Why?
If funds are not community funds it’s up to co-signers decision if accept or not community voting. They for sure take into consideration result but if voting will be accepted it doesn’t mean automatically that funds will be released.

#205

Who said the funds are not community funds? Who owns nem? Who owns the funds? The co signatures or all the stakeholders and community with POI? Why should be a VETO, totally against Nem and blockchain values?
Cosignatures are guardians, keepers or a security layer of the funds, but IMO they should accept the community decisions.

1 Like