Agree with you about the Blockchain Centre. I don’t know either what will happen with that place (who is the owner, who put the money, the future etc).
About exchanges we need a person in touch in them, not only coincheck can happen again, also the user experience in some exchanges (for example nem deposit) is not the best. I personally had issues with spectrocoin waiting a deposit 4 months!!! and Bankera is partner of NEM. The people in charge has to talk with all exchanges and be sure that they follow all the quality and security process.
What will happen with NEM CATAPULT in the PRIVATE CHAIN. Who is going to commercialize this? My view based in my personal experience in Hong Kong and overseas is that most of the enterprise and government market is going to private chains.
And again this is not about Blockchain maximalist or if private chains are not pure blockchains, this is about be the blockchain market leader for Enterprise. So far r3 and Hyperledger are in the top.
One example is Trade Finance . We are missing a big opportunity. In HK this was huge and also in Europe is doing the same. Are using Hiperledger and R3 Corda.
There is another discussion the forum on this now. I believe that the presence of NBC is important to continue inspiring confidence in the blockchain industry and also creates a space to engage with enterprises and government and partners. I believe NF will keep it but steer it towards self sustainability.
Hello NEMbers! I also wish to put my sauce on this Proposal discussion!
I believe the job that has been done by Alex and the council since mid-december proves a lot of the intentions behind. We can see that, not only in the quality but also in the perseverance shown by each and everyone.
Since the elections there has been a lot of trolling also, of course. A lot of misconceptions and a descending price wave doesn’t appeal to most surfers… ^^ Also, the financial problems announced by the foundation are very hard to digest for a freshly starting team. Transparency will help the case and the foundation has shown quite some changes on that part in my opinion.
In my opinion, this proposal and the NEM Labs proposal are complementary and both deserve funding!
I do think about 6% of funds for the foundation to run one year is fair enough. There is so many things that the foundation has worked on and needs to work on in the future, that I believe allowing it to sustain for one year with 6% is not a bad move. With more experience comes more possibilities and I am sure at some point the foundation will come up sustainable - but let them work on it!
I do agree with transparency terms in the discussion where transparency will not be important only in discussions but also in the data delivered and released. I am no expert in finances but I would love to see a more transparent foundation funds handling.
I wish this proposal a success! As well as to the foundation’s new team!
Thanks @gevs , appreciate your support. Glad to see that you feel NEM Labs proposal can work well with NEM Foundation.
The aim is to also ensure we generate revenue so that in the future there won’t a request that will continue to eat up into the existing funds. That is why there is the creation of a specific Chief Revenue Office to be in-charge of this.
Hi BenGee. Thank you for you questions.
Let me answer some of them.
88 staff made redundant, does this mean we have 62 left? After we fill the additional roles what will the final figure be?
Yep, it’s correct. You can see all the positions in part 6 of the presentation. Please note that not all positions will be immediately filled. We will ramp up accordingly.
Regarding redundancy payments, can you explain how they will be calculated? How much do you expect to pay out? (fiat equivalent please).
HR team is currently working on this. More data will be provided.
Regarding re-structuring and filling new positions, how will you balance hiring old employees vs. new ones? What weight will you put on skillset vs. previous NEM Foundation employees? Will there be a conflict of interest with managers having the final decision on their previous staff?
Due to the re-structuring, the majority of employees will have to reapply to the new structure. Applications will be advertised through the HR Team. Selected candidates will be interviewed by members of the NEM Foundation Council. There will be fair and strict hiring process based on the skillset.
Thank you for your hard work & submitting proposal.
Here is my quick view for RFP:
We need to keep RFP process clear and fair.
But it seems that there are no audit from outside NEM foundation.
In current schema, Product Manager has too strong power & authority.
No punishment if he selects as he likes.
Please clarify how you prevent arbitrary selection.
A Review by CTO/CFO is not enough, I guess.
In addition, “Project Manager” is mistake of “Product Manager” in page 30?
Graphic designers --> Probably dont need many when most activities can be outsourced easily and likely cheaper? At best, keep one to supervise and farm out as needed. We do not have so much content or activities that would need 3 designers (even if we are in full marketing swing). Most work would be ad-hoc and campaign base most likely
Community Manager role seems to be very expensive for role
Website Rebuild is pricy unless we are creating a much more complicated site
Some items seems off
Web Development costing 150K with/ another 120K in Dev Staff --> Outsourced with a dedicated Web Admin is probably sufficient
CPO should fall under CTO and I dont think 200K is really warranted
- Product Managers are available globally and can be much more cost effective
(Tech) Suggest we employ a core “Scrum Team” with additional support to manage “Vendors/Service providers”
With a transparent and Kanban Board, plenty of “community bounties for developers”
(Marketing) Community Manager should focus on specific channels for management
Telegram / Reddit / Forums / Etc
Allocate 2 or 3 dedicated staff, and a field of “community moderators and managers”
(Marketing) Reallocate some marketing budget to marketing activity operations
Marketing / Education Materials (Both business and tech relevant)
Re-consider regional areas that staff pricing maybe quite high in those countries
Support staff should be definitely in lower cost jurisdictions or outsourced
Parts of Asia
Middle east / Africa
(BD) Emphasise BD role more
Larger marketing reach based on successful partnerships
Need account managers
Should have regional/localized sales individuals / teams
CMO Role will be more likely a Marketing Manager role then a traditional CMO role
PR / Spokesperson should be more promient as this helps with “Stock Price / Coin Price” Management and perception
Should be clear marketing managers for our various stakeholders
- Development Community (Technical Marketer)
- Enterprise (Enterprise marketing and engagements)
- Community Marketers (different from community management)
- Market (Typically the CFO role, but in this case similar to Community Marketing, as we are community based)
- Key Opinion Leader Manager (Can be wrapped into the Market manager)
- Government Marketing / Relations
A traditional CFO tends to talk to the “Markets”. In a startup world they act more like a “Finance Controller” / General Accountant
Utilizing that logic we should break up the CFO budget to get a General Accountant + dedicated Treasury manager & team (Rather then just accounting staff)
This one component can “stretch” the initial funding by as much as Revenue Officer if we know where and how to manage the investments / capital injection
Overall, I think we need a more “business driven” leadership / Structure then technology only. We need to build the product but adoption, deals, market insight is what will make NEM flourish. Tech development isnt useful without the business insights to drive them (Product Managers work alongside BD)
We can see projects like Tron, EOS, NEO, all driving farther and faster because they understand the business needs and sales aspect (even with potentially inferior products). Something to consider if we are really to do justice in the NEM community and get us onto the scale and position that competitors have achieved (im specifically referring to HyperLedger / Stellar, who do a great job at the enterprise sales aspect).
Regarding Web Development, I would like if you can tell me how you would do it to understand more your idea and be able to give it shape within our proposal.
As for the CPO and CTO, I take the liberty of placing something I found on the Internet, which defines the differences and reasons why both roles should work together and aligned. And because they are very important in all technology organizations.
The CPO is responsible for the “why” of the product - the strategic approach to what will be built. The CPO makes sure the product direction is serving the overall company vision and adjusts as necessary to changing conditions. Tactically, the product team owns building and sharing the roadmap. The product plan explains to the organization why they are building the product, what features and requirements are included, and when phases and tasks are due.
The CTO is responsible for the “how” of the product - the strategic approach to development and delivery. The CTO determines how the team will use technology to improve products and services. Tactically, this work includes cost-benefit and return-on-investment analyzes to figure out which platforms and solutions have the best chance of paying off.
The CPO studies customers and the market and looks for what direction the product can and should take in the future. This does not mean pushing for whatever is technologically possible. It means honoring the product vision and strategy while considering new approaches to delivering value to customers. The end goal remains to be building to better customer experience and helping the product teams to truly enjoy what they do.
The CTO studies technology solutions to make recommendations for architecture and how work should best get done. The point is not to invest in emerging technology because it is newer than what is currently being used. It is to improve the product’s ability to solve real problems for customers and enhance the team’s ability to execute against their commitments. This is the CTO’s guiding principle when it comes to exploring new technologies and approaches.
The CPO has a thorough understanding of customer desires and behaviors because they spend a lot of time with them and the people internally who serve them (e.g. sales and support teams). They represent the customer internally, communicating learning through research and analysis, sharing insights with internal partners such as marketing and sales leaders, and encouraging the product team to talk directly with customers.
The CTO must understand the customer too - although they often rely on the CPO’s research and learnings. The CTO must also apply their technical know-how to ensure technology applications reflect the way customers want to interact with the product.
The CPO looks at metrics from a product experience standpoint. They track a wide variety of product KPIs to measure how well the company is doing delivering to CPE, such as revenue and customer growth, engagement, and retention. They also look internally to track progress against the product plan and team goals. And at a strategic level, they often must look across product lines and portfolios at how many products are tracking towards the overall vision.
The CTO looks at metrics from a product performance standpoint. They want to know how well the product does what it is supposed to do. They also want to look at customer interactions with the product to understand how it is being used. Internally, the best CTOs keep track of metrics such as team velocity, product defects, and cycle time to improve the development process.