Thanks @GodTanu
Just a couple of corrections - GBX is not an investment, it is just a partnership with an exchange that is also in Gibraltar. It was primarily getting XEM listed.
Ample and Mobi investment amounts are public: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/nem-ventures
The rest are not publicly released at this time. I will copy my telegram message below from the public NEM Ventures group with you as well in case it helps others.
The team are currently preparing a public update and it should be released in the next few days to explain a bit more of what is going on as well.
That list is also the investments that have been made, which is different to the work done, some highlights of a few other points:
-
In Sept I summarise some highlights from the previous 12 months https://twitter.com/NemVentures/status/1172051111609548801
-
The teams have been very heavily involved in the Catapult Public Chain migration work, the uncertainty around it has been making it challenging for companies building on Catapult to plan, and therefore seek investment, we have been acutely aware of this for a while and hope that by helping push the migration forward we are helping the companies who we have invested in and also those that will be seeking investment but can’t commit to NEM yet due to uncertainty. This is expected to ease up over Nov/Dec and to allow us to refocus on the investment side again
-
We have reviewed ~90 proposals in the past 12 months, that is a lot of the real work that goes on to find the investments that have been made
-
Some of the team have been seconded on request of Core to set up NEM Studios so have been working between the two entities
-
We have been preparing to launch an incubator to support Catapult https://nemflash.io/open-letter-community-nem-virtual-incubator-concept/
-
Most recently we have been leading the Tokenomics work with Brian Tinsman for the Migration committee
-
The majority of the migration work has been contributed voluntarily/unpaid by the team in addition to our NV commitments and is regularly taking 2-3 days a week in evenings and weekends.
-
One of our team was in Japan speaking to projects, node owners, local community and representatives as part of expanding the relationships up there, we expect to be there again (probably more than once) in the next 6 months.
So while I appreciate it may look from the outside like the work is quite quiet, it is a more of a failing on our part to take the time out to communicate it effectively due to the small team and amount of work that is being undertaken
Hope that helps give some context, we are trying to get better at surfacing the details of what is being done but please rest assured we collaborate actively, usually several times a day with NEM Foundation, Core Devs and wider Core team, NEM Studios and the community.
------ TG message explaining reasons why amounts may not be published -----
[In reply to God Tanu]
Hi @GodTanu, (I hope this translates ok, sorry I don’t have Japanese but we have in the plan this year to look at local analysts so that should improve). I’ve seen your posts in the forum as well and will reply shortly.
In commercial investments, there are various factors that make it ok or not ok to share exact amounts and they are always covered by NDAs and contracts as @rene_b mentions.
Some of the reasons that it may not be released initially (or ever) include
-
The company is in a highly competitive or innovative sector and don’t want competitors to know how much/little they have to work with, to make it harder for the competitors to beat them to market
-
The investment round is not only invested in by one investor, in which case other investors may not give permission for their investment amounts to be known. In that case - if any of the amounts are known you can usually work it out or get a close guess. For example in a 2m round with 3 investors, if 2 of them say they invested $500k but the third wants it private, you can’t release the information because then its possible to work out the third invested $1m.
-
The investment round has not closed, or has some ongoing contractual work (that can in some cases last for months). Releasing the amount invested can make it harder for the company to secure the additional investors, if it is lower than the other investors expect it may change their behaviour, or if it is higher they may not be interested because there isn’t enough space left. The information is always shared with the other investors (under NDA) but the company chooses the best time to do that to increase the chance of signing the investors.
-
The company just wants its finance to be kept private for some other reason (maybe it is a single shareholder before investment and they don’t want people to know their financial details etc)
-
Others as required under commercial agreements
From NEM Ventures perspective, we ALWAYS give permission to share the amounts, and we always ask the question for the press releases, but we don’t try and press companies to change their positions. As an investor, we are investing in part for financial return in the future and need to give the companies the best chance to perform well in future rounds, that is very specific to each investment and there is no single rule. That is also why some of the numbers are public and some arent.
I hope that makes sense and gives more detail. It is also worth point out that Crunchbase tracks all our investments and we try to help them stay up to date as well, it has all the publicly available information in one place and usually updates in a few days after a press release: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/nem-ventures#section-investments