Registration + Voting Transactions

Hi, something interesting is going on inside NEM blockchain during this election registration process. There are lots of way how to start this investigation, but i’ve chosen the best one.

During this investigation I’m going to use 3 parameters:

  1. Block ID (time).
  2. Wallets connection on XEM lvl
  3. Wallets connection on XPX lvl

Part 1

Let’s start from Block ID lvl.

  1. 32 wallets got 501-503 Xem from binance cold wallet during 1883527-1883575 blocks ( ~50 minutes).
  2. Almost all these wallets have 2-3 transactions:

a) from binance cold to wallet
b) from this wallet to election registration wallet
c) some wallet has 3 transactions (I’ll talk about it below, this is another level)

  1. Lots of wallets from this list made the same mistake - they made registration transaction with 0 XEM.

  2. Also these wallets sent registration transaction at the several sets of time.

Please take a look Excel sheet below. There are 2 tabs: from Binance cold wallet (its about 1st point) and Registration (its about 4th point)

Definitely all these 32 wallets should be disqualified from voting process.

Part 2

Some of these wallets, 5 wallets, bold and highlighted by green in from Binance cold wallet tab.
Let’s talk about it. These 5 wallets didn’t have any XEM at all before Registration Election Process, but they have transaction with XPX token. Lets move to XPX level.

These wallets got/gets payments from PriximaX Funds (NDJ74QHCGE4LV3Q7SQE2CN3SVLQ5X2QQHHRQNXPX) indirectly. (Please take a look diagram below - dotted lines)


Please take a look diagram below.

Solid line - XEM transfer
Dotted lines - XPX transfer
Key points of contact - yellow rectangle - NDEX2JDTOMWAPF3N5OXTOLPLCKF3A7Y and Binance hot wallet with message - 101726080

As you see 56 wallets should be disqualified from voting process



I’ve added Green Brach. Its related to Nels/Ann actions link below.

I would be true story, If NALFA5WHRV5NLXER736S7KJ4ZD3ERH5XHVEOVP2S didnt receive tx from NDZD5XQD5EVPNGURQCTLJA4YJV43234HCRFUFP52

So all these wallets (56 + 23 = 79 ) would be disqualified from voting process.


Nice work John! Keep it goin’!!!

1 Like

Good investigation.
But what does it give us?
Following your logic, I can connect all transactions from the NEMesis and say that the election was rigged at the time when NEM was established. It looks like an absurdity.
All your facts can be explained by a thousand factors. The fact that someone on the account has XPX does not make him a fraud. What kind of discrimination?

I am categorically against any manipulation. But I do not see evidence. Your arguments are not convincing.
On what basis do you require disqualification?
Which line of the rules have been violated? Give me the string in the rules that indicates this.
I am sure you can not do it.


What point for disqualified?
Every accounts did the KYC.

I not undestand what wrong with XPX?
that is nothing related with elections.

I didn’t see any problem here, they just create a new address for election purpose, 2-3 transactions is normal.

1 Like

First of all, do you even know how blockchain works? Does it even stay on the traceability feature? How about “peer to peer”? You are judging the connections on these addresses as if they are all cheating. Doesn’t it even crossed your mind what if these are peer to peer transactions? What if these addresses owners found the sender much convenient to transact with instead of hassle buying XEMs with much higher fees on it. Remember, there are no direct fiat to xems on other countries. So, the best convenient transaction is peer to peer.

1 Like

One more argument why all wallets related to Green Branch should be disqualified.

One person has only ONE unique ID. Person can make typo.

Don’t understand how it possible to write NEM-000809 instead of NEM-000986 and NEM-000983 instead of NEM-000985

No comments…


Some wallets, which got 500 xem transaction from exchanges(polo, bittrex, binance) are still in a game. Its about 40, maybe a bit more.

Half of it (18 of 40 ) already voted. Please take a look results below.

Dear Everyone:

This is to let everyone know that the Foundation Exco has finally decided to announce the voting for the Elections 2019/2020 Council either today or tomorrow. For some of you who have registered, you have until Dec 14th to cast your vote on the blockchain, so there is no hurry to cast the votes immediately.

Some of you who registered but may not eligible to vote, due to the decision by the Foundation Council that those whose memberships were from funded wallets. Nevertheless, you still have the option to be members of the Foundation at a later time.

As you know, this would be an important election to elect an effective NEM Foundation Council serving for next 2 years. As part of my candicacy as President, I am putting together a team that I believe would be suitable to lead NEM global in the next 2 years.

This is my PROPOSED COUNCIL 2019/2020 LINE UP

President - Stephen Chia (SEA)
V.President - Nelson Valero (ANZ)
Secretary - Jason Lee (ANZ)
Treasurer - Dona Rinon (UAE)

Council Members :
1. Hiroki Koga “Ninja” (Japan)
2. Steve Li (China)
3. Pedro Gutierrez (LATAM)
4. Anton Bosenko (East EU)
5. Emerson Fonseca (Phillipines)
6. William Tan (Singapore)

Instructions to cast your votes should be released soon. Let’s make your vote count. Thanks for the support, if you are a eligible voter. © Stephen Chia


lol what a joke.
All these votes are basically the same lineup, which indicates sponsored votes to me.


What a “coincidence”…


Interesting find. How can you tell which way the address voted?

If you take the votes of (Pres, VP, and Sec) as 1 coin flip.

With 18 random members, probability of 18 heads in a row is about 1 in 260,000 :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

IMO votes coming straight from exchanges should be null & void.

1 Like

… perhaps somebody found a loophole in the rules against paid votes?
man…, i guess i should have done this with the “luxtag team paid votes” and not have been so transparent from the beginning :pouting_cat:


good work!!


It’s a transaction on the NEM blockchain.Transparent :slight_smile:

1 Like

I shouldn’t comment as I’m a candidate in the running for a spot. But this is incredibly disheartening. One works as hard as they can, run everything clean and then someone cheats. It’s not fair, it’s not the way we should be, it’s not what the Foundation should stand for.
With this type of shenanigans going on, it will push the good people out. It should not stand, and sponsored votes and those who fund them should be disqualified.
Dark day indeed.


haha hehe.


You should comment, and it’d be great if you also comment on one of the solutions I proposed in my policy doc a month ago as it was all so predictable and transparent throughout the process:

It’s not an election, it’s the hijacking of NEM Foundation to steal Catapult and destroy NEM.


Should I bring here illustrations I’ve posted on NEMred no how obvious it was even without looking at blockchain?

If we don’t act now NEM Foundation is gone, listen to my interview with crypto dealers recorded over a month ago, I’ve told about it there at the very end.

I’ve actually told a scenario there how all NEM tech, market cap etc will go to ProximaX but that was edited out.

Do this immediately please if you are a part of NEM community, ask your candidates to support POI:

Wow, I think you just summed up the entire problem with NEM since the start…

That Is obvious. If in the end these 40 votes will have a significant impact for Stephen/Nelson on the election, the core-community will never forget this and revolte.

Good work @GetCOINtoday