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
You are NEM’s true hero @GetCOINtoday
However this drama may end, remember my standing invitation to treat you over here in Malaysia.
I can arrange a tour of the NEM Blockchain centre for you as part of the excursion, in the trip schedule besides events, office visits and beaches. 
The heroes are who paid the 500 xem from their OWN POCKET and decide to vote to change things. The heroes are the people with no personal or conflict of interest in this process, the heroes are the community who were been taking apart. The heroes are NEM representatives who were insulted by people from outside ans sadly from NEM representatives as well.
Remember all this “drama” started not only when POI were removed but also when Getcoin and others discovered that a few people paid XEM to the employees and random people where they have candidates (+ ProximaX account) or just wanted to secure spots in the council/Exco.
What a con - it’s not fair to us legitimate voters. With such a small proportion of the community eligible to have a say this has a massive impact on the results of the election. Those involved should be ashamed - how if they get elected will there be any trust with the community?
I think we need to focus on more important thing right now.
These are the facts after assuming fraud and manipulation in election
There have been campaigns to identify fraud via blockchain tx, with no way of identifying wallets. This equates to lack of evidence and witchhunt conjecture.
At the same time official election is being ran with KYC linked to wallet addresses but cannot disclose identities due to KYC regulation, resulting in allowing fraud to be implicit in the final result, making future Foundation illegitimate
We need a solution.
Announce disqualifications of fraudulent candidates to legitimise election and if later challenged in court, the blockchain tx can be divulged in private as evidence
If there is no such evidence of manipulation the Council should make official statement defending all accused. If this cannot be delivered there must be disqualifications. © Nathan
Would be good for the council to release statements to the community on updates and progress around how they plan to audit the validity of election votes, and I agree this should be done by and independent 3rd party. For example PwC and KPMG both have strong audit, compliance and governance teams, some who specialise in crypto © Mdm Z
Yes, it’s disturbing to see that there are some accounts that clearly show correlated behaviour in the voting.
On the other hand I can assure you that there are quite a number of accounts in that list that are legitimate.
Just to give you an example, the first account in that list is me. Should I be disqualified ?
At this time it’s clear to see that there is a similarity in voting behaviour but when we had to approve the membership this information was not available. There wasn’t enough time for additional checks and even then it doesn’t mean that it would trace back to manipulation.
As you already pointed out that there was a message sent out by Stephen where he proposed a line up. What is proven here is that the people who already voted seem to be following that proposal ( for whatever reason ).
Let me tell you; I/we did everything possible to prevent unfair elections. With more time we probably could have done a better job but in the end we all have to question how far you want to go with this.
As said , my account is one of those 40 and I have looked at the membership list and I can assure you that there are quite a few people in there of which I’m sure that they are legitimate members.
On the other hand I have to admit that many actions trace back to the same candidates and as a true NEMber that is truly disturbing. It’s sad to see the extent some candidates go through in order to make people vote for them.
These elections should be about picking the best candidate irrespective of the politics. Now there are two camps; one is focussing on winning over the community while the other seems to be choosing different tactics.
Look at the policy documents of the candidates. Although quite a few were good at pointing out issues, there are quite a few issues that weren’t addressed. On top of that I’m missing substantial proposed solutions in these policy documents.
I must admit that I’m disappointed that the community overall has decided to focus most of all on what wasn’t going according to plan during these elections in stead of the content of the policy documents.
In fact all of this isn’t really a surprise to me. Maybe some of you have realised it already but it’s not my lack of commitment to NEM that made me decide that I didn’t want to take part in these elections. Unfortunately the foundation evolved into an organisation where some people prioritised personal gain/benefit over that of the project.
Hi Kristof, thanks for your response. You’ve hightligted set of good points. But…
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a motivational theory in psychology comprising a five-tier model of human needs, often depicted as hierarchical levels within a pyramid.
From the bottom of the hierarchy upwards, the needs are: physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem and self-actualization. Needs lower down in the hierarchy must be satisfied before individuals can attend to needs higher up.
I’m pretty sure, we can apply the same model in NEM. How does it possible to talk about transparency and audit if candidates support paid voices? How does it possible to talk about Catapult or any other things, if you don’t have simple understanding how NEM works. How can we talk about something with candidates, if they loosed common sense? This is first layer of all our problems - lack of competence, lack of professionalism, lack of knowledge.
Unfortunately, we always try to find balance. But the balance are not a solution, its postponing of the issues. Gaps among regions - this is a good example of balance approach.
We will never build strong Foundation without at least these 3 principles. Lack of it - lack of roadmap, lack of harmony among NF and NEM community, lack of clear clear vision and so on.
Rich and poor can’t talk about art. Smart and blunt cant talk about rocket science.
One of the important position - Treasurer goes for Dona - Middle east. What’s her qualification to manage multi-million dollar funds?
Where is her proposal or video? She stayed low level to avoid controversies and we were too busy with Stephen and Lon problems.
@Xpedite Why didn’t you took action against this ?
I want to announce that the next elections I present myself as treasurer. I will win since I am the only one who presents 
Is she not the existing treasurer? And since there’ve never been any moans about funds I don’t see what the issue is. All she does is lord over them. Other people make decisions about where to spend them.
Another treasurer would make no difference whatsoever to anything.
There is no other person running for that position, so she is automatically elected. A few candidates did not show, apart of copy paste the policy program. Community also had enough time to ask question to all of us.
“Half of it (18 of 40 ) already voted.”
Probably some of the others waiting on the sidelines for a last minute vote to take Stephen, Nelson and Jason over the finish line. Even though Alex is leading in the President vote, I think these Nelz 500XEM ‘sockpuppets’ will get Stephen over the line last minute. As has been said by others, these sockpuppet votes need to be disqualified.
Quite a few votes have been put in place since that was highlighted so the possibilities for full on stampedes are dwindling, and Kristof has vouched for some of those names on the list.
With the community fund proposals, voters there seemed to have a habit of last minute rushes.
If the result bears no resemblance to PoI choices at all, I expect that’ll put a rocket up efforts that ignore the foundation to get public Catapult rolling. It’s not going to be taken lying down.
Either way if Lon’s sidekicks Stephen and Nelson become P and VP we can say goodbye to public Catapult. Their best interests are to see ProximaX succeed and NEM fail. Hence the delays, stalling of progress over the last few years. They’re intent on keeping the status quo. I guess we’ll find out when the elections over.
That foundation slackness narrative is now out in the open and Jaguar was the one to blow it open.
Since there’ve been rumbles of an effort to work on Catapult outside the foundation, an election result with no resemblance to the PoI result would drive that forward and I presume the core developers would be receptive to it provided it was credible.
As you say, let’s see what the election results are first. Either way things won’t be the same as how they were before all this blew up no matter what.
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
17 wallets out of 150 voted exactly the same as Chia list (10 persons).
20 wallets voted for Chia list (excluding Dona)
21 wallets voted for combination (Hiroki Koga "Ninja",Steve Li, Pedro Gutierrez, Anton Bosenko, Emerson Fonseca, William Tan). +1 wallets voted for almost all council members.
The intersection of 3 queries (sets) - 17 wallets. I’d say 20 wallets, because 3 didn’t vote for Treasurer - 100% winner.
if you exclude only William Tan from Chia Council member list - result will be 21
if you exclude only Steve Li from Chia Council member list - 21
if you exclude only Anton from Chia Council member list - 22
if you exclude only Pedro Gutierrez from Chia Council member list - 21
if you exclude only Ninja from Chia Council member list - 21
if you exclude only Emerson Fonseca from Chia Council member list - 23
It means 20 people voted for 6 councils as one unit. This is 100%
What is a probability that 20 people out of 150 will write 5 identical numbers from 1 to 21?
This election even broke math.
NCKGO6NUAEKGKUEEXSC5YBZY6T6O4XDFC3VVYJRQ
NDHQCLLWXMO55CEIDMCCYISQ6KFHQFKEAXGMM4RO
NAYOC27D77IUYHPQ7QML55QPCQGCP4JKOQV7GQW3
NDDER4NKGYAITY4IJROHBZNX2VZOG2D7TCOKOV5P
NB5EKOJPJX667F3GMQSDUKHNSHVRYTQ3J4IGI6ZY
NAQAK7MUQY4T2UIYFZDBQRKH7EOOCXKEIMF7PCY4
NCCLMYNZMXRKWWSB7O7N32XDPDBVM5DSTKGBQBVO
NC2CVJFQG7RUWC3QNT7LXV6SNAGYKDCWKNKKHLQM
NDSB3POFX7SHJDKMMWQRTBAUMMPHHQS2A5AEABAA
NC7E4HXXEVTNLVWXAYRXXTBYEKEGKYTUXYXPRLDF
NCBFK7A7GOBPF77DNOIR4JGVEU2ZEA2L3PYGCOWI
NAF7JBGLM5BSHNF643IFPNEOG7YG7AL2VNSSUE5F
NBWGBPPS64AISPONCSQBZPIBBKRWBJZHUAVQUXKK
NCP6GK2MME7R4RGLC5XAH2GD4K745ZJUYQIJ5G7H
NANVJNKXZU456R42TTASBEN5K6KBEKX4KYJ4OPZX
NCVUSHYK2KSYGUXOIRVBNCINFAFERABDGS3LNJFK
NDPLZL53J56ZK3JCAPWE4RHSZ5TU5KEUASLTFHJ6
NB237Z5ROHIWPEUKRLZ7QZAURRCFJUCWI7IO473J
NBTMSQS2XCKN3APFCZHRU5LHIDMSXM6QON7N7D7P
NC2YRCZB25RHND45HMX7YAZPHYMBKT5VQYMNAOCO
20 wallets voted according to Chia List in Official NF, boiled didn’t vote for Dona.
|NCKGO6NUAEKGKUEEXSC5YBZY6T6O4XDFC3VVYJRQ–|no poi|
NDHQCLLWXMO55CEIDMCCYISQ6KFHQFKEAXGMM4RO–|no poi|
|NAYOC27D77IUYHPQ7QML55QPCQGCP4JKOQV7GQW3–|no poi|
|NC2YRCZB25RHND45HMX7YAZPHYMBKT5VQYMNAOCO–|no poi|
|NBTMSQS2XCKN3APFCZHRU5LHIDMSXM6QON7N7D7P–|has PoI|
|NAQAK7MUQY4T2UIYFZDBQRKH7EOOCXKEIMF7PCY4–|no poi|
|NCCLMYNZMXRKWWSB7O7N32XDPDBVM5DSTKGBQBVO–|no poi|
|NC2CVJFQG7RUWC3QNT7LXV6SNAGYKDCWKNKKHLQM–|has PoI|
|NDSB3POFX7SHJDKMMWQRTBAUMMPHHQS2A5AEABAA–|no poi|
|NC7E4HXXEVTNLVWXAYRXXTBYEKEGKYTUXYXPRLDF–|no poi|
|NB237Z5ROHIWPEUKRLZ7QZAURRCFJUCWI7IO473J–|no poi|
|NAF7JBGLM5BSHNF643IFPNEOG7YG7AL2VNSSUE5F–|no poi|
|NBWGBPPS64AISPONCSQBZPIBBKRWBJZHUAVQUXKK–|Had PoI|
|NCP6GK2MME7R4RGLC5XAH2GD4K745ZJUYQIJ5G7H–|no poi|
|NANVJNKXZU456R42TTASBEN5K6KBEKX4KYJ4OPZX–|no poi|
15 out of these 20 wallets voted in PoI also, but 12 out of 15 didnt/dont have PoI.
6 boiled wallets, voted 100% according Chia list, but 4 out of 6 didnt/dont have PoI.
What does it mean? These at least 13 wallets don’t know what is PoI and how NEM works.They just followed instructions.
If we exclude these 15 wallets, Laura Takenaka should have been elected instead of Steve Li