Time to show community power


Greetings to the highly respected NEM community, the strength of which is not in mutual accusations, but joint effective work and mutual respect.

My name is Anton and I am NEM Ukraine Leader.
I will not answer to provocative questions, argue and prove something in this thread.
It is hard for me to observe the discord and split in the community and I created this topic in order to try to stop it and remind that we are going along a destructive way figuring out who is right and who is to blame.
We need to unite and look for compromises, we all have one goal - to hold fair elections and make bright future for NEM and I suggest focusing on it.
There are arguments for both whitelists voting and the POI, but none of these methods is ideal. The decision is somewhere IN THE MIDDLE!
The solution must be effective, understandable, transparent and accepted by the majority of the community!

Based on the words of Jaguar (The Foundation "Bylaws"), I suggest:

  • directly elect 10 Council members. Executive Committee members (President, VP, etc) will be elected by and from the number of the newly elected council members
  • 5 CM are to be elected through the POI, another 5 by whitelists
  • each voter will have 10 votes and will be able to choose his composition
  • 5 + 5 candidates with the highest number of votes and importance points pass to the office
  • if some candidate (s) are passing through both systems, then the next place is taken by the one who has the most support from another of the two systems or just two candidates who are next on the list

There are also two options for implementing this system:

  1. PoI passes WITHOUT KYC and WITHOUT payment of the fee, and ALL registered and paid membership fee accounts vote on white lists
  2. PoI passes with KYC and membership payment, voting on white lists with additional KYC criteria (NEM knowledge testing, video interview, wallet activity, etc) to confirm involvement in the community, in order to completely eliminate manipulation

I recommend the first option (only for now), because it allows us to quickly make changes to the process and hold elections on time. The second option requires the current voting cancellation and a lot of work.

This is a basic idea that can be improved, its goal is to arrive at a compromise solution that takes into account the interests of all parties and hold elections on time.

Once again, I ask everyone to join efforts for the future of NEM and express their constructive suggestions or support and improve mine.

Thank you.


Because my boss Nelson already created many fake accounts and looks like we are going to loose this election. If it happens then I’ll loose my allocated funding for NEM Ukraine.

Thank you


The KYC theme pops up periodically in discussions as an alternative to POI. But is this alternative good and is it always maked sense?

Bureaucracy has its own goals.
Initially, KYC emerged as a response of states to the development of technology to keep all taxpayers under control. Looking ahead, I can assume that KYC will be meaningless when the period of completely decentralized exchanges and new Internet networks comes.
In real life, KYC is being introduced by officiales and bureaucracies that no one likes, but bureaucrats create and maintain bureaucracies for some selfish purpose.

KYC for what?
KYC is not only a procedural question, but an ideological one. It is clear why KYC is needed by states, but it is not clear why KYC is needed within the community. I understand Lon, as a businessman and manager, is forced to cooperate with states, accept their rules of the game, and unwittingly became a latent etatist ("Business decentralisation sucks. I have said it from day one. Bitcoin, ethereum, cardano, NXT, just about all."). Earlier, the same etatist Makoto said that we should play according to the rules imposed by local states (“You still have to follow laws even in crypto land.”).

In the case of contacts with the old outside world, reluctantly you can probably make tactical concessions, hoping to get some profit from this, but voluntary use of KYC within the community of like-minded people is either a delusion or a method of undercover manipulations.

More opportunities for manipulation in small communities.
If the community has no clear boundaries KYC is an artificial and significant reduction in the number of voters and at the same time a way for the necessary number of fake people to be included in the process. POI voting - which may be more logical and simpler, although it is also an imperfect solution, but much better than KYC.

Using KYC for voting to increase their credibility can be justified with a large number of voters, comparable to the number of the total population of the voting territory (state). And even in this case, state authorities manage to falsify elections. In our case, the territory is the whole planet, and what percentage is the number of NEM voters in the number of people on the planet? )) Several hundred people from several billion … In this case, the possibility of manipulation is very easy. It is easy to organize the necessary additional number of people who will vote as needed.

If you close your eyes to the ideological side of the issue (in the end, the main beneficiary of KYC is the state), then the mistake in trying to tie KYC to the voting process is to transfer the practice of working with large fixed groups of people to work with small communities with no clear boundaries .

Therefore, I believe the use of KYC within the community completely unjustified in any case.


Hello Lionheart
Thank you for taking the time to read my message.
Maybe you have any reasoned suggestions? I will be glad to discuss them.
Have a nice day.


Thank you for your opinion.
As far as you know, NEM is not a DAO in its pure form, but a legal entity that is registered in Singapore and is subject to its laws. Therefore KYC is not a subject of discussion, as those who decide on the future of the entire NEM should not be anonymous.
Also, the concept of KYC can be considered more broadly than just verification of documents and identification of an individual, and also includes the definition of real involvement in the community.
Please describe, how do you see the optimal voting system?


It is not easy to dig under the foundations of the State without violating its laws )
I understand that compromises are needed. Your compromise proposal is good to unlock the current situation.
But in the future, to elect 10 CMs we need to leave only the POI. CMs are non-anonymous and there is no contradiction with state laws.
Note. Satoshi did not go through KYC, but this did not prevent him from making contribution to Bitcoin )


Let me explain, why your 1st and 2nd option are bad idea for upcoming election.

Your 1st option means poi + current voting model. Current voting model consist of, at least, 2 parts: fair voters and paid voters. As we see there are at least ⅓ paid voices.

What are paid voices? - Someone decided to become a sponsor and pay membership fee for them, because of “is too high especially for a low-income country such as the Philippines © Nels”. In other hand we have paid KYC could take place here, because citizens of many countries don’t have enough money and also could pass KYC for money reason.

In this case we have KYC (paid KYC)+ paid membership = 1 voice OR money+money = 1 voice. What are strong arguments for it? - Niko Mäenpää,
Council member and a founding member of the NEM.io Foundation, post

“A few months ago, when the planning for the elections started, a list of members was shared with the Council. This list included names of over 600 individuals, of which over 60% were from the same nationality”

So current voting system equals fair voters + money. If ALL paid/sponsored voices are rejected by Council members (Nels, Luxtag and so on.), it will be more fair chance for coming election.

PoI is also about money, but this is huge money. This is more difficult to cheat using this model.

This is report from NEM blockchain:

Balances === Poi === Q-ty of wallets
10M+ === 57.78% === 51 wallets
4-10M === 3.18% === 53 wallets
3-4M === 13.78% === 437 wallets
2-3M === 3.84% === 167 wallets
1-2M === 2.78% === 198 wallets
100k-1M === 6.24% === 1888 wallets
10k-100k === 12.38% === 13 555 wallets

10M+ balances belong to exchanges, ICO wallets, NF and devs fund. These wallets wont take place in voting, they will be excluded from counting.

So we have the following list:

Balances === Poi === Q-ty of wallets
4-10M === 3.18% === 53 wallets
3-4M === 13.78% === 437 wallets
2-3M === 3.84% === 167 wallets
1-2M === 2.78% === 198 wallets
100k-1M === 6.24% === 1888 wallets
10k-100k === 12.38% === 13 555 wallets

I’d like to dispel the myth, which you spread in your local community:

“It is said that the owners of the super node instruct that there should be a PoI vote. Do you think it will be democratic and decentralized?

You understand that someone can have access to the owners of supernodes and agree that their support program will be expanded and increased if they choose him and the others, who support him?” (google translator) © Anton

Myth N1 - NEM community picked up this question, among of them are SN owners, but NOT SN owners did it.

Myth N2 - As you see from my report - SN have only between 13.78%-17% PoI.
Wallets with 10k-1M have more - 18.62% PoI, 10k-2 999 999 xem - 25.24% PoI.

100% of SN wont take part in NEM election. Why? Look at NEM Funds Proposal, some of them barely got 3% PoI.

My conclusion about 1st option:

  1. Hybrid model PoI+(Fair voters+paid voters) - bad variant.

  2. Hybrid model PoI+ (Fair voters) - is better than previous one.

  3. PoI - the best one.

  4. PoI - is the best variant for UPCOMING election, but not for the future one. It should be improved for the election in 2 years.

  5. It not an issue to get/pass KYC in our days. KYC = money.

  6. SN doesn’t have ALL power.

2nd option.
Let’s assume, we have it today (today snapshot of PoI). Voting using PoI from people who passed KYC, paid fee, demonstrated his/her knowledge/expertise.

Only 89 of ~360 have PoI. Total sum their all poi = 0.33826%. I just leave you top-6 of them for you. 1st and 6th wallets have connection :slight_smile: I think, I don’t need to explain what it means.


Conclusion about 2 point:

  1. Poi is about each wallet, who has it. This is not about KYCed PoI.
  2. Closed group of PoI shouldn’t decide future steps of NEM development.
  3. This is the worst variant among ALL of one above.


Okay, @Anton_B Sorry for being rude but to be honest this election is going to be a mess. Why can’t we solve it by giving an option that @GetCOINtoday suggested?

I do realize that this might bring several issues to the existing bylaws but hey we all want one thing - take the NEM to the next level.

If you really mean “Time to show community power” Let’s take a poll and will see what wins.

  1. The foundation way
  2. POI based voting.

Is that a good idea? Let’s take a community vote. Let them vote for the best and then we can decide what to do.



Nice point, John.

But I can’t agree with you that the PoI is the best one in current situation.

Let’s keep in mind that NEM is a legal entity, not DAO, and we live in the modern world, where decisions are made not by those who have more money or power, but by democratic elections, where every official member (citizen of the state) should have voting right. This is called representative democracy. I do not think that my voice, if I do not have 10,000 coins and importance points, has less power than the voice of one who has a large amount in the account.

Let’s assume that:

“Paid voters” also is fair (why not?) and it’s really just people for which 50 dollars is a large amount.

60% of voters of one nationality it’s just because some region (leader) actively raised the community, and someone did nothing in this direction.

Statistics on POI says that it is easier for the owners of large XEM amounts in the account to agree with each other, because there are fewer.

As I wrote above, there are a huge number of arguments for and against both systems and we need a compromise option.

We are now discussing the way with you, but we need to aim at the result.

I believe that at such a critical moment, which now is, it will be a balanced solution if 5 candidates (10 in total) from each of non ideal the systems pass.

P.S. I’m for fair elections and totally against any manipulation.

Misha Granin for Vice President (at least for a day, so we all can create NEM Foundation 2.0)

Hi Lion)
This is a really good idea, but I’m afraid that we can’t create a vote, because will not be able to agree how to conduct it. By PoI or white lists?) :laughing:


"Paid voters” also is fair © Anton_B

Now I see your intentions.

Statistics on POI says that it is easier for the owners of large XEM amounts in the account to agree with each other, because there are fewer.

Could you please share this statistic here? I’m really interested in such kind of report.

Thanks in advance.


Let’s do it by whitelist. With KYC. Also we can measure POI for the same people. How about that? They can vote by submitting KYC but we will measure the POI for the result.

Imagine this -

I have 100 friends and I can ask them to share their KYC and they are ready to give me KYC for no cost. Maybe I will throw a party once I get to the board of directors.

I will take their KYC - Attach with wallets and I can easily win this match.

Now Imagine this

I have 100 KYC but I need POI. That I cannot do it overnight. Now I have a problem. I cannot win this match.

Why? I need real people. I need real wallets and that requires a history, a pattern. I’m gonna loose this match no matter how hard I try.

Just think about it. Why NEM COMMUNITY FUND requires POI score? So that startups will not create wallets overnight and vote. It’s easy as a pie. They can get millions of KYC from deep web for dollars.

I have explained the issue at a very low level. @GetCOINtoday What is your view?


Hi Anton_B,

If they are employees of the company or foundation rather not, because there is also a dependency relationship with the employer.

How is the Foundation’s membership divided by country or continent? Is there any information about this ?


“What are paId voices? - Someone decided to become a sponsor And pay Membership fee for them, because of “is too high especially for A low-income country such as the Philippines © Nels ”. In other hand we have paid KYC could take place here, because citizens of many counTRies doOn’t have enough money and alLso couLd pass KYC for money reason.”
© John Jalt from Fenix Group aka GetCOINtoday

Dear John, don’t need to take my words out of context, learn to read and understand the meaning, I wrote for you especially: “Let’s assume that”

I referred to your statistics, in which you see only what you want to see.


How is the Foundation’s membership divided by country or continent? Is there any information about this ?

There is a question about your nationality in membership form


Yes, this is a possible situation, but let’s imagine another:

There are a lot of people who about a year or even more, with all possible effort and even sometimes free of charge, worked for the good of NEM, they consider themselves to be part of NEM and really earned their right to vote. But they are not rich and do not have big stakes, and therefore don’t have importance score.

But here comes the time of voting and several people who have authorized themselves to speak on behalf of the entire community say to them: you worked poorly, there was no result, no RoI, you are all cheaters, your opinion will not be taken into account. You will not vote, the decision will be made by those who have more money.

And I am one of these guys and I want my voice to be accounted for exactly the same and with the same value as the voice of the SN owner and anyone else who has done something useful for NEM and is part of it.

Unfortunately the PoI vote does not take into account all this.
That’s why I proposed the solution above.


The whole situation could have been avoided by using both POI and direct votes. Direct vote for positions and POI for council, or vice versa. That would have had the benefit of both sides having a voice in the outcome without alienating people who wish to take part in the future of NEM.