The worst case scenario will be if the community will not approve the proposals.
Investors will lose faith and some people will sell. Media will destroy us with more fud talking about the real bankrupt of NF and XEM price will go close to 0.
And then the community and the core devs will have to figure it out how to survive after that.
I think that the Labs proposal should also be capped on the amount of XEM, the same as it is for the Foundation proposal.
The question about the split of funds and source of funds still needs answering.
Seems to be a lot of scaremongering and threats about if there is a no vote for the Foundation proposal. NEM has managed without a foundation since NEMs inception with little or no marketing or commercial interaction and has grown organically. The price has risen due to speculation as is the case with most other crypto over the years. Just like a no deal Brexit there will be short term pain if there is a no vote, NEM can still continue to survive independent of the foundation. Long term the price will rise due to speculation of catapult release as the development will still continue independent of the foundation.
The onus should be on the two groups to make acceptable proposals, not on the community to accept them.
Hi Paul and Kristof,
This looks good. I like the structure and methodology that was outlined.
Key areas I would like to see would be:
- Global Expansion plan of the NEMLabs and its methodology across different regions
- More detailed planning / methods on industry and consultations strategy
- A stronger focus on identifying client needs (in conjunction to tech build-out)
For the industry workshops, I like this. I think more meat will be needed to be fleshed out, as I believe the flow still is missing / needs to add:
- “Industry Problems”,
- how blockchain / DLT can solve it,
- how NEM is comparative to other solutions.
I think there should be some nomination of the core team (besides just you 2) who can help execute this vision. I hate to say it, its a decently big ask to setup Labs in this manner, but not impossible!
I like the overall and it would be similar to how I would run things. I’m also open to be a provider with Labs to help with the Exchanges, Projects, and Regulations (which I have been doing in NEM Vietnam, though I wanted to expand it regionally and beyond)
Let’s leave discution about XEM price out of this topic.
- NF proposal is capped on the amount of XEM, Labs proposal OTOH is not.
Such proposal could result in draining lot of funds (which doesn’t seem fair in comparison to NF proposal).
We are capping our ask at $0.04 which equals 81 750 000 XEM.
- What do you think will happen if price will drop to 0.1 of current value (so let’s say 100 satoshis or 0.004$)
At this rate none of the XEM funded entities will sustain. If it is foreseeable that the requested XEM do not cover our operational expenses, we can start applying for traditional financing to sustain the operation of NEM Labs. We do not want to drain long-term XEM funds at unfavourable market rates.
- What if existing funds (mind that not ALL funds are applicable) won’t be enough to cover BOTH NF proposal and Nem Labs proposal, what split do you propose?
This is up to the core team to decide.
- Also what accounts do you propose as source of funds?
We have no preference with regards to which funds are being used. The core team will make the final decision on this. The only requirement is that we can accept the funds legally.
so basically what you are saying is that since both of them acknowledge they (NF and NL) are in a high risk situation, even though it wouldn’t directly be their fault if this was to happen, it is their responsibility to: present contingency plans, call to actions in case this happened, and even leverage the proposals with some kind of provisional power to the community that would allow them (community) to take drastic measures (such as immediately cut off superfluous figures) in case certain situations were to happen?
Thanks for the update, NEM Foundation will be having their voting period at the same time as well. We are in support for both proposals to be acknowledged and approved.
It is foolish to think that the alternative to these proposals is nothing rather than something.
Can you please explain again how this proposal is not mostly redundant with the foundation proposal?
If the foundation gets funding and labs doesn’t what are the consequences?
- Open source contributions will transition (stay) with the foundation under the CTO
- SP program will get merged into the foundation partner plan
- Secondary activities like PR are already in the foundation’s wheelhouse under the CMO
As far as I can tell, the only risk is to the SP program. Please elaborate as to why this proposal is not mostly redundant.
I am also curious to hear @Inside_NEM perspective.
Thank you for your questions.
We do not believe that putting all eggs in one basket will strengthen the NEM ecosystem.
We would also like to ask the opposite question:
What happens if NEM Labs gets funding and NEM Foundation does not? What are the consequences?
Proven ecosystems all consist of multiple purpose driven entities that solve specific problems. We are convinced of a future where independent entities like NEM Foundation and NEM Labs solve specific problems for the NEM ecosystem in a unified approach.
We have outlined the value that we provide to the NEM ecosystem and NEM community in our extensive and detailed business plan.
Here are a few notes to the election.
Take your time in the decision-making process.
Inform yourself enough about all projects.
Follow the discussion in the forum.
Let your feelings out, and decide for the future.
To all involved actors, do not forget, this is not about personal success, but about success for all of us.
Good luck and hopefully God blessing for the future.
Truthfully, I was disappointed when back in late Dec I was told EU would be breaking off with no prior discussion with the Foundation team. At the time, it was difficult and painful.
Since then, we’ve had many discussions and I have a new perspective. I place very high value on the individuals in NEM Labs and I want to do what it takes to help them succeed. They sincerely believe they will be most effective as a separate entity and it is in NEM’s best interest to set them up for success.
i understand and somehow share your concerns. for me as a tech guy i want to see catapult on public chain asap and i think NLabs has the right team to do it.
like i already told in telegram channels when the proposals went online we might be better of if we “take” the tech task away from the NF and let them focus on other key areas. meanwhile NLabs can takeover the tech parts and make sure catapult will be ready soon.
this way we would be sure that we dont have overlaps/redundancy in tech development and we would save a good part of money for later developments.
i know voting starts soon and maybe its to late to make such changes but i would appreciate it if the NF considers this option if both proposals get a Yes from community
VOTE NOW OPEN
There is spam in the voting center. We recommend manual voting:
To vote yes, send a 0 XEM transaction to the account:
To vote no, send a 0 XEM transaction to the account:
The vote is POI based and runs until 21 February 2019, 00:00 UTC.
Please also take a look at the NEM Foundation proposal.
We are convinced of a future where independent entities like NEM Foundation and NEM Labs solve specific problems for the NEM ecosystem in a unified approach.
Dear NEM Labs team,
LuxTag as a company as well as myself did send you our YES for your funding proposal. We’re keeping the fingers crossed for you to reach the POI threshold and get core devs’ approval.
Only together can we make NEM great again
Hi @r3n3, we appreciate the support and look forward to the productive work post voting!
Thank you for your vote of confidence! We are humbled by the strong support and with 4.93% YES POI and a 98.79% majority of YES votes, the proposal has been approved by the community. We are now working on the next steps to implement the plan you voted on.