This content is not to hurry.
Some people may be applying for NCF, but it is a very big content for the community and should not be hurry.
What would you do if you were rejected?
In the current Japanese community, translated sentences are being read. If you do not get the time to think about everyone, We will vote No or We will end up indifferent.
I want to avoid voting many times.
Thanks for the support. Currently i feel the vote is going well, we have achieved a touch under 0.5% so we still have another 2.5% to go. Its still early days so we still need all the support we can get.
Iām taking note of your concerns, as well as others in the japanese community, and we will see how we can resolve the concerns.
If we are rejected, that would likely bring an end to the initiative. We would not have any way to proceed with the project if we are not successful. It would be quite devastating to lose out on the potential this project has to bring top talent into the nem ecosystem and bring long term sustainability that does not depend on the distribution of xem on the market.
I think thereās actually more than 30 right now, as asana hasnāt been updated. Could have 40 to process by end of Ventures voting. 
Are community leaders in each country making this known?
It is not spoken by telegrams in each country.
A NO vote = End to the initiative? I wouldnāt say so!! We have an amazing opportunity to create something really great for NEM. You guys have done a lot of great work, and youāve suggested a solution that will address many of the issues. Weāre not that far away! With some modifications, and community involvement, a system proposal can be made which will pass the vote.
What is missing:
I want to stress the fact that what exists today cannot continue. We must find a better solution. A model that supports equity stakes is likely necessary.
Also, rushing this is a huge mistake. If any of the 30 businesses with proposals in the pipeline have a problem being delayed then they likely donāt have NEMās best interest at heart - an easy filter, let them move on. The right solution is in everyones best interest!
I think that it is necessary to distribute all xems that have a purpose to Genesis block and are allocated in the future.
I basically agree with the establishment of a corporation for community funds to autonomously and efficiently operate. However, there is the danger that the maintenance of the corporation itself may be aimed unknown.
(Enlargement of corporate body becomes self-purpose)
So there is a proposal, can you choose to distribute a certain degree of Venturesā revenue as an incentive to maintain nem nodes?
Can a corporation not be bloated beyond necessity and to allow xem allocated to the community fund to be well dispersed?
More Transparency - Feel free to ask. Iāll do my best to answer, as Iām sure Kailin and others would as well.
The community should contribute to the selection of candidates. Open ended public selection would be an invitation to vipers, especially those that excel in popularity contests. If you want to name someone you think would be a good contributor, feel free, but it doesnāt seem that competitive campaigning for election to a paid position is of best interest to NCF and itās objectives.
DAO elements: They still exist with non profit initiative.
It is a public good Yes. And that is exactly what this proposal is trying to protect. Quoted from nem.io/community-fund : āThe Community Fund DAO was set up to promote the development of the NEM ecosystem by funding NEM startup companies to help jumpstart their businesses.ā
Public, 3rd party peer review: That is what happens for 20 days from live posting to end of vote. And in summary:
The community will still play an important role. And they should rise up in protest, in the event mischievous behavior is displayed by NEM Ventures personnel.
With creation of legal entities, scheduled audits, and public transaction log - our job as community watchdogs should be quite easy.
Leon, youāre missing the points Iām trying to make. Let me try again:
Transparency:
Kailin had privileged information about the problems within the NCF, and created this proposal without consulting the community. Itās too late being transparent now, when no one in the community had the chance to influence & contribute to whatās been proposed.
Candidate selection:
I oppose self nomination to paid positions in ventures youāve devised yourself. How can you not see this is a conflict of interest? Iām suggesting we get a professional recruiter to help find candidates for this venture.
DAO:
We should strive to be a better, stronger DAO (todayās version is clearly not working). This VC proposal takes away most of the DAO and makes it a side-kick.
3rd party review:
My guess is NO ONE on this thread has ANY VC experience, and after consulting one of my contacts that has experience in this space, it seems that the proposal as not been peer reviewed by someone experienced in setting up VC funds. Iām saying it needs to be vetted by an expert. Setting up a venture like this is hard to get right!
I donāt think Iām missing the points, I just donāt believe they are of best form.
Maybe a specific thread was not created to discuss issues in NCF, but the issues have been discussed in various places and times.
NCF is always on lookout for community members who put for effort and may have interest in NCF activities. Almost always, when people are identified, and asked, they donāt want to volunteer or dedicate any time to it.
Do you also oppose self nomination of other NCF proposals? By the same logic, it would be a conflict of interest to propose CarbonClick while being a beneficiary of it, right?
A key problem with NCF in current form is the reliance on a disengaged community. There is simply too much work involved for majority of community to take interest. And with 30+ proposals in queue, this issue is exacerbated.
Iāve seen a few people throwing around this āVC Experienceā argument. While the goldman guys, Buffet, Schiff, etc etc Top VC guys are making 30% to 40% in a bull stock market, the savvy crypto gurus are making 1000x that in a very bear market. - And itās clearly not by hodling top coins. But rather by identifying and investing in start ups. Most people with VC experience have little to no crypto experience. This is a new technology they are not prepared for.
Do you know any experienced VC that could state the top 5 DLT SCM systems? Do you know any that understand the variety of consensus mechanisms?
I doubt Henry had many horse and buggy consultants in Ford Motor Co.
Regardless, NEM Ventures does and will have legal counsel to make sure itās set up right. And the Daveās do have VC experience. And this investment and business experience is valuable and necessary. However, it should be met with equal experience in this new space of DLT. Investments are not being made into traditional companies, but into ones that are pioneering new technologies.
NEM Ventures team needs to understand traditional businesses, how DLT can and will affect them, and have an array of experience to help best determine how a proposed DLT business will not only compete with existing businesses of itās nature, but also other emerging DLT technologies.
Crypto is a fast paced developing technology. Even if you spend 24/7 reading about it, you cannot keep up with the developments. People who are already busy with established investment types are at a great disadvantage.
To give credit where itās due, itās great youāre having a critical eye and taking the time to address these concerns!
I think a key fundamental difference in our views, is the level of reliance on public opinion, and in which affairs it should carry weight.
I donāt know that thereās a simple way to conclude a disagreement that deep of scope. I think my view is more pragmatic and flexible, though yours is more ideological and deterministic.
Itās unfortunate that this is being rushed to vote on.
Lots of good ideas/suggestions in here that could improve the proposal and the management of the fund, that are not being considered.
The proposal itself and the individuals who will run it should be 2 different
rounds of selection.
I agree with @CarbonClick on transparency and candidate selection.
I have VC experience and honestly, the VC I know would be delighted to have someone like Kailin or Leon working for them. You guys are talking like VC are something super special, theyāre generally not. They have analysts who tell them everything and then they make a decision. Probably the strongest thing VCās have is connections. I could ask some of my friends/old colleagues to vet it but theyāre damn busy and donāt really care about a little fund.
edit: Just read Leonās reply and he said it right. They donāt know about the tech stuff. I honestly donāt think that any 10million dollar fund would have the super managers you guys are calling for. It would just be a few smart guys who can do a bit of everything. 10 million is nothing in VC guys, donāt forget that. if your making high risk investments and say you put half a million into each investment (barely enough to justify the work that needs to be done on it. I donāt know any fund that would put so little in), thatās 5% of your total portfolio in each investment, thatās very high allocation for such a risky business, the allocation should be even lower, 100-200k for average projects. My point is that such a tiny fund is basically like a startup company, how could you justify a big shot manager spending his time managing 250k investments? You need to have the costs low enough to justify doing the work for small investments and thatās what NEM Ventures seems to be doing.
These āstart-upā VC will often start as just a couple of smart guys/gals with connections and able raise a ball of money for investing. No magic sauce, just determination.
Iām for this proposal now, convinced especially by Kailinās post above. This is a solution, and itās not too bad, another solution could take a year if it comes at all, and how much more money will the community have thrown away by then? Keeping the wages private is really bad IMO but thatās the only big thing that holds me back. I think even if they are paid very well, they will make their annual pay back for NEM in their very first negotiation with a project.
Iām voting yes.
I want to thank everyone that has voted so far, we have a very strong majority of 100 votes in favour, slightly under 1% PoI out of 3% required, and a little over 80% majority. There are still 5 days approx remaining so if you have not voted yet, there is still time. Vote closes the 7th at 6pm gmt.
We have also taken the communties concerns on board and are considering resolutions where possible.
Thanks again.
I am yet to vote, yet my POI is very small so really I can come and go as I please.
I am not really convinced of a āāyesāā vote mainly because of how this just āappearedā.
Ill probably vote āānoāā at this stage.
It also appears convenient to make these changes at a time when interest is low, therefore as I have said before the forum can be tuned up easily in 6 months, this forum is quite small and thatās why I am voting no.
The main reason I will vote no is the lack of discussion/information before the proposal.
Even though it might be legit, I feel it needs more foundation.
Also I am not on Telegram, so I guess a lot of the discussion took place on Nem Red.
Dan
same here, 
also in reply to:
@willowfoot
@Stinghe_Dorian
I actually did seek community input prior to this proposal, but few people were interested. Admittedly it is a very rough outline, but nonetheless, little interest in the actual idea.
https://forum.nem.io/t/incorporating-the-nem-community-fund
The thread has been there since june 8th. It does not contain the main proposal, but does provide a rough outline of what i had planned, as at that point the concept had not been fully developed - i wanted to seek community input on how best to frame such a proposal.
The lack of input lead me to believe that it was better to find expertise outside of nem, develop the proposal and then publish, seeking community input prior to voting.
@sweetpotato thanks for the reply. The intention is not to distribute NEM Ventures profit/revenue for the maintenance of nodes, it will go back into the NCF Trust fund. The NCF Trust will control the majority of the current NCF fund and strategic/structural proposals for further uses of the fund could be submitted to a public vote so if the community wanted to, then the funds could be utilised for that purpose in the future.
Its outside the scope of the current proposal, but the profits returned to the NCF can be used however the community decide so it could certainly support that kind of mechanism indirectly
With regard to corporation bloat and potentially losing focus or becoming self focused - the corporation is majority owned by the NCF Trust and regularly reports to trustees and a summary to the community to help avoid this problem with governance. It is also deliberately lean to try and avoid risk of bloat especially in the early years while processes etc are established, we want to keep it that way for the same reason you outline above.
I think that it is necessary to distribute all xems that have a purpose to Genesis block and are allocated in the future.
Thatās a much deeper conversation I suspect and would have competing viewpoints, its definitely outside the mandate we are asking for, it may be one to start a separate thread on as it is likely to be lost in the other topics here.
Hi all,
Iām a recent NCF fund applicant, so I speak from the perspective of someone who was drawn to NEM on the basis of the support available ā in terms of the fund but also the extensive network and developer resources NEM provides.
I can say that after having looked over this thread and the public proposal document, Iām not convinced that this is the right direction to attract more development.
In particular I take issue with the following, quoted from the document:
Apart from the obvious error in changing units from USD to GBP at the 6th stage, the equity levels are far too steeply cranked up, and I think itās a big problem.
I canāt see how we would expect people to give up 40% of equity for 200K investment when they could receive a better deal with typical venture capital opportunities. Keep in mind that we are trying to win people over to the platform and create value that way ā these equity levels should recognise this and be adjusted accordingly.
If the proposal was for something more reasonable, like say scaling up to around 10% for the top tier investment levels ($800K+) I could see how it would gain support.
As a result I will be voting NO on this draft of the proposal, and I will be encouraging others to do the same.
