[VOTE SUCCESSFUL] NEM Ventures Incorporation Proposal


You had discussions in private, yet omitted responses to your points in this public post. There is overwhelming evidence for the need of VC structure with orderly and specific chain of command. There is little evidence that supports your ideals.

The proposal wasn’t rushed. There has been dialogue for months. And even when final draft was posted, there remained 20 days to review before voting.

You propose addressing the lack of community involvement by relying on it even more than before. A key issue is that community doesn’t do the work necessary. I don’t blame them, it is a lot of work. NCF is always on the lookout for qualified volunteers, but as I’ve said before, 99% go inactive and aren’t interested in putting forth the effort.

Where is all this feedback that hasn’t been addressed?

By your logic, proposing CarbonClick while being the self nominated president would also be a conflict of interest.

Foundation is separate entity from NCF.

Elephant in the room is as big or small as you want to make it. I’ve chosen to not to further address some of the slander. This is actually an example of how community involvement can have negative influence. Did you do due diligence before forming your judgments?

Lastly, if you are a big de-centralist, especially as it pertains to investment - ICO is for you. What better model would satisfy your ideals?


@CarbonClick: thank you for this post.

I also came into this with an open mind, and as would be apparent from the above discussion I share many of your concerns, and look forward to a DAO V2 proposal. I certainly agree it’s a good idea to rethink how the NCF works but am particularly worried about the lack of transparency and rushed feeling of this proposal, and the sense that the proposing self-nominated group will be coalesced as a very strong central authority without proper oversight. There is a strong potential for things to go very wrong.

Voting No.


Exactly my concerns as well.


I thought most of your questions were addressed, though some seem open-ended and not really specific for anyone to answer. Such as "“No one raised issue from NEM foundation that the members are being overwhelmed and only a couple is active?”

Maybe, but the massive community isn’t active enough. See past proposals for proof. Virtually no critique at all. And only a handful of people even commenting.

A few minutes a day doesn’t cut it. Not even a couple hours. And who is “we” that will “get people”? People who recently switched their project’s platform from NEO/EOS to NEM , and now bang tables in protest of Ventures?

Having 5minutes of time from 100 people does not equal 500 minutes of vetting / review. It equals 500 minutes of quick glances and poor judgment followed by endless debate. 500 minutes of time from 1 person is infinitely more valuable.

Many reasons for becoming legal have been explained. Including how there is too much bureaucracy without a legal entity and clear chain of command. Also including how NCF is in a quagmire without a clear legal status.

This proposal was posted for open public view and discussion. But of course, those who wander in from the outskirts of NEM community are unlikely to participate much in the direction of NEM for any length of time. Those who are committed and active NEMbers are more likely to affect governance.

Feel free. :slight_smile: Anyone who wants to volunteer any time is welcome to do so. As said before, we do actively seek qualified people to help in NCF, but majority go inactive after short time. It’s become clear that not many people want to work very much - for nothing. This is another reason to have an entity that can legally pay people.

It wouldn’t be of best taste to single out an existing proposal and butcher it publicly. Processes are detailed with examples given in the proposal. Keep in mind that Negotiation is endless, providing for deals of every variety. It’s impossible to spell out every if, and, or but, to a ‘T’.

The proposal is 20-some pages. Presented in a “professional business manner with logical and rational in dept thinking” It could have 20 more pages to cover if, ands, or buts. But then it would be even less likely to have been read.

I took time to answer your questions. If you have more, or feel I’ve missed one, feel free to share. There really is a lot of material in the proposal though. Even I have to keep going back and checking things, and I’ve read it 20 times or more by now.


Thank you for the reply, some of your points and views are valid and understood.
Still think we could maybe give this all a dry run with reasonable remuneration to people involved. Just don’t want this to be cemented in if not proven, it should be loosely couple for now, run it for a period of time and deliver on expectations.
I am still not convinced, this could be broken down and approached from a less complicated angle.
I do see the effort you and the other members are putting in and as a Nember I am grateful, but this seems to be rushed.
That is why I agree with MattRiddle on this one. One can look at how they handled their proposal and address Nembers questions and concerns, which was spot on.
In this forum there seems to be a lot of undertone in some of the answers and this could indicate a lack of experience, which also concern me. The Ventures Inc will be working with a lot of different people from different cultures and back grounds and need to know how to approach questions that seems frustrating or insulting or incorrectly phrased etc to be answered, or to collect information from them.

Venture Inc will be doing a lot of communicating between parties, if the vote is in their favor, but when you do retrospect , you should realized that a lot of questions and concerns raise is due to a lack of communication. This in itself should be concern to Venture Inc and Nembers voting.

Communication is just 1 Key measuring point of many where there is a lack at moment. If Venture Inc cannot derived this from the forum and realized that refinement is required, then they are not ready to handle this.

Venture Inc finally got some feedback on this forum as the proposal seem to be lacking and now the feedback can be incorporated into new improved proposal. I don’t understand why this is not an acceptable approach, it’s a natural process, so Venture reaction toward this is concerning for me, it indicates immaturity in this area.

Thank you.


Current vote progress is:

Yes ( percentage: 88.88% votes: 159 score: 1.83630% )
No ( percentage: 11.12% votes: 41 score: 0.22980% )

This evening I have made a few alterations to the proposal document in order to incorporate feedback from the community, both on the forum and via Telegram chats. Prior to making these alterations they have been discussed and reviewed by various parties and we would particularly like to thank NEM Japan for the collaboration and patience in that process while we worked through some language challenges and appreciate the efforts made to help us.

The changes have been made to clarify a couple of minor points and to bring greater transparency in the reporting, a summary is below, they are in the main document and highlighted in purple as well:

Page 4: Added a brief explanation of the type of initiatives the not for profit trust is intended to consider to incorporate some feedback.

Page 9 Clarified how the NCF funds which are controlled by the NCF Trust (not NEM Ventures) will be managed going forward and adopted feedback to ensuring the community vote is still used in that process, and it remains transparent, text is below:

It will be a requirement that prior to any future strategic level projects (similar to this one) being awarded funding by the NCF that a public vote will be held, using at least the same process as the NEM Ventures proposal; this will be incorporated into the trust at foundation and ensures the management of new proposals is similarly transparent.

Page 13:
Public Reporting
Pulled the public reporting items in from other sections in the document to ensure it is easier to find and digest, the content is the same for public reporting, we will also to ensure this is translated into other major languages in use within the community.

Private Reporting
We have added the capability for the accounts and reports that are prepared for the trustees to be reviewed by representatives of the community - Super Node owners. This will necessitate the owners to validate ownership, go through KYC and sign binding non-disclosure agreements as the information is potentially sensitive. This provides a balance between community transparency and sensitivity for ongoing business operations. This process will be put in place for the NCF and NFP trusts as well.

Page 15:
We have made a change to ensure the community is represented in any votes for deals in Tier 3 and 4 by allocating a vote in that tier to super node holders as the representatives, because it will be a legal entity with fiduciary duties etc, this will only open to those node owners that have gone through a process similar to the access to reporting. The diagram has also been updated to reflect this change.

This post is a summary of the changes, more details is in the document and I would urge you to read it as well, however the above is the essence of it.


Hi I’m here for Vireef (https://t.me/vireef), I think there is a future for NEM Ventures with a good objective of replenishing the Funds and supporting startup from advising to mentoring is very well commended but It is not communicated well to the community, probably create a Nem Ventures Telegram Official Account so to interact, answering queries and exchange views easily with the members similar to other proposals or I’m missing it, I’m searching it?


Hi Vireef

We had been using general community channels and the forum primarily but below is a dedicated group that will also live on



Update with a little under 24 hours to go, current support is approx 90% Yes to approx 10% No, with a total of 219 votes cast so far. The POI is still short of the required 3% with 1.96% for Yes and 0.23% for No.

The numbers above back up some of the concern throughout the conversation that community engagement in general (either for Yes or No) is slow, come on folks we can do better than this - even if its a No vote I would rather see as much of the community in this as possible.

As a summary of some of the highlights as this is a long thread:

  • The proposal forms a legal entity around the NCF funds which matches the current control model (5 co-signatories currently hold central control of the fund) and creates a Venture Capital / Private Equity initiative to invest in and support viable NEM projects for the good of the ecosystem and to keep the NCF fund sustainable for years to come - it is currently a dwindling finite resource. The current approach has several issues.

  • This proposal was written in conjunction and with reviewed by the three core developers, who’s input was sought and incorporated prior to asking if it was ok to put this live @Jaguar0625 @gimer have also given clarifications in this forum post that there are issues with the current approach.

  • The NEM Foundation published a blog post here which clearly states there position at the end as:

We are hoping for the whole community’s support and cooperation in moving forward and reaching greater success for the NEM platform and NEM Community Fund (NCF).

  • We have tried to engage the community across various channels and in multiple languages, most issues have been responded to, some of those responses do not align with the opinions of the people raising them which is always going to happen and is healthy for the community - providing everyone remains respectful of each other’s views.

  • We have been very heartened by the engagement from the Japanese community and some of the feedback has now been worked into the proposal, it feels like there is a disconnect between various sections of the community at times, partly due to language, and we have enjoyed being able to bridge that and look forward to continue doing so going forward, we intend to translate all reporting and where possible engage representatives that can help as liaison with non English speaking communities to ensure we involve as wide an opinion base and source of projects as possible.

  • Some projects in the current backlog have expressed support for the idea, some have even gone so far as post outside the forum to this effect, such as this post

  • Various opinions have been put forward as to why not to do this, we don’t agree with them but we do respect them, we welcome the discussion and the fact that people gave it enough time to form strong opinions. Most of those against it, accept there are issues to be solved, just don’t agree with our idea for how to solve them.

  • In the event of a No vote (or failed Yes vote), there may a proposal released by some of the projects currently seeking funding and people who have secured funding in the past. The details are light at present but it is positive that people agree we cannot go on the way we have been. If launched we would highly recommend this proposal seek the input of the Core Devs to ensure alignment with their vision, we found the input invaluable.

I still think this proposal is a good way to solve the issues for the reasons above.

If anyone has yet to vote, please do - either for or against, but vote. People have been asking for the community to be more involved, we have tried to incorporate that as much as practical, it is now over to the community to prove its wants involvement by voting either way - we hope to see a good turn out of voters in the last 24 hours.

We remain excited by the project and look forward to working constructively with all projects in the backlog in the event of a yes vote.


From what I know about trying to raise enough votes, you have to spam telegram a lot. And I do mean A LOT. Getting enough participation in this way is quite achievable, but yeah, you still have to beg people to vote (as if it’s like climbing Everest or something, such task, wow)… This another reason is why I think the NV is needed btw.


Hello can you explain more about the trust deed, which jurisdiction will be used, can you show draft of the trust deed?


Hi @henry thanks for the question. We need some legal and tax advice on this still. There are various pros and cos to each and the intention is to get the auditor and advisors guidance to ensure maximum transparency, governance and tax efficiency across as many other jurisdictions as we can. It needs to be both VC ans crypto friendly with a sensible legislative framework so options are likely to be same centres STO/ICOs come out of. We have a big 4 audit firm on standby to engage when we get the mandate and will update as soon as possible.

The trust deed will be drawn up once we are able to execute a contract so don’t have one at present due to not yet having a mandate or entity to contract with. Happy to share it when we do, provided its legal to do so, if not a summary will be published and the detail shared under the reporting structure outlined.


on the professional side? Great, Then we are expecting people with a real and proper financial markets license and a prospectus?

I think is a good idea to run funds professionally nothing against it.
The problem is the term “professionals” is sometimes being used by people who are not capable to raise capital following the same rules they want to impose, and they use the legal loopholes and words just to convince and take someone’s else’s money.

It’s a great aproach, I think it needs more time and a “prospectus” explaining everything legally and give access to the documents, the trust deed and the contracts, then the fund can pay reputable lawyer and he can explain in plain words what’s going on, isn’t that a professional aproach?


Congrats NEM Ventures on hitting 3%!


Thanks for your answer. It would be a good aproach then to first find a law firm and also a international tax advisor that are willing to accept xem as payment, then with the advise go to the next step of choosing the jurisdiction and the legal entity to use. That will save a lot of money in the long run.(risk management) not all jurisdictions are friendly.
I hope the following link can help you: https://www.bafin.de/dok/8054452



I hope everything goes good.



Congratulations, history has just been written, this approval marks the beginning of a new era for the professionalization of NEM. Centralization was the inevitable next step in the evolution. Hope that the people working for this fund will be dedicated and vigorously working towards a great future for NEM, for the NEMber community and the world at large.


Hope you guys will succeed!


" +1 "


Congratulations @kodtycoon @Bwanamakubwa @DaveH - Whilst I’ve been quite vocal about the fact that I don’t think this is the best option for NEM, it’s still 100 times better than what we have today, so I wish you the best of luck executing your plan and running NEM Ventures according to your vision. I look forward to seeing you succeed and particularly hope that you manage to foster and keep the community involved.