Why PoI was rejected for upcoming elections? Question to current council members

I would like to put forward a solution that may help to lower tensions here a little, and as far as I can tell this would be a council decision, but why not change the role of the members? If there is a reason this cannot be done then thats fine. instead of the current situation where members are just votes (nobody answered my previous question about that so im assuming thats the case) make members paid employees hired by the foundation, have them doing their own jobs such as marketing or perhaps developmet depending on their skillset and the requirement of the foundation, similar to the low level staff in other institutions, this would get far more done while maintaining the number of members required by law and allow the community to elect the council and other officals. Members and officals then vote on the general operations of the foundation as they wish.
like this the foundation continues to work as previously while the community are represented but not directly involved in its ongoings, it would also increase the output of the foundation.
as for the community being patrons, we do that by not dumping our holdings and reducing the foundation to ashes

You mean chuck your toys out the pram and leave because people don’t agree with your reasoning? Very adult.

Honestly - what were they getting for their membership? There was no set schedule for elections that we saw? There were no other “referendum” voting rights, to me (who didn’t sign up for foundation membership) it seemed like nothing other than a token gesture to say you are “A member of the NEM Foundation”. There was no value in this for us, I doubt anyone else thought anything different.

Should those 600 people have been rejected? Absolutely not - that is disgusting behavior also, it sounds like one big boys club to me.

Exactly, this needs a belt and braces approach if things are going to change - it needs to start with the current council acknowledging the grievances of not only the general community but OG investors (including yourself Lon) and of course the people who are building NEM, coming up with a better solution to what is currently happening with this farce of an election is crucial to restore trust.


so that their voices can be heard

Where are these 600 members? If they want “to be heard”, they can create topic on this forum FOR FREE with suggestions, constructive comments/critics, ideas. Nobody have seen them here, except of you. No, they don’t want to do it, but they want “to be heard” and decided to take part in coming election for 500 XEM. But 500xem is too much for them. They asked Head of their regions pay them for it, because they want “to be heard”. How many of them took part in NEM bounty program ? Its a perfect way to earn money for “to be heard”.

They had almost half of year for it, but nobody have done it.
What another metrics should we use to measure their “to be heard”.

Lon please dont forget that you was a President of NEM Foundation. Jaguar post directs also to you. Dont delegate your part of responsibilities/mistakes to other.

You planted these seeds, and we harvest your crop.

P.S. Could you please ask your friend Stephen to sign up on Nem Forum? This topic also directed to him or you will advocate him as well as those 600 members?


I tried to join the foundation when it was free but the website would not let me join as an individual.
The form fields on the Nem official site would not let me register unless I said I had a company.
Sounds to me more like lazy website upkeep than anything else.


Yeah, I thought that was funny too. Every single field was mandatory which is clearly an error made by the person who set-up the form and it just so typical of nem. Even the simplest things can’t be taken for granted.

1 Like

Lon please spare us the argument, that the bylaws are somehow holy law that can’t be changed. They’ve been written by the founding members and can be changed with a 75% majority of the council. Which by the way already happened in preperation for this election. You are trying to make it look like it’s set in stone and there is no way around it. This is simply not true. If the council is willing and there is pressure from the community, then it’s all possible.

There was no incentive for anyone to join really. Most didn’t even know that there will be an election.
Also you can’t expect that the entire community will become members of the foundation. That’s like sucking up everyone under the umbrella of the foundation, centralizing control, which many are not comfortable with.
Also why would anyone join if we can’t even see the Foundation charter and bylaws publicly? People are blindly signing something which they have no idea about what it is.

It’s not a legitimate represenation of the community if it acts outside of the interest of the community. Simple as that. I don’t see the need to shed any anonymity to voice ones opinion.


Good luck guys. All the best. I shall not say more.

1 Like

Pointing fingers at each other really does nothing at this point.

Good thing is, at least a lot of issues are out in the open, and many candidates are acknowledging them.

Hopefully all this will move in a positive direction for the Foundation & Community & NEM itself…


I’d much rather have a much smaller say in a fair and inclusive vote through PoI than being one of the ~300 voices in the current set up. There’s no way that this is fair and representative election as it stands. It’s sad and frustrating to see this go ahead with large sections of the community raising concerns. I also completely disagree with membership/voting rights being paid for by people with a vested interest in the elections - it’s just not ethical.


Yes especially when you can buy website maintenance for a couple of hundred bucks.

Approval processes don’t rely on people having to ask for information so that they can approve. It doesn’t work that way. Seeking approval is an active process not a passive one.
Fact is that the list was never shared with the council ( at least I didn’t have access to it ) and as a result these people couldn’t have been approved. Once the list was shared with me it was clear why…

How would we defend a membership base that consists of people from over 20 countries yet has one country that had about 64% share in that population ?
Looking at the diversity of our community it’s not likely to be a coincidence.

What really needs to be questioned here is why obvious attempts to ensure a fair election have been blocked for months and ultimately there were only two people on the council that actively worked on organisation of the election.

Those people were never rejected. The membership status was pending until we finally agreed in the council on how to proceed ( which took way too long ).
What Lon failed to mention is that it was never checked whether these subscriptions actually came from real individuals. For all I know it may have been 500 sockpuppets.


Some of you are aware that I decided to put up a vote to see if council could agree to change the voting to a POI based vote.

A 75% majority was required to amend the by-laws so unfortunately we didn’t make it.

It should be mentioned that although there were some ideas on how to make this legally compliant, a positive vote would not have guaranteed there would have been a POI vote.

Although I know who voted against, it’s not up to me to share that information.

I realise that many community members will be disappointed about the outcome of this vote. However, I would like to ask kindly to not turn this into a which hunt. Although I encourage all council members to be transparent about how they voted and why they chose to do so, ultimately It’s up to each of them to decide whether they actually do so.


really sad to see that they not even tried to change it to PoI :frowning:

1 Like

Alternative suggestion is to preserve core developers and fire everyone else, while rehiring 1-2 product mangers top. Collaborating with mathematicians in academy would help. If product is good and needed it will go. Making “congress” out of this is waste of time, by-laws LOL give me a break. Yes it should be that simple

1 Like

Which position has voting rights? 2 advisors and 5 Council Members?

No , advisors don’t have voting rights. It’s seven council members.

I see.Thank you

That is very sad reading. It was bad enough in the first instance but with all the discussion in the forums it is even worse now. An opportunity arose to listen to the community and respond, but instead for whatever reason it has been ignored.

The Foundation needs to understand it was created by the community. If it is not going to listen or benefit the community then it serves no purpose

I’m deeply worried for the future of the foundation after seeing those results.

The two council members who voted no on this should explain themselves publicly.
If those two council members are running in this election and will get elected because of this, I can assure you that they will loose complete community support and will certainly not be accepted.
They now still have the chance to either change their mind about this or withdraw from running again.


Irrespective of the actual outcome of the vote, two procedural questions:

  1. Why is all voting done in secret? How are council members supposed be evaluated if their voting record is unknown?
  2. Shouldn’t there be some summary of the arguments for and against a proposal to give some insight into the motivations? Something similar to a majority and dissenting opinion, for example.