A Deepdive into XEM - 2025

A Deepdive into XEM - 2025

History of XEM

The History of XEM: From NEM’s Inception to Its Evolution

XEM, the native currency of the NEM blockchain, emerged in 2015 as a unique blockchain solution designed for enterprise and fintech applications. Unlike many other early blockchain projects, NEM (New Economy Movement) was not a fork but an entirely new codebase, introducing innovations such as the Proof-of-Importance (PoI) consensus mechanism. This method aimed to improve upon Proof-of-Stake (PoS) by factoring in user activity and network contribution rather than just token holdings.

Originally conceived as a community-driven project, NEM’s launch followed a fair distribution model through a token allocation plan. The team conducted an ICO-free distribution, where early adopters received XEM tokens without a public crowd sale. This approach was praised for avoiding speculative fundraising but also led to a concentration of token ownership. Some wallets ended up holding large portions of the supply, which later contributed to centralization concerns and governance challenges.

In its early years, XEM gained traction in Asian markets, particularly Japan, where the cryptocurrency was widely adopted for payments, remittances, and financial applications. NEM’s reputation grew due to its enterprise-focused solutions, including features like multi-signature accounts, encrypted messaging, and customizable assets. However, despite these capabilities, adoption lagged in Western markets, where other smart contract platforms like Ethereum overshadowed NEM’s development.

A defining moment in XEM’s history occurred when Coincheck, a Japanese exchange, suffered one of the largest crypto hacks in 2018. Hackers stole over 500 million XEM tokens due to weak security measures on the exchange’s side. Although the NEM blockchain itself remained secure, the event cast a long shadow over XEM’s reputation. The NEM development team attempted to track the stolen funds using an on-chain tagging system, but recovering the funds proved impossible. The fallout from the hack led to liquidity challenges and a decline in market confidence.

Over time, XEM struggled to maintain its relevance amid growing competition from newer blockchain platforms offering more advanced smart contract functionality. In an effort to modernize the ecosystem, the NEM team introduced Symbol, an enterprise-oriented blockchain operating alongside NEM. Symbol was positioned as an upgrade, but the migration of users and projects between the two networks presented adoption hurdles, leading to fragmentation within the NEM community.

Despite its early innovations and strong market presence in Asia, XEM has faced governance issues, adoption challenges, and increasing competition. The trajectory of its development reflects both the rapid evolution of blockchain technology and the difficulties of sustaining momentum in a highly competitive industry.

How XEM Works

How XEM Works: The Technology Behind NEM’s Blockchain

XEM is the native asset of the NEM (New Economy Movement) blockchain, a platform designed for scalable and customizable enterprise solutions. Unlike many blockchain networks that rely on Proof-of-Work (PoW) or traditional Proof-of-Stake (PoS), NEM uses a unique consensus mechanism known as Proof-of-Importance (PoI).

Proof-of-Importance (PoI) Instead of PoW or PoS

PoI determines which nodes can harvest (the equivalent of mining) new XEM and validate transactions. Instead of rewarding those with the most computational power (as in PoW) or the largest stake (as in PoS), PoI considers:
- Account balance: Higher balances increase importance but are weighted to prevent wealth centralization.
- Transaction activity: Frequent transactions with other active network participants improve a node’s score.
- Network activity & reputation: Nodes contributing to network growth and stability gain priority.

While this system is more accessible than PoW, it can still lead to wealthier accounts gaining more harvesting opportunities, albeit less dramatically than traditional PoS systems.

NEM’s Dual-Layer Architecture and Smart Asset System

NEM separates its blockchain into two layers:
1. The NEM Blockchain Layer – Responsible for handling transactions, harvesting blocks, and maintaining network security.
2. The API Layer – Allows external applications to interact with NEM’s network through built-in smart contract features.

Unlike Ethereum’s full-fledged Turing-complete smart contracts, NEM employs a Smart Asset System using built-in functionalities such as multi-signature accounts, custom namespaces, and Mosaic tokens (NEM’s equivalent of fungible/non-fungible assets). This system reduces security risks by eliminating the need for executing complex on-chain code. However, its trade-off is reduced composability compared to fully programmable blockchains.

Harvesting vs. Mining: How New XEM Is Generated

Instead of traditional mining, NEM employs harvesting, where nodes contribute to transaction processing and secure the network. Eligible nodes can harvest rewards without needing high-end hardware, reducing energy consumption. However, a minimum stake of 10,000 XEM is required for harvesting, which could be a barrier for smaller participants.

Security and Namespace Expiry Issues

NEM supports multi-signature accounts, encrypted messages, and an anti-spam mechanism to prevent network overload. However, namespaces—used to create unique on-chain identities—expire periodically and require renewal, which can be problematic for projects not actively maintaining them.

Use Cases

XEM Use Cases: Real-World Applications and Limitations

Enterprise Blockchain Solutions

XEM powers the NEM blockchain, which is designed for enterprise-grade applications. Its Smart Asset System allows businesses to create custom blockchain solutions without complex smart contract development. This includes asset tokenization, document notarization, and internal financial systems. However, NEM faces competition from more widely adopted enterprise blockchains like Ethereum and Hyperledger, which may limit XEM’s network effects.

Cross-Border Payments and Transactions

With fast transaction speeds and low fees, XEM is used for international remittances and cross-border payments. The network's scalability and efficiency make it attractive for high-frequency transactions, particularly in regions where traditional financial systems are slow or costly. However, adoption remains limited compared to more dominant payment-focused cryptocurrencies such as XRP or Stellar, reducing its real-world usage.

Decentralized Applications (dApps)

While NEM provides a framework for dApp development, it does not support Turing-complete smart contracts like Ethereum, making it less flexible for complex applications. Instead, NEM relies on APIs for programmable transactions, which simplifies deployment but restricts functionality. This structured approach is beneficial for businesses needing security and predictability, but it also limits creativity and innovation in the dApp ecosystem.

Supply Chain Management

XEM facilitates supply chain tracking by enabling immutable data storage on the NEM blockchain. Companies can use mosaics (custom on-chain assets) and namespaces (blockchain-based domain names) to track goods and verify authenticity. However, enterprise adoption remains a challenge, as many supply chain solutions prefer private or permissioned blockchains over public networks.

Tokenization of Assets

XEM’s mosaic feature allows users to create digital assets representing stocks, loyalty points, or other financial instruments. This functionality competes with Ethereum’s ERC-20 and ERC-721 standards. However, liquidity and interoperability concerns limit widespread use, as most tokenized assets opt for Ethereum due to its larger developer base and DeFi ecosystem.

Security and Anti-Fraud Applications

NEM’s multisignature accounts provide enhanced security for organizations handling large funds. This feature is beneficial for decentralized escrow services, fraud prevention, and secure access control. However, the lack of a strong DeFi presence reduces its appeal for smart contract-driven security applications compared to alternatives like Ethereum or Solana.

Gaming and Digital Ownership

XEM has been explored for digital ownership solutions in gaming, allowing players to trade in-game assets securely. Still, this area is dominated by blockchains with native NFT capabilities like Flow and Immutable X, limiting NEM’s impact in this sector.

Governance and Voting Systems

XEM supports on-chain voting, making it useful for decentralized governance and transparent organizational decision-making. Its proof-of-importance (PoI) consensus mechanism incentivizes long-term participation, but its limited adoption suggests that other governance-focused platforms may be more attractive for large-scale implementations.

XEM Tokenomics

XEM Tokenomics: Supply, Distribution, and Economic Model

Fixed Supply and Inflation-Free Model

XEM has a fixed total supply of 8,999,999,999 tokens, meaning there is no inflation or additional minting. Unlike Proof-of-Work (PoW) based assets that introduce new tokens through mining, XEM’s supply was fully allocated at genesis. This ensures that there are no surprises in token issuance, but it also eliminates mechanisms that could provide long-term incentives for network security and participation beyond transaction fees.

Harvesting: A Unique Distribution Mechanism

Instead of mining or staking, XEM uses a process called “harvesting.” This method rewards participants based on account importance, which factors in account balance and transaction activity. While this system theoretically encourages ecosystem engagement, it also creates a dynamic where early adopters or large holders retain significant influence. The lack of new token rewards beyond transaction fees can make it challenging to continuously incentivize participation, especially if network activity is low.

Transaction Fees and Economic Sustainability

XEM relies on transaction fees to compensate network participants. Fees are based on factors such as transaction size and urgency. While this model can be sustainable in high-usage scenarios, a decrease in network activity could lead to diminished incentives for harvesters. Unlike blockchains that adjust rewards dynamically or introduce deflationary mechanisms, NEM’s static supply model means that fee economics must support the long-term viability of the network.

Token Distribution and Centralization Concerns

The initial allocation of XEM was widely distributed through an ICO-style fundraiser, yet over time, ownership has become increasingly concentrated. A limited number of addresses control a large portion of XEM’s total supply, raising concerns about potential centralization risks. This concentration can lead to low liquidity in secondary markets and influence governance decisions in ways that may not align with the broader community’s interests.

Lack of Major Deflationary Mechanisms

Unlike some crypto assets that introduce burning models or mechanisms to gradually reduce supply, XEM lacks major deflationary features. While this prevents forced scarcity-driven price manipulation, it also means the token does not have built-in mechanisms to counterbalance lost or inactive holdings. Over time, this could impact liquidity and circulation efficiency, especially if key stakeholders hold onto large amounts of XEM without reintroducing them into the market.

XEM Governance

XEM Governance: How NEM’s Decentralized Decision-Making Works

XEM operates within the NEM blockchain ecosystem, which employs a unique governance model that differs from many traditional proof-of-stake or proof-of-work systems. Governance decisions in NEM primarily revolve around the influence of vested token holders and delegated authority, rather than pure staking.

Harvesting and Governance Influence

NEM’s governance is indirectly tied to its consensus mechanism, Proof-of-Importance (PoI). Unlike blockchains that grant governance rights based on token holdings alone, PoI weights influence based on transaction activity and vested XEM holdings. This creates a system where active network participants have a greater say, rather than just large wealth holders. However, this model does come with challenges, such as potential centralization of influence among high-transaction users and longstanding vested accounts.

Core Development and Decision-Making Structure

Governance decisions in NEM are largely influenced by the NEM Foundation and core developers, alongside input from the community. The decision-making process is not purely on-chain, meaning key protocol upgrades and ecosystem changes often occur through discussions in forums, developer meetings, and stakeholder votes that are not always directly enforced through smart contracts or governance mechanisms built into the protocol itself. This lack of fully decentralized governance has led to criticism, as some argue that it prioritizes foundation-led decision-making over community-driven changes.

Voting and Network Upgrades

While XEM holders can participate in governance through proposals and discussions, there is no built-in on-chain voting system for protocol-level decisions. Governance-related voting has historically taken place through off-chain methods, such as NEM forums or delegated community proposals. This introduces additional complexity, requiring trust in off-chain representations of the network’s will. Additionally, low voter turnout and engagement remain an issue, a challenge common across many blockchain governance models.

Governance Challenges and Future Considerations

A common criticism of XEM's governance model is its reliance on a small group of contributors and foundation members to make key decisions. While NEM’s structure prevents complete centralization, decision-making power is still somewhat concentrated. In addition, without mandatory on-chain governance mechanisms, transparency and participation remain key concerns, particularly for community-driven initiatives seeking greater autonomy in protocol evolution.

Technical future of XEM

XEM Technical Roadmap and Upcoming Developments

Symbol Blockchain and Network Enhancements

XEM remains closely tied to the Symbol blockchain, which continues evolving with upgrades aimed at improving scalability, security, and transaction efficiency. A key focus has been optimizing the hybrid consensus mechanism, which merges Proof-of-Stake+ (PoS+) with optional delegated harvesting. While this model enhances network participation incentives, scalability challenges persist, particularly concerning node decentralization and governance distribution.

Smart Contracts and Interoperability

Symbol’s architecture supports on-chain programmable assets and multisignature accounts but lacks full Turing-complete smart contract functionality. While this simplifies security considerations, it limits broader DeFi and dApp adoption, particularly compared to ecosystems favoring full smart contract programmability. Efforts to bridge this gap include enhancing native aggregate transactions and exploring interoperability with external blockchain protocols.

Cross-Chain Compatibility and Symbol Integration

Interoperability remains a critical technical direction. Ongoing development efforts target seamless interaction between Symbol and other blockchain ecosystems, focusing on atomic swaps, cross-chain bridges, and integration with third-party protocols. However, adoption of these features hinges on developer engagement and sustained network participation.

Privacy and Security Enhancements

Advanced cryptographic mechanisms such as Schnorr signatures and Merkle proofs are integral to Symbol’s security layer. While these enable efficient transaction validation and enhanced privacy for multi-signature transactions, broader privacy-centric functions, like confidential transactions or zk-SNARK implementation, are not natively present in the protocol. This places Symbol at a disadvantage compared to privacy-focused chains.

Node Performance and Network Sustainability

Node operators remain essential for Symbol’s network integrity, but there are concerns over long-term node incentivization. Given the competitive landscape with other staking and validation models, ensuring robust participation without centralization remains a key technical challenge. Proposed improvements involve enhanced reward mechanisms and lightweight node operations to increase accessibility.

Developer Tooling and SDK Expansion

To encourage adoption, Symbol has prioritized expanding its SDKs and developer toolsets. Available in multiple programming languages, these SDKs streamline token creation, transaction customization, and API interactions. However, fragmentation between NEM (XEM) legacy infrastructure and newer Symbol implementations has led to some ecosystem confusion, requiring clearer migration pathways and unified development resources.

Long-Term Technical Uncertainty

While Symbol continues iterating on its protocol, broader questions persist regarding long-term protocol governance, funding for future development, and competitive positioning against feature-rich L1 and L2 ecosystems. The roadmap suggests a focus on incremental network improvements rather than radical overhauls, though external developer engagement and real-world adoption will ultimately determine the extent of continued innovation.

Comparing XEM to it’s rivals

XEM vs. XLM: How NEM Stacks Up Against Stellar

When comparing XEM and XLM, both projects aim to provide efficient and scalable blockchain solutions, but their core philosophies and infrastructures differ significantly. NEM’s XEM focuses on customizable blockchain solutions with its unique Proof-of-Importance (PoI) consensus mechanism, while Stellar’s XLM is optimized for cross-border payments and financial integration.

Consensus Mechanism: PoI vs. SCP

NEM utilizes a Proof-of-Importance (PoI) consensus system, which incentivizes network participation based on a user’s overall activity and stake. This contrasts with Stellar’s Stellar Consensus Protocol (SCP), which uses a federated byzantine agreement to achieve consensus without mining or staking. While PoI encourages active network engagement, it can be challenging to measure "importance" fairly, leading to potential centralization concerns if large stakeholders dominate participation.

SCP, on the other hand, is efficient but relies on pre-selected validator nodes, which can raise concerns about decentralization. While Stellar’s approach allows for faster confirmations, it sacrifices some of the permissionless qualities of a fully open blockchain, an area where NEM retains more flexibility.

Smart Contracts and Customization

XEM offers a customizable blockchain solution through NEM’s Smart Assets system, which allows developers to define assets and permissions efficiently. However, unlike Turing-complete blockchains, NEM does not support traditional smart contracts in the way platforms like Ethereum or Neo do. This partially limits its programmability in comparison to Stellar, which provides built-in features for multi-signature transactions and asset issuance but also lacks full smart contract functionality.

While Stellar is designed primarily for financial applications, NEM’s approach is broader, allowing private blockchain deployments and modular development. However, Stellar’s built-in compliance and financial toolsets can make it preferable for institutions needing regulatory-friendly blockchain solutions.

Speed and Scalability

Stellar’s XLM excels in transaction speed, settling in mere seconds with minimal fees due to its lightweight architecture. XEM also provides fast transactions but operates differently, as it uses a dual-layer architecture that separates consensus from transaction processing. This design allows NEM's network to handle high throughput, but it is more complex to maintain and upgrade.

Stellar’s simplicity in transaction execution can lead to a smoother experience for users conducting cross-border payments, while NEM’s multi-layer system provides greater flexibility but requires more developer expertise to optimize.

Adoption and Network Effects

While NEM has strong adoption in enterprise solutions, Stellar has secured strategic partnerships in the traditional financial sector. NEM’s customizable blockchain solutions appeal to developers and enterprises seeking private and hybrid blockchain implementations. However, Stellar’s focus on fiat integration has given it an edge in transactional adoption across various fintech ecosystems.

Both projects serve different niches, with Stellar driving financial connectivity and NEM leveraging blockchain customization. These differences shape their adoption trajectories, making them suited to distinct market needs.

XEM vs. XRP: A Technical and Functional Comparison

Consensus Mechanism Differences

One of the most critical distinctions between XEM and XRP is their consensus mechanisms. XEM utilizes Proof-of-Importance (PoI), a system that incentivizes active network participants based on their transaction history and vested stake. This differs from XRP’s Federated Consensus model, where trusted validators (mainly institutional entities) confirm transactions without traditional mining or staking. While XRP’s approach enables faster finality and reduced energy consumption, it raises concerns about centralization, as a small number of validators control transaction confirmation.

Transaction Speed and Fees

XRP is well known for its rapid transaction speeds, typically settling within seconds. Its low transaction costs make it a preferred choice for cross-border payments. XEM also offers fast transactions compared to many blockchain networks, but it does not match the near-instant finality of XRP. Additionally, while XEM's fee structure is designed to be competitive and dynamically adjusts based on network conditions, XRP’s fees tend to be consistently lower in high-throughput scenarios.

Smart Contract Capabilities and Use Cases

Unlike many modern crypto assets, both XEM and XRP lack full-fledged smart contract functionality on their native chains. XEM enables a unique approach through built-in multisignature and on-chain programmable features, allowing some level of automated business logic without requiring external platforms. However, these capabilities are limited compared to traditional smart contract platforms. XRP, on the other hand, relies on external solutions such as sidechains to integrate smart contract functionalities. This means neither asset is an optimal choice for DeFi ecosystems without additional layers or interoperability solutions.

Centralization vs. Decentralization

A major critique of XRP is its perceived centralization, with a significant portion of the total supply controlled by its founding entity. While XEM's PoI mechanism offers a more distributed method of securing the network, it has faced concerns over node concentration, as large holders gain disproportionate advantages in block rewards. Both assets have struggled in different ways to balance decentralization with efficiency.

Network Adoption and Institutional Usage

XRP has achieved notable adoption within the banking sector, primarily in cross-border payments and remittance solutions. Its established partnerships with financial institutions provide real-world utility in legacy financial systems. XEM, while widely used in various enterprise solutions, does not have the same level of institutional adoption, which impacts its position in global finance discussions.

XEM vs. ADA: A Technical and Functional Comparison

When comparing XEM with ADA, key differences emerge in their architecture, consensus mechanisms, and intended use cases. While both projects aim to improve blockchain efficiency and scalability, their approaches diverge significantly.

Consensus Mechanism: Proof-of-Importance vs. Proof-of-Stake

XEM operates on a Proof-of-Importance (PoI) consensus model, which prioritizes network participants based on their activity rather than just their stake. This encourages consistent network usage rather than passive holdings. PoI rewards active participants and discourages pure speculation, but it introduces complexity in determining user "importance," making it less straightforward than conventional staking mechanisms.

In contrast, ADA uses Ouroboros, a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) protocol designed for scalable and energy-efficient validation. PoS is widely adopted across blockchain networks because of its efficiency and lower entry barrier for validators. ADA’s approach enables a formalized staking delegation system, which has helped its network grow rapidly but has also led to concerns about validator centralization over time.

Smart Contract Capabilities and Development Focus

XEM was not traditionally designed for smart contract execution in the same way as ADA. Instead, it provides a modular, API-driven architecture focused on enterprise use, enabling businesses to integrate blockchain functionality without deploying complex smart contracts. While this simplifies certain implementations, it can also limit complex decentralized applications (dApps).

ADA has built a strong focus on smart contracts through Plutus, a Haskell-based programming environment enabling secure contract execution. While this architecture is theoretically powerful, it has faced adoption challenges, mainly due to developer learning curves and the relative maturity of its ecosystem.

Scalability and Performance

XEM's Catapult upgrade improved transaction throughput and efficiency, but it still operates within a model that requires nodes to maintain high-importance scores for sustained participation. This leads to network centralization in practice, as top holders tend to retain influence over transaction validation.

ADA, through its multi-layer design, separates the settlement and computation layers, allowing for better parallel processing and long-term scalability advantages. However, ADA's implementation has been gradual, with certain optimizations still in development, making its full efficiency gains a longer-term goal rather than an immediate strength.

Adoption and Use Cases

XEM has prioritized enterprise and governmental blockchain applications, positioning itself as an integration-focused solution rather than a purely financial asset. While this has led to notable partnerships, its adoption has been niche, lacking the extensive community-driven development seen in some ecosystems.

ADA has pursued a broader decentralization strategy, emphasizing governance, self-sustaining treasury models, and research-driven development. Its focus on academic validation has been both a strength and a bottleneck, as real-world applications often take longer to materialize compared to more agile blockchain models.

Primary criticisms of XEM

Primary Criticism of XEM: Scalability, Centralization, and Adoption Challenges

Scalability Limitations in High-Throughput Scenarios

One of the key criticisms of XEM is its scalability limitations, particularly in handling high transaction throughput. While the NEM blockchain utilizes the Proof-of-Importance (PoI) consensus mechanism to optimize efficiency, its ability to scale under heavy network load remains a point of contention. Unlike blockchains that have implemented more dynamic scaling solutions such as sharding or layer-2 solutions, XEM’s network performance can degrade when transaction volume spikes. This presents challenges for broader adoption, especially when compared to blockchains that have prioritized scalability advancements.

Concerns Over Centralization in Node Distribution

Another prominent issue associated with XEM is the level of decentralization in its node distribution. While PoI is designed to reward active network participants based on engagement rather than raw token holdings, a significant portion of the network’s harvesting power remains concentrated among a relatively small number of high-importance participants. This can lead to concerns about centralization, particularly regarding network governance and security. Critics argue that a more evenly distributed influence structure would enhance resilience against manipulation and make participation more equitable for smaller stakeholders.

Limited Real-World Adoption and Developer Engagement

Adoption has been another persistent challenge for XEM. Despite early innovations such as multisignature accounts and asset tokenization capabilities, the blockchain has struggled to maintain sustained developer interest compared to more widely utilized smart contract platforms. The lack of a robust smart contract ecosystem limits its competitiveness in decentralized finance (DeFi) and decentralized applications (dApps), areas that drive growth for many blockchain ecosystems. This reduced developer engagement often results in slower updates, fewer third-party integrations, and a lack of consistent innovation, which can hinder long-term viability.

Competition from More Actively Developed Networks

The crypto landscape is highly competitive, with many blockchains continually evolving to meet market demands. XEM faces stiff competition from networks that offer greater interoperability, more comprehensive developer support, and more aggressive marketing efforts. While NEM’s technology introduced unique concepts, newer platforms have often replicated or improved upon its features while also providing additional incentives for adoption. Without stronger differentiation in functionality or usability, XEM risks being overshadowed by blockchains that are more actively developed and aggressively supported by their ecosystems.

Security and Governance Risks

Network security remains a recurring concern, particularly due to the potential vulnerabilities associated with node centralization. Additionally, governance challenges have been highlighted by concerns over transparency in decision-making related to protocol updates and ecosystem funding. A lack of clear governance structures can create uncertainty for developers and businesses looking to build long-term applications on the NEM blockchain. This uncertainty, combined with governance inefficiencies, can deter institutional participation and investment.

Founders

Founding Team Behind XEM: Origins and Key Figures

The origins of XEM are tied to the creation of NEM (New Economy Movement), a blockchain project that first emerged in early online crypto forums. Unlike many other blockchain ventures that began with a corporate-backed structure or a formal foundation, NEM was initially led by a group of pseudonymous developers and community contributors. This decentralized and collective approach shaped both the governance and development ethos of the project from the start.

Key Figures in NEM’s Founding

One of the most recognized figures associated with NEM’s early development is “UtopianFuture,” an anonymous founder who played a critical role in shaping the project’s initial vision. UtopianFuture led efforts to create a community-driven blockchain that would diverge from Bitcoin’s mining-based consensus and instead implement Proof-of-Importance (PoI), a unique staking model designed to encourage active network participation. However, UtopianFuture eventually left the project, adding to the decentralized and somewhat fragmented identity of the ecosystem.

Beyond UtopianFuture, other developers and contributors emerged over time to structure the technical and operational aspects of NEM. Various individuals contributed under aliases, and over the years, more public-facing figures—such as Lon Wong—became associated with formalizing aspects of NEM’s strategy and business direction. Wong, who later served as president of the NEM Foundation, helped push for enterprise adoption, though his tenure was also marked by concerns over financial management and transparency within the broader organization.

Decentralized Development and Internal Challenges

The NEM ecosystem’s development has always carried both the advantages and drawbacks of a decentralized team structure. While early contributors succeeded in building a working blockchain from scratch—including an independently coded blockchain rather than a fork—the project has also seen internal disputes over leadership, funding, and direction.

At different points, governance struggles emerged within the NEM Foundation and other affiliated entities, leading to setbacks in coordination and funding. Some investors and developers expressed frustration over inefficiencies in decision-making, especially as the project attempted to transition from its grassroots beginnings to a structured organization with formal leadership.

Despite these challenges, the contributions of the anonymous and public-facing pioneers of NEM continue to shape the legacy of XEM. The project's unconventional founding and the departure of key figures illustrate both the strengths and weaknesses of a crypto asset developed outside traditional corporate frameworks.

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com

Sources

Back to blog