In light of the recent incident and information, I hereby suggest the following. This are my thoughts, and we can refine them. I believe this will restore confidence in the community, provide incentive to own the BSL token and support Banksocial/Fivancial as a whole company and provide a true legal partnership between entities. I believe this is mutual beneficial agreement.
1.) The DAO becomes an official partner/owner of Banksocial/Fivancial. Banksocial provides 25% ownership/partnership stake of Fivanicial/Banksocial to the DAO/community. Any one who owns the BSL token owns a part of the 25% stake depending on amount of token ownership. Banksocial/Fiviancial will receive 50k from the existing SLP fund as compensation as well as taking the 400k loss of the DAO SLP funds.
2.) Banksocial Profit Sharing - when profitable will provide 25% of the profit to the DAO as being a 25% owner to use at the DAO’s choose (voted by DAO) - profiting sharing/ pay outs to holders, outside investments/funds, compensations to delegates, token buyback and burn.
3.) The DAO can elect to provide 20% of the SLP funds (either coming from tax or from profit made from BanksocialFiviancial owned stake) to Banksocial/Fiviancial to support further development of DAO initiatives (retail use cases, marketing, CEX fees, etc).
4.) The DAO will have 1-2 delegates elected to serve on the board for Banksocial/Fivancial and represent the DAO/community/retail interests.
5.) If Banksocial/Fivancial becomes profitable enough that the funding of the DAO/SLP/profit sharing is sustainable then the DAO may elect to get rid of the tax at some point and be fully funded by interest going to SLP and the profits of 25% ownership.
@PresidentHODL - Please review. You may not like some things in here but I think this will restore confidence in the company and token and also be mutually beneficial in time to both organizations and to fully work/dance together. Imagine also creating this model to really build a business where the people/community are owners - this is the ownership model you so much talked about - this is what people want and the future you want to build.
I think I agree on the SLP but was providing more an incentiative as well as money up front to help banksocial continue to develop DAO/retail items in the short term as well paying for the legal/accounting fees that would come up to change the business. I think if we did this we would see a large price in increase in the token and we would recoup the SLP funds quickly because this point we all becoming owners of a business and real investement. The voting would be for 1-2 representatives of the delegates to serve in Banksocial/Fivancial board - we need representation.
I fully agree with this and it would restore my faith and confidence. I think this would also show the world that Banksocial is building something in a different way and aligning with the Co-op CU ethnos model at a whole another level. I know this might be a tough pill to swallow for Banksocial team to give 25% stake to DAO but I see that could be a powerful statement to the community and the world at large. Lets do it John and team!
Yes understood, I edited my reply regarding the delegates when I reread your post.
I still think that we don’t have to start the negotiation by offering part of the SLP. We can get to that later if Pres responds and show proof that they need the funds.
I would love this. In all honesty, I sold some of my token off, if this happened I would happily buy it back and continue too keep doing because it would be a good investment and I know I am getting something for it. I want to be an owner.
One thing I could think of would be is that there might need to be a legal contract between BSL token holder and DAO/Banksocial. I think token holders can opt-in and we can automate through the BSL app when a token is first purchased to have the necessary documentation. It would no different if you pulled your money together with a group to own a stake - the group LLC is a partner to BanksocialFivancial, the holders are opt-in legally to the group through contract. If purchased outside then they would have to transfer in to have any BSL token benefits such as being part of the DAO that owners the parternship. I am not a lawyer but that is what I see.
Right now - with this proposal - it’s not just about the team making a decision. Other investors are a part of the decision and it’s not something that can unilaterally be decided. The value of BankSocial is set by third parties and their investments. I can be frank and say there is not a path forward that would put the BankSocial investors in a position to give up 25% of the company for 50,000$.
There maybe an opportunity for the DAO to invest in BankSocial in other ways, so this is not a hard no, however more diligence is required around the legal structures. These are discussions being had with the delegates to formalize options with the DAO.
The next best immediate step is a formalization of the obligations of the DAO and BankSocial. Those meetings with the delegates are being coordinated so that a formal proposal can be made to the DAO to vote on. This is the easiest and most straightforward next step.
What we can absolutely say is that a tighter working arrangement between the DAO and BankSocial is being worked on in parallel to all the other great work already being done for the DAO. We will have more details early next week.
This sounds good. I would like to see a board created through qualified and trusted people from our group. A board that oversees the delegates. Monthly meetings in spaces by the board with an ongoing actioning agenda, where holders can ask the board questions following the agenda meeting.
It is not just 50k - it is 400k of the loss of the SLP funds. Though BSL team is trying to put on DAO fully- I for one see that is was the BSL team responsibility to provide guidance and oversight of protection of the this fund so they should be taking responsibility for its loss and this is a way to recoup. If Banksocial team is able to recoup the loss of the SLP then they get to keep it. Your investors won’t like it I get it but at the same time this incident may very well put your entire business at risk if it is not made up to the community in a big way.
It has nothing to do with BankSocial investors liking/not liking things. The company has a value. The numbers/ideas you’re proposing do not align with those values.
We will talk with the delegates and see what options there are to create some obligations, with a potential for ownership being one of those opportunities. No promises can be made on this front for MANY reasons. There are certain things you can’t make electrons do.
Let’s continue to have these types of productive dialog that moves these discussions forward.
I get the value - then we need to negotiate what that value is. There also a lot I think you get with moving to that model. For one I don’t know any organization that would have tried this and I think it would bring a lot more eyes to banksocial and grassroot marketing to Banksocial. It also shows Credit Unions how you operate as CO-OP - I think that would go a long way with them as well and there members that will eventually being using Banksocial products. You also would most likely get a lot of community support because they would actually feel like they are part of it and not just on the outside, they would actually care about the company and its success. So to me doing this increased in time the value tremendously to banksocial that can’t be measured by numbers initially. But investors will be stuck in traditional models and my experience all they care about is the profit you make them at the end of the day - but if we can show that this will translate eventually then maybe they would come on board.
I like the idea of it in general. I definitely agree that it would be excellent for the DAO to have stake of BankSocial. Happy to participate in the conversations.
I like the idea of the DAO buying in to BankSocial over time, when the DAO has the funds. I also 100% agree with PresidentHodl, a third party will establish the value for BankSocial and the DAO needs to be realistic about what percentages Private owners are going give up. Smaller owners aren’t going to just hand over a larger portion of the company than they control to a DAO that at best resembles a New York City subway ride.
I agree. Im very interested in seeing where this could go. It would be somewhat groundbreaking as far as I know. Anyone have any examples of other DAOs taking a position in another company?
A % of income of Fivancial is used to buy $BSL for CU’s to be able to partake in the DAO
Idea 2:
If CU’s hold an X amount $bsl they get a sort of discount on BankSocial products.
Idea 3:
If CU’s hold an X amount they get a small amount of the interest paid on the loans that comes through them. This goes outside of the staking program. Like a bounty program, but for CU’s.
@PresidentHODL - I have been thinking this through more. The offer made is more than generous then I think you and your investors might think. Outlined below is why:
1.) Up front 50k from the SLP to cover any up fronts costs and as good faith.
2.) 400k of the loss from the SLP funds. If you recover Banksocial gets to keep. Banksocial has to take responsibility for it - that is what a mature organization would do. You need to realize how much this as well as all the other theft that has been happening over the past couple months to retail users has impacted the retail community as well as the price of the token. This is from the tech Banksocial created or people are using. You and your investors need to open your eyes that your business is at a risk and the value of your organization has plummeted right now because of it. You have probably lost 30-40% of your retail customers and your custom retention is at a low point over the past month. You are not just having customer loss, you are having disgruntled customer loss which is much worse. Reviews and FUD is being created and archived all over the Internet that could result in lost revenue/growth. You and your investors might not want want to hear that or accept that but that is the truth. This can feed over to your CU business in time because it is a security issue if you are not careful and do the right thing to resolve and make right to the community. Accepting responsibility without blame and denial. Discussing what happened openly when the investigation concludes and how Banksocial is taking action/responsibility to resolve it will go a long way. In addition, John and team needs to do a recorded audio and possibly transcript to address all the FUD towards him and Banksocial - take it head on without defensiveness, have witnesses to validate. If there is past mistakes made own them, but everything should be gathered out on socials and addressed without stepping around them even if some things are not great - drop the ego. Then anytime the FUD and accusations continue this recording/document can be referenced. Once people have the truth typically it dies down even if it means owning things / mistakes / things you got caught up in from the past and how learned from them, what doing different.
3.) The 20% of future funds from the DAO. This could be very huge for Banksocial, here is why:
a.) If the 25% ownership of Banksocial happens, Banksocial delivers on the products/tech they said they will and CU members see the benefit of holding the token then their can be a large uptake in the token and the volume generated. Let’s say we reach 100 million in market cap, -typically looking at other projects that is going to generate around 250-500k of volume a day. The SLP fee generated from that would be around 3-5 mi+ annually. 20% provided to Banksocial to fund product development, operations and staff would be 600-1 million+ annually. If we go higher this can be much more as one feeds another. This is significant - yes this is somewhat speculative but if the DAO/community believes and puts their trust in Banksocial, then Banksocial/investors need to put trust in the DAO/community and the BSL token as well. At the end of the day this could mean much more profit to the investors.
b.) It is sustainable and keeps the money flowing between both.
SLP fee feeds DAO and Banksocial → Banksocial has more money to create cool stuff, build staff, sales and marketing → Revenue and Profit Rises → 25% profit to DAO feeds retail/BSL price appreciation → Retail/BSL price appreciation increases volume → SLP fees 20% feeds Banksocial growth and cycle continues and continues.
4.) In addition, you drive Community/Retail growth and support to a new level. Have the community/DAO/retail have a stake in ownership engages people and builds a strong grassroot marketing effort. This drives revenue towards Banksocial. Marketing you cannot buy, volunteer work you can not get without retail.
5.) You get to do something nobody else has done, I think that will get more eyes on Banksocial, news outlets picking up which all lead to growth and more customers.
6.) Your investors can buy into early the DAO/token as well and gain some of their stake back - there is no stopping that as well.
I hope you and your investors consider all this and think it through. This could be a pivotal moment where Banksocial makes it or not. @PresidentHODL@ascnd@BSL116@BanksocialInvestors@BeckyReed@Community@Retail
All the power and love as you say. Let’s put your words to action.
