Im going to say im not aware of a way to make what you are suggesting work… not from a numbers perspective - thats just negotiations. Im talking about from a compliance perspective.
Happy to look at the details you provide - what type of investment vehicle - what type of orgs and docs need to be drawn up?
Also - investigations by both the DAO and BankSocial have not currently uncovered any breach of BankSocial/Fivancial systems, still investigating.
Your comments make it seem like you have insight we dont - please submit any info you have that may help the investigation to [email protected]
It would also appear that you have changed your name several times on this platform and are not verified to stake or partake in token activities. Can you confirm your status in the DAO by going to the BankSocial app - getting verified and confirming your email and name match the email you are using on all DAO platforms?
This is a lot but Banksocial would need to engage compliance, legal to draft up docs- why the 50k up front to support that.
I would think the way legally to make it work is. DAO LLC has contract partnership between Banksocial/Fivancial and DAO. Existing token holders and any new holders that want partnership in the DAO and receive the benefits (profit sharing, etc) are required to be Veriified and are given a contract under the DAO as a member - the contract (possibly NFT in APP with small processing fee to cover dev/administrative cost) between the member and DAO serve as the legal agreement to participate, the token holder just gets you access to participate and get a contract under the DAO.
Please publish your policy to be veriifed within this platform. I am a holder am veriified and veriifed on the official voting site. I like to remain anonymity on here for discussions purposes as this is a public Internet facing forum.
Glad to here it is most likely not Banksocial systems but right now it seems to be impacting Banksocial members and funds that were in or had interactions with the BSL wallet. I have no further information but common sense tells me that is an issue somewhere and possibly could be your tech as that seems like the common item - if it is not Banksocial then is it Hedera protocol or another wallet if they were used or there was specific targeted campaign against BSL members which seems from previous acknowledge that isn’t the case here. Thank you.
I am very much in favor and strongly urge the BankSocial/Fivancial team to find a way for the DAO/Holders to be part owners in a compliant way. I see the value of it in attracting retail and corporate investors alike. It would help grow the BankSocial name and standing in the crypto and banking industry.
It would show what John has always been saying that BankSocial is for the people.
After all the bad press, this would show that it isn’t all empty words, that BankSocial walks the talk.
The percentage of ownership can be negotiated as well as the price, but a contract between the entities should be made ASAP and then the DAO buying in should be prioritized.
The DAO can also pay for the legal fees on its end.
I do see the problem of needing the all the DAO members/holders being known to be an owner of the company. I’m assuming that is a requirement, might be loopholes for that since there are anonymous owners/shell companies owning businesses here in the US
Yes - I think that would solve the compliance challenges. Members of the DAO opt-in contractly to the DAO. Maybe a way to do as a business opt-in as well, so either individual or business. I don’t think this is any different then for example real estate, art, alternate asset class crowdfunding. There would need to be engagement by legal, accounting, and compliance professionals to set it up correctly but I do not see that it can not be done if you are having members do a legal agreement as part of the DAO organization and the DAO owns the partnership of banksocial/fivancial. The DAO most likely will need to issue K-1s, etc as well. The App could be used to automate most of this and I think in the tradition of web3 why not use a NFT for the contract. A small administration fee and maintenance fee could be assessed to the members - maybe like $5-$10 for opt-in and then a small % taken out of profit distribution when that happens as annual administration cost (something like .025% or something to continue to pay for administration costs. In addition, at the time of profit sharing there would need to built out a way to disburse - probably quarterly or annually. I imagine code that is written for staking disbursement or NFT, etc can be used and rebuilt for that mechanism. I am not a lawyer or accountant or have setup something like this so I think engaging the right professionals to build out the structure and then banksocial team build out tech to support.
Just putting this here: “Web3 is about ownership.” Having the DAO and their members as part owner - is it not the very vision that John and Team has. Let’s make this happen.
Wait im confused, aren’t we the token holders owners of BankSocial? I thought its was the Defy CU and Fivancial that were separate entities.
I dont understand. Aren’t we the $BSL holders the owners of Banksocial?
My understanding is/was the Credit Union and stablecoin are different entities and that $BSL/ Banksocial provide credit union services. If im confused about what $BSL token actually is when ive watched and read 100s of hours of talks I don’t know what chance the average credit union member has.
But it does appear the business model needs changing.
I remember Max interviewing John and asking what would the $BSL price be with $100m collected for the DAO. Max said I know you, you would’ve worked it out. John laughed and said no actually I haven’t.
Well the answer it appears, is not much. The $100m is used to give loans, if we were to receive a 5% return on that its $5m pa divided by the $20b BSL tokens. Which basically is what the token price is now. To work out a token price on that you’d give it a multiple of say 5 to 10 depending on trust and growth factors.
But consider after all the heavy sales we’ve had over numerous years when confidence was high only amounted to what $1m and then we had half stolen. A multiple of 5 is extremely generous, it would be lucky to be 2 or 3. Nobody is going to care about service discounts which are pretty much fluff, the underlying business model needs to be favourable AND prove to be working, atm neither are.
So yes the business model must change
I don’t see why the stablecoin shouldn’t be owned by $BSL holders. Its our services that make it all possible. Without the CU services then no CU is getting onboard or using a stablecoin. There isn’t even any need for the Defy CU. Seems to me its $BSL creating the value for the stablecoin in the first place but have NO ownership or benefits from it. This alone would boost trust and perception of $BSL and give it a revenue stream that people can see value in.
The credit union fair enough being separate, its non profit after all and uses Banksocial services. To my mind at least the strength and size of Defy CU will be heavily determined by the success of the crypto services it brings which is reliant on the services of $BSL. The loss of trust in $BSL and its revenue model being confusing and questionable means growing services will be limited to say the least.
What we should be aiming at……
Is our own exchange, not some expensive third party addon. Give the size of the world wide CU membership space this would be an incredible opportunity. $BSL would have the potential to match some of the largest exchanges in the world.