5 ms·

There is no single operator. The company is decentralised with each director having the same vote. Even if an insider started embezzling funds, we would be able

There is no single operator. The company is decentralised with each director having the same vote. Even if an insider started embezzling funds, we would be able to see it based on the absense of proof of profit on the blockchain. Since each person can verify the profits on-chain independently, it would raise raise flags if the amount if profits did not correspond to the expected amount of profits based on the assets which the business claims to have. All assets are disclosed publicly.

qeternity 5y ago
I understand how you think the world works. I’m saying that it doesn’t work that way. You can verify what you _think_ the profits are. What I’m saying is that you’re verifying something that isn’t relevant. Do you think there aren’t sophisticated accounting systems, auditors, banking checks, etc to accomplish what you describe? And yet people will always find a way with enough incentive.
- redpiller 5y ago
  The buybacks can only be done with real money. This is not an opinion, it's a hard fact since buybacks are done on the open market. Sure, the directors who handle finance could fake profit by taking on debt and using it to buyback the token to drive up the price artificially... But there is no incentive for someone to commit such crime since the buybacks benefit the whole community and not specifically the attacker. Also, the community can see if a director is selling their tokens (since it's all on the blockchain and the director's wallet is known). A director could potentially do something elaborate like buy a lot of tokens at a low price anonymously, then take a bank loan and use it to pump up the price through fake buybacks then dump for a higher price some years later hoping that they don't get caught by their bank in the meantime for misusing the credit... But then why would they use our blockchain and jeopardize the value of their own large director's stake (from their main wallet) with such scheme? Why not use a random token not affiliated with them and which has lower volume where this scheme would have more effect on price and where the attacker has nothing at stake? No matter which way you look at it, this is a huge transparency improvement over shares.

qeternity 5y ago

I understand how you think the world works. I’m saying that it doesn’t work that way. You can verify what you _think_ the profits are. What I’m saying is that you’re verifying something that isn’t relevant. Do you think there aren’t sophisticated accounting systems, auditors, banking checks, etc to accomplish what you describe? And yet people will always find a way with enough incentive.

redpiller 5y ago
The buybacks can only be done with real money. This is not an opinion, it's a hard fact since buybacks are done on the open market. Sure, the directors who handle finance could fake profit by taking on debt and using it to buyback the token to drive up the price artificially... But there is no incentive for someone to commit such crime since the buybacks benefit the whole community and not specifically the attacker. Also, the community can see if a director is selling their tokens (since it's all on the blockchain and the director's wallet is known). A director could potentially do something elaborate like buy a lot of tokens at a low price anonymously, then take a bank loan and use it to pump up the price through fake buybacks then dump for a higher price some years later hoping that they don't get caught by their bank in the meantime for misusing the credit... But then why would they use our blockchain and jeopardize the value of their own large director's stake (from their main wallet) with such scheme? Why not use a random token not affiliated with them and which has lower volume where this scheme would have more effect on price and where the attacker has nothing at stake? No matter which way you look at it, this is a huge transparency improvement over shares.