6 ms·

3 really depends on the rights of the token. It’s not exactly without precedent, take the Green Bay Packers it’s the sole NFL team not owned by private billion

3 really depends on the rights of the token. It’s not exactly without precedent, take the Green Bay Packers it’s the sole NFL team not owned by private billionaires, in fact it doesn’t have any owners. Nearly every 10 years they raise funds through a “public offering” of “stock” amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. Every time they obtain a no-action letter from the SEC. Packers “stock” is not stock in the common sense of the word as it doesn’t convey ownership, again there are no owners of the team (despite people often incorrectly saying the city owns the team). But Packers stock does give holders the right to vote/elect a certain number of directors to the board. Lots of DAO tokens are structured this way, where holders are given voting rights but not ownership rights. There are numerous other examples including other sports related examples. Perhaps the best part of the Green Bay Packers is that the reason they only publicly offer “stock” every 10 years or so, is they have to obtain permission from the NFL and the NFL’s official position is that the NFL must restrict the Packers public offerings because it is a “competitive advantage” over every other team backed by billionaires.

VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
Nearly everything you said here is completely false. > But Packers stock does give holders the right to vote/elect a certain number of directors to the board. The toy stock certificates they give out to the fans that buy them have no voting rights whatsoever. Or any kind of rights at all. It's basically just some packers memorabilia. > Nearly every 10 years they raise funds through a “public offering” of “stock” amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. what on earth. they do not raise "hundreds of millions of dollars".
- PretzelPirate 5y ago
  From https://www.newsweek.com/green-bay-packers-ready-sell-stock-offering-team-first-time-almost-decade-1649561?amp=1 https://www.newsweek.com/green-bay-packers-ready-sell-stock-... > Shareholders don't receive any power in the organization aside from an invitation to an annual shareholder's meeting with voting rights to issues decided at the meeting. The stock also pays no dividends to shareholders.
  - VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
    Oh ok so they apparently do give them some kind of a little play vote at their yearly "shareholder" fanfest at lambeau field once a year. This thing is like buying a Packers jacket and trying to say you own some of the team...
    - xxpor 5y ago
      That's no different than any other common stock you can buy
    - chipotle_coyote 5y ago
      I'm pretty sure that the Green Bay Packers are in fact a publicly-owned non-profit corporation. A share in the Packers is not the same as a share of common (or preferred) stock, but it is a share in ownership that actually matters. It's very easy to prove this: the Packers have remained in the smallest market in all of North American major professional sports for over a century. They stay there because all those "little play votes" matter.
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  I’ve worked with the SEC on these matters, where do you get your information? Here is the Packers 2012 Public Offering Document: https://shareholder.broadridge.com/pdf/gbp/offering_document_with_canadian_wrap.pdf https://shareholder.broadridge.com/pdf/gbp/offering_document... see page 7 for the voting rights > On each matter submitted to a vote of the shareholders of the Corporation, the holders of outstanding shares of Common Stock are entitled to one vote per share. Among other things, shareholders vote annually to elect members of the Corporation’s Board of Directors. In terms of the amount the public offering document includes the price $250 per stock and the range 250,000-888,000 shares. These offerings historically sell out in minutes. I could pull the most recent SEC no action letter to confirm the amounts sold, but I don’t think it’s necessary at this point.
  - VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
    I'm well aware of what this is and your description of it is quite overblown.
    - throwawaycities 5y ago
      You went from calling everything I said “completely false” and going off on how there are no voting rights, to admitting you are fully aware of the Packers Public Offering Document but that my description is “overblown”. The public offering document speaks for itself and I quoted it, so what’s overblown about the description? If you think it’s fraudulent launch your complaint with the SEC instead of arguing on HN about it and prove your intellectual superiority.
    - fivea 5y ago
      > I'm well aware of what this is and your description of it is quite overblown. Your comments could have some credibility if you provided any information or made any point. Unfortunately you're instead saying nothing and just adding noise to an otherwise interesting discussion.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - 5y ago
- gbear605 5y ago
  Their website [0] seems to disagree with you. They’re currently selling stocks for $300 each and have sold a total of 5,000,000 in the past, suggesting a total raised on $1.5 billion overall. Obviously that’d be in today-dollars, but the current sale has already raised $41 million in the last week or so [1], so the number seems in the right order of magnitude. Certainly having raised “hundreds of millions of dollars” sounds right though I haven’t been able to find reliable sources for the previous stock offerings to confirm. The official stock website [2] also says the following about the voting rights. “Q: How many votes will I receive for purchasing Common Stock? A: You will have one vote for each share of Common Stock you purchase.” I’m not sure what those votes actually count for, but they at least exist. [0]: https://www.packers.com/community/shareholders https://www.packers.com/community/shareholders [1]: https://www.nbc15.com/2021/11/25/packers-stock-sale-nets-more-than-41-million-8-days/ https://www.nbc15.com/2021/11/25/packers-stock-sale-nets-mor... [2]: https://packersstock.com/faq https://packersstock.com/faq
  - thesausageking 5y ago
    hrm. Reread the website and I think you'll find it's very much not stock in the normal sense of the word. And they're very clear that you can't make a profit from it (you can't even sell it) and it doesn't given any ownership: >Common stock does not constitute an investment in “stock” in the common sense of the term. Purchasers should not purchase common stock with the purpose of making a profit. > You cannot sell, assign or otherwise transfer shares of Common Stock to a third party, except that you may transfer shares to an “immediate family” member by gift or in the event of death. “Immediate family” is defined as the spouse, children, mother, father, brothers, sisters, or any lineal descendent of a shareholder.
    - gbear605 5y ago
      I agree that it’s not stock in the traditional sense, but neither of the people in the chain above me seemed to think so. Just because it’s not-for-profit doesn’t mean that it can’t sell for a lot (people buy team merch for a lot more) and the vote seems to mean something even if not much.
  - deleted 5y ago
reginold 5y ago
Sounds like you know what you're talking about. What do you think of this idea of a DAO from a legal perspective? Are there any DAO models in particular you find attractive?
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  It’s an area of law in its infancy. A few states, Delaware and Wyoming, have laws permitting corporate and LLC records to be kept on blockchain. I think I was probably the first attorney to file Articles of Organization for an LLC in Delaware that incorporated Ethereum smart contract addresses. More recently Wyoming passed a law creating a “DAO LLC” which is pretty novel and allows “algorithmic management” of the LLC. The only entity I am aware of that has used it is CityDAO LLC, you can look them up and review their Articles on the Wyoming Secretary of State website. I’m not overly familiar with them but understand they are experimenting with owning a parcel of land. Hypothetically say there were a DAO that got sued, without a legal entity it is a very real legal risk all participants of the DAO could be jointly and severally liable (which could include personal liability above beyond the DAO funds). Legally the concept of a DAO LLC is giant, because it creates a legal mechanism to shield participants of a DAO from personal liability. I have a trademark application from March that has been approved by the USPTO examining attorney and been published (~10 more days left of publication), then I will set up a Wyoming DAO LLC and assign the DAO the trademark (I think it will be the first registered trademark owed by a DAO). It’s very simple, minimal risk of liability (unlike property) and I think will provide a solid legal framework moving forward (almost like an anti-troll mechanism for IP). It’s a real problem in the space, just as an example there have been bad-faith actors filing trademark applications for Doge and Dogecoin, which if left unchecked could lead to all sorts of legal problems.
  - reginold 5y ago
    Damn this post is solid. Even if I don't really get it, I can tell you do. My takeaway is that what makes DAO LLC unique is that it allows for "algorithmic management". I'm familiar with LLC management, where there are owners, wondering what advantage the algorithmic aspect adds. I'll go read up on CityDAO. Congrats on the upcoming project)!
netcan 5y ago
If you're describing an equity structure, you're unpacking the definition of the word "ownership." Saying "the city owns it" or "no one owns it" is just a naming thing. Ownership is just a bunch of rights. In any case, why not securitize a sports team?
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  As it relates to the Packers, like any non-profit, I’m describing a legal structure with a lack of equity. Typically I wouldn’t use the words owners/ownership and just say non-profits don’t have shareholders, but the Packers happen to be the exception that proves the rule as they are a non-profit with stock. So it does have “shareholders” but unlike the commonly accepted use of “stock” and “shareholders” there are zero ownership rights, just governance/voting rights. If this DAO did give its members ownership rights, then obviously it would be a security and their raise would be a regulated public offering, unless it met an exemption. That is an idea baked into my original comment, where I simply say “maybe” as to 3 and it is dependent on the rights the DAO conveys. As to why not securitize a sports team, that would be great and a DAO would be a potential vehicle for that, but a DAO wouldn’t be needed either. From a practical point of view, the reason we don’t see billionaire owners IPOing their team and reaping the financial windfall of an IPO is because the NFL, NBA, MLB don’t allow it. The leagues maintain very tight controls on who may own teams. For example a few years back there was a owner of a major - billion dollar plus - team that made some racially charged statements to the media and the league forced the owner to sell the team. Again the NFL even controls when the Packers can raise funds by issuing stock. Nothing prevents the leagues from changing their policy, but historically the leagues don’t like giving up control.

VWWHFSfQ 5y ago

Nearly everything you said here is completely false. > But Packers stock does give holders the right to vote/elect a certain number of directors to the board. The toy stock certificates they give out to the fans that buy them have no voting rights whatsoever. Or any kind of rights at all. It's basically just some packers memorabilia. > Nearly every 10 years they raise funds through a “public offering” of “stock” amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. what on earth. they do not raise "hundreds of millions of dollars".

PretzelPirate 5y ago
From https://www.newsweek.com/green-bay-packers-ready-sell-stock-offering-team-first-time-almost-decade-1649561?amp=1 https://www.newsweek.com/green-bay-packers-ready-sell-stock-... > Shareholders don't receive any power in the organization aside from an invitation to an annual shareholder's meeting with voting rights to issues decided at the meeting. The stock also pays no dividends to shareholders.
- VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
  Oh ok so they apparently do give them some kind of a little play vote at their yearly "shareholder" fanfest at lambeau field once a year. This thing is like buying a Packers jacket and trying to say you own some of the team...
  - xxpor 5y ago
    That's no different than any other common stock you can buy
  - chipotle_coyote 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure that the Green Bay Packers are in fact a publicly-owned non-profit corporation. A share in the Packers is not the same as a share of common (or preferred) stock, but it is a share in ownership that actually matters. It's very easy to prove this: the Packers have remained in the smallest market in all of North American major professional sports for over a century. They stay there because all those "little play votes" matter.
throwawaycities 5y ago
I’ve worked with the SEC on these matters, where do you get your information? Here is the Packers 2012 Public Offering Document: https://shareholder.broadridge.com/pdf/gbp/offering_document_with_canadian_wrap.pdf https://shareholder.broadridge.com/pdf/gbp/offering_document... see page 7 for the voting rights > On each matter submitted to a vote of the shareholders of the Corporation, the holders of outstanding shares of Common Stock are entitled to one vote per share. Among other things, shareholders vote annually to elect members of the Corporation’s Board of Directors. In terms of the amount the public offering document includes the price $250 per stock and the range 250,000-888,000 shares. These offerings historically sell out in minutes. I could pull the most recent SEC no action letter to confirm the amounts sold, but I don’t think it’s necessary at this point.
- VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
  I'm well aware of what this is and your description of it is quite overblown.
  - throwawaycities 5y ago
    You went from calling everything I said “completely false” and going off on how there are no voting rights, to admitting you are fully aware of the Packers Public Offering Document but that my description is “overblown”. The public offering document speaks for itself and I quoted it, so what’s overblown about the description? If you think it’s fraudulent launch your complaint with the SEC instead of arguing on HN about it and prove your intellectual superiority.
  - fivea 5y ago
    > I'm well aware of what this is and your description of it is quite overblown. Your comments could have some credibility if you provided any information or made any point. Unfortunately you're instead saying nothing and just adding noise to an otherwise interesting discussion.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 5y ago
gbear605 5y ago
Their website [0] seems to disagree with you. They’re currently selling stocks for $300 each and have sold a total of 5,000,000 in the past, suggesting a total raised on $1.5 billion overall. Obviously that’d be in today-dollars, but the current sale has already raised $41 million in the last week or so [1], so the number seems in the right order of magnitude. Certainly having raised “hundreds of millions of dollars” sounds right though I haven’t been able to find reliable sources for the previous stock offerings to confirm. The official stock website [2] also says the following about the voting rights. “Q: How many votes will I receive for purchasing Common Stock? A: You will have one vote for each share of Common Stock you purchase.” I’m not sure what those votes actually count for, but they at least exist. [0]: https://www.packers.com/community/shareholders https://www.packers.com/community/shareholders [1]: https://www.nbc15.com/2021/11/25/packers-stock-sale-nets-more-than-41-million-8-days/ https://www.nbc15.com/2021/11/25/packers-stock-sale-nets-mor... [2]: https://packersstock.com/faq https://packersstock.com/faq
- thesausageking 5y ago
  hrm. Reread the website and I think you'll find it's very much not stock in the normal sense of the word. And they're very clear that you can't make a profit from it (you can't even sell it) and it doesn't given any ownership: >Common stock does not constitute an investment in “stock” in the common sense of the term. Purchasers should not purchase common stock with the purpose of making a profit. > You cannot sell, assign or otherwise transfer shares of Common Stock to a third party, except that you may transfer shares to an “immediate family” member by gift or in the event of death. “Immediate family” is defined as the spouse, children, mother, father, brothers, sisters, or any lineal descendent of a shareholder.
  - gbear605 5y ago
    I agree that it’s not stock in the traditional sense, but neither of the people in the chain above me seemed to think so. Just because it’s not-for-profit doesn’t mean that it can’t sell for a lot (people buy team merch for a lot more) and the vote seems to mean something even if not much.
- deleted 5y ago

reginold 5y ago

Sounds like you know what you're talking about. What do you think of this idea of a DAO from a legal perspective? Are there any DAO models in particular you find attractive?

throwawaycities 5y ago
It’s an area of law in its infancy. A few states, Delaware and Wyoming, have laws permitting corporate and LLC records to be kept on blockchain. I think I was probably the first attorney to file Articles of Organization for an LLC in Delaware that incorporated Ethereum smart contract addresses. More recently Wyoming passed a law creating a “DAO LLC” which is pretty novel and allows “algorithmic management” of the LLC. The only entity I am aware of that has used it is CityDAO LLC, you can look them up and review their Articles on the Wyoming Secretary of State website. I’m not overly familiar with them but understand they are experimenting with owning a parcel of land. Hypothetically say there were a DAO that got sued, without a legal entity it is a very real legal risk all participants of the DAO could be jointly and severally liable (which could include personal liability above beyond the DAO funds). Legally the concept of a DAO LLC is giant, because it creates a legal mechanism to shield participants of a DAO from personal liability. I have a trademark application from March that has been approved by the USPTO examining attorney and been published (~10 more days left of publication), then I will set up a Wyoming DAO LLC and assign the DAO the trademark (I think it will be the first registered trademark owed by a DAO). It’s very simple, minimal risk of liability (unlike property) and I think will provide a solid legal framework moving forward (almost like an anti-troll mechanism for IP). It’s a real problem in the space, just as an example there have been bad-faith actors filing trademark applications for Doge and Dogecoin, which if left unchecked could lead to all sorts of legal problems.
- reginold 5y ago
  Damn this post is solid. Even if I don't really get it, I can tell you do. My takeaway is that what makes DAO LLC unique is that it allows for "algorithmic management". I'm familiar with LLC management, where there are owners, wondering what advantage the algorithmic aspect adds. I'll go read up on CityDAO. Congrats on the upcoming project)!

netcan 5y ago

If you're describing an equity structure, you're unpacking the definition of the word "ownership." Saying "the city owns it" or "no one owns it" is just a naming thing. Ownership is just a bunch of rights. In any case, why not securitize a sports team?

throwawaycities 5y ago
As it relates to the Packers, like any non-profit, I’m describing a legal structure with a lack of equity. Typically I wouldn’t use the words owners/ownership and just say non-profits don’t have shareholders, but the Packers happen to be the exception that proves the rule as they are a non-profit with stock. So it does have “shareholders” but unlike the commonly accepted use of “stock” and “shareholders” there are zero ownership rights, just governance/voting rights. If this DAO did give its members ownership rights, then obviously it would be a security and their raise would be a regulated public offering, unless it met an exemption. That is an idea baked into my original comment, where I simply say “maybe” as to 3 and it is dependent on the rights the DAO conveys. As to why not securitize a sports team, that would be great and a DAO would be a potential vehicle for that, but a DAO wouldn’t be needed either. From a practical point of view, the reason we don’t see billionaire owners IPOing their team and reaping the financial windfall of an IPO is because the NFL, NBA, MLB don’t allow it. The leagues maintain very tight controls on who may own teams. For example a few years back there was a owner of a major - billion dollar plus - team that made some racially charged statements to the media and the league forced the owner to sell the team. Again the NFL even controls when the Packers can raise funds by issuing stock. Nothing prevents the leagues from changing their policy, but historically the leagues don’t like giving up control.