Video recording of the meeting.
- A lot of issues with basic editing and word choice.
- Use "the corporate entity" in opening paragraph (industrial revolution).
- Likes the opening part of this. The pitch to investors may need to be fleshed out.
- Vague on value creation for shareholders.
- Make it clear: the smart contracts will be open source, but we're building enterprise solutions on top of them. What's the plan?
- We might not need to spell out the 51%. For example: Mark Zuckerberg owns the only voting shares at Meta, so he has control over the company.
- 51% is vague. What is it 51% of (common shares)?
- Safe implies investors will receive preferred shares down the line, which may screw up percentages.
- Typically 10% of common shares are reserved for options.
- #2 in the roadmap can be spelled out better. "We plan on an IPO in 8 years, capitalizing off of billion-dollar networks and a profitable SaaS business for billion-dollar clients."
- In context: mention ConstitutionDAO!
General feelings:
- I wouldn't want to pick this up not knowing about it. If this was a slide deck, you'd have the opportunity to explain what you've already created.
- It'll be easier if we switch to a mega-bull market.
- Juicebox already looks enticing. Take advantage of that. Past accomplishments speak.
- Revnets have a learning curve, but that's always the case with sophisticated tech. Concrete examples would help.
- We'll get questions on compliance. "Major players will work on that issue. This will be the backbone of tokenization." Could be used for e.g. a tokenized loan for a small business.
- We should emphasize that revnets can use other tokens. We need money to fund further development.
- Pitch the big vision: this will be the backbone of the tokenized economy. This research group is going to expand this.
- Too heavy! And there are things missing.
- Doesn't follow the standard "pitching format". Maybe we're too close to it.
- If we're pitching to anyone who isn't e.g. a16z, we need to explain what we're doing.
- What are funds going to be allocated towards? Put a rough breakdown. What's the money for?
- Add some type of financial projections.
What to (maybe) chop out:
- The revnet phase details are overwhelming. Maybe they should be moved to a followup.
- It's overly technical.
Other notes:
- Likes the overview and how it sets the stage.
- Revnets might be introduced too early. Maybe we should give more context on other models, and why revnets are the next step.
- Get to the point faster. Catch interest in the first few paragraphs, show them that it's huge.
Questions:
- Are we going to pitch this to someone who isn't already familiar with crypto?
- "Doubling down" on what?
- What are people getting? Any exposure to $REV?
"Bet" comes off as odd. Maybe antithetical to the revnet mechanism. Mechanism aside, it comes off poorly.
Rob notes: many of these investors are for some reason incapable of interacting with revnets onchain, and will rely on us to do that for them. That's the point of RRG. We may use a side fund for the corporation. If a company holds more than 40% of its assets in securities, this triggers the "40 Act" (The Investment Company Act of 1940). Maybe we should use some of the money to set up a fund with a mandate to invest in revnets.
- Make it clear what revnets can be. This can replace entire value chains.
- The revnet projects we have on deck are massive! It feels a little buried.
Jango notes: visuals would be nice. Examples and stories will be huge.
Kmac: "I don't see this group selling SaaS to Wall Street." What's the feature set? What are we actually developing here?
Rob: The point of throwing out SaaS is to give an idea of how profit might be generated. If you can't see it, let's make people see it. Put in quotes about Blackrock/Larry Fink: "tokenize everything". We've been in the space for a while, we have a proven track record, and we're going to make this accessible. It's more about having some plan in place. Another possibility is to say we'll license this or accumulate IP for the institutional revnets. And then hopefully we'll get bought out. Not married to SaaS, just a possibility.
Jango: If we were focusing on SaaS, it wouldn't happen soon and we'd definitely hire people to pull it off. It's interesting insofar as it increases revnet's access to capital.
Kmac: don't raise on something we won't do.
Jango: these are powerful things which benefit from network effects. People will like having the option to access them onchain, even if they don't all necessarily use those features.
Kmac: phase one is revnets. Phase two depends on regulatory status – if confident, we can go for mass-market. If not, we can stay in crypto which may still be huge. Phase three: all onchain, fund of funds.
Rob: we have credibility and a huge network that's already in place. We need something to show how we're striving to be profitable. Maybe we issue some kind of token. We'll come with a safe and a token warrant.
Jango: we're underestimating revnet.app. This is our stripe.com. Huge frontend brand, lots of leverage. Websites need borders, this will be our IP.
Rob: we need to trademark the website and be able to send cease and desists.
Jango/Filip: If we can get to $10b TVL, value will accrue to the frontend and relationships we've built along the way.
Kmac: This is what we need. Give us the financial story!
Filip: we should re-structure the pitch.
Rob: Before we get to an IPO in 8 years, we should say we'll do a series A round in 2 years. Flesh out milestones and direction.
Kmac: is IPO even an outcome?
Jango: I don't know. The eventual outcome is to cash out of all token positions, which leaves those networks stronger. You get the money in return, and you can pay people back (or do e.g. buybacks). Along the way, it's about the tools, the education, the documentation, etc. Optimistically, cashing out won't even matter because the market will be trading at some multiple of the cash-out value.
Rob: there are alternative structures we can consider. If we were to do a fund, it would be structured differently. 40 act is a pain and we don't want to deal with it. We need to figure out the proper structure for our goal.
Jango: How would we treat revnet.app and the product/marketing staff in the "fund" world?
Rob: what happens if we get an enforcement action? Like what happened to MetaMask and Uniswap. In those scenarios, it's better to have a small LLC-like structure. SaaS and institutional orientation are much safer.
Jango: Do our best to build it until something stops us, then find a way to exit out. If that comes early, we can focus on productising.
Rob: brought up emergency decentralization, like what Lido did.
Kmac: sounds like a C-corp. IP, software, etc.
Filip: $10b is 2.5% of the entire market cap of ETH. It's not entirely unprecedented, but has only been done by the likes of Gnosis Safe, Lido.
Jango: This realistically works if ETH grows. We can be a reason why ETH grows. These networks will compound the effects of each other's success.
Kmac: This is weak in the document right now! The networked-treasury model is strong, and played out in Juicebox.
Jango: Open composable unstoppable code -> open composable unstoppable accounting. Tell story from Banny.
Bannyverse
If you’re confused by any of the above, fear not. A dead simple way to interact with these new ideas is to peruse the Bannyverse - a project on the protocol that sells naked banny NFTs and outfits, on any chain you'd like to buy them from.
If you're curious, you'll then come to learn the revenue from each Bannyverse NFT mint goes to the $BANNY revnet, meaning you get $BANNY each time you make a purchase.
Going a little further, you'll find that by redeeming your $BANNY right away, you'll get some of your money back. If you wait for the Bannyverse to continue growing before redeeming, you can get more.
If you're still curious, you may find that when you redeemed your $BANNY to retrieve some of the Bannyverse network's revenue, a 2.5% fee was paid to project #1, issuing you $NANA in return according to the Bananapus revnet’s rules.
The bravest of the brave will dig one last level deeper and return face-to-face with $JBX, the JuiceboxDAO governing body whose $NANA holdings will increase in redemption value as the $NANA network grows.
Kmac: is the protocol going to be open, or are we going to put a license on it?
Jango: I don't know. Maybe the protocol works the same way, but the frontend is more measured in its approach. It's a liability to own a domain on an account somewhere. Unless we do it purely on .eth.sucks. Philosophically, everything should be open but we just win. If there are small things we can do to prevent things like the ENS situation, we should do them.
Kmac: BSL still follows the open-source ethos. Just a timebox.
Jango: let's have this done within two or three weeks. Make it ready for deployments. But we can wait for the market if we need to.