Draft: Code of Practice for Issuing Assets

iKnow0

@rnahlawi What % would you think is reasonable?

Zeus

Great @iKnow0 , what about "Have a clear idea of what the asset is and how they will earn revenue" ( or is that the same as the point 1? )

rnahlawi

@iKnow0 Its up to the issuer and how much confidence he wants to gather from investors. The more assurance of money back, the more people will invest.

gpedro

@iKnow0 said in Draft: Code of Practice for Issuing Assets:

Provide proof of life of the asset at each dividend payment.

I don't understand this point, can you explain what you mean by proof of life? The issuer be paying a dividend don't proof his life? lol

Provide an escrow fund for a reasonable percentage of the asset in case the asset is unsuccessful.

This i think it should be optional as it is so far... Escrow funds was not adopted that much so far and makes people in poor countries to only be able to create really small assets and that can discourage investors by being a so small asset... So my vote goes to keep it in the list but add "(optional)" in front of it ;D

Thumbs up for the initiative! With all the rest of the points i totally agree ;D
@nameless give this man a cookie please xP

RichBC

@iKnow0 I wish I had released an Asset, because I could then point at it as an example of how it should be done. I have in the past attempted to question and criticise some Asset releases, but usually with a big kickback from the Asset issuer telling me to mind my own business. Unfortunately a lot of issuers seem very happy to release with very little or no information, and often no Asset and even more unfortunately Buyers seem happy to buy.

Let's get this out of the way first. I think that they should be over a certain age (18, 21?) Not because Age ought to be a barrier, but just because we should not be seen to be allowing a minor to take on board the responsibilities and pressure necessary to successfully manage an Asset through good and bad times.
There should actually be an asset, with some sort of backup to that, documentation or photographs. People are still releasing Assets where the Asset sale is being used as the initial funding.
There should be a clear path laid out for the Asset with growth plans, likely returns and plans for if the Asset become nonviable at some point.
And for me this is in some ways more important than all of the above and should be mandatory. There should be a short biography detailing knowledge and experience that qualifies the person to responsibly release and manage the Asset.
You should only be allowed an Asset Promotion and Progress thread if you first put up a Pre-Release thread, with no Asset ID raised or Listed. There should then be a period of time during which questions should be asked and answers given.

After that if all is well then an Asset Release thread should be allowed. Who decides this I am uncertain? Perhaps current Asset issuers could have a vote?

If they can' be bothered to do the above, then Tough....

Rich

iKnow0

@gpedro

Re:Proof of life,
A screen shot of funds in trading accounts,
A photo of a miner with a time reference ( some newspaper )
The idea being that the investor is (sure/fairly sure) what they are investing in is real and that they are not investing in a ponzi scheme.

Re: Escrow, reasonable would be asset specific. No reason why they cant start small and put a portion of profits towards the escrow until it reaches a certain percentage. The point being the more the asset issuer is looking for the more that should be put towards escrow.

The goal of the code of practice is clarity and transparency for the investor, no system is perfect but the more transparency the better for investors and Burst in the long run. It's better to have some form of standard as to have no standard at all.

gpedro

@iKnow0 I agree with that, and i now see what you mean by proof of life and i agree too... Although regarding the escrow i still vote for it to be optional and not mandatory even if i prefer to invest in assets with an escrow ofc, but let's see what others have to say and made the decision as the communitty we are ;D

iKnow0

@RichBC said in Draft: Code of Practice for Issuing Assets:

@iKnow0 I wish I had released an Asset, because I could then point at it as an example of how it

should be done. I have in the past attempted to question and criticise some Asset releases, but usually

with a big kickback from the Asset issuer telling me to mind my own business. Unfortunately a lot of

issuers seem very happy to release with very little or no information, and often no Asset and even more

unfortunately Buyers seem happy to buy.

There should actually be an asset, with some sort of backup to that, documentation or photographs.

People are still releasing Assets where the Asset sale is being used as the initial funding.

There should be a clear path laid out for the Asset with growth plans, likely returns and plans for

if the Asset become nonviable at some point.

And for me this is in some ways more important than all of the above and should be mandatory. There

should be a short biography detailing knowledge and experience that qualifies the person to responsibly

release and manage the Asset.
@RichBC said in Draft: Code of Practice for Issuing Assets:

@iKnow0 I wish I had released an Asset, because I could then point at it as an example of how it

should be done. I have in the past attempted to question and criticise some Asset releases, but usually

with a big kickback from the Asset issuer telling me to mind my own business. Unfortunately a lot of

issuers seem very happy to release with very little or no information, and often no Asset and even more

unfortunately Buyers seem happy to buy.

There should actually be an asset, with some sort of backup to that, documentation or photographs.
People are still releasing Assets where the Asset sale is being used as the initial funding.

There should be a clear path laid out for the Asset with growth plans, likely returns and plans for
if the Asset become nonviable at some point.

And for me this is in some ways more important than all of the above and should be mandatory. There should be a short biography detailing knowledge and experience that qualifies the person to responsibly release and manage the Asset.

You should only be allowed an Asset Promotion and Progress thread if you first put up a Pre-Release thread, with no Asset ID raised or Listed. There should then be a period of time during which questions should be asked and answers given.

Rich

In an ideal world I would agree 100%, so lets see if we can find some sort of compromise.

Re: 1) Let's get this out of the way first. I think that they should be over a certain age (18, 21?)
Not because Age ought to be a barrier, but just because we should not be seen to be allowing a minor to take on board the responsibilities and pressure necessary to successfully manage an Asset through good and bad times.

They will already be revealing their age, so it would be up to the individual investor to invest or not
given the age of the asset issuer. If we were to impose an age restriction by which culture should we
judge it and why?

Re: 2. There should actually be an asset, with some sort of backup to that, documentation or photographs. People are still releasing Assets where the Asset sale is being used as the initial
funding.

I agree sort of, How about "The asset issuer should show proof of what they themselves are putting
towards the asset, be it funds, hardware or other."

Re: 3 There should be a clear path laid out for the Asset with growth plans, likely returns and plans for if the Asset become nonviable at some point.

There are two concerns here "Growth plans" and "Exit Strategy" I agree both should be provided as it
shows planning and business acumen.

"Provide an asset plan as to how they see the asset will grow over time in value"
"Provide an "Exit Strategy" should the asset become nonviable."

Re: 4 And for me this is in some ways more important than all of the above and should be mandatory.
There should be a short biography detailing knowledge and experience that qualifies the person to responsibly release and manage the Asset.

I agree "Asset issuers should declare in detail relevant experience that qualifies them to responsibly
release and manage the Asset".

Re: 5 "You should only be allowed an Asset Promotion and Progress thread if you first put up a Pre-
Release thread, with no Asset ID raised or Listed. There should then be a period of time during which
questions should be asked and answers given."

I agree "Asset issuers should pre-announce an asset one month before releasing the asset" this will give time to investors to ask questions and to raise funds for the initial share offering. Asset issuers will
also benefit in that feedback from the investors may highlight unseen pitfalls or unexplored pportunities.

LithStud

@RichBC hmmm you can scrutinize my asset ;) i welcome comments/questions as long they are productive :D

gpedro

@iKnow0 said in Draft: Code of Practice for Issuing Assets:

Asset issuers should pre-announce an asset one month before releasing the asset

I think 1 month is too much, and would go for 2 weeks but if others prefer 1 month, it's something i can live with it ;P

dvndr007

assets live proof like pictures and video etc should be added to check anytime whats going on, id verification should be done by live communication with isuuer and whole record should kept in safe hands of some clear history legit trustworthy person.

darindarin

@iKnow0 i think you are definitely onto something here..couple points i would like to add..

entire policy should be an option.. once one big asset does it everyone will compare new assets to that. It is a strong selling point for any new issuer.. if issuer cannot be bothered with some sort of template they will lose interest and sales easily. It should definitely be considered by serious issuers
simplify it to a small amount of points to complete policy template..then it could have a cool name like the 8 pillars of trust or something.. if its too many it will be harder to track and will take longer to complete and become adopted.
country isnt needed. .. people are biased for starters and many other points to not want this.. if they are also verified by haitch he has their info.
age same as country. maybe haitch considers small revisions to his seal if he feels any are needed.
time frame for said pre-releases forum sections ( i am unclear if this was your idea and too tired to read back atm) etc. - 2 weeks very short time frame to release anything worth taking seriously. As a miner i find it grueling to stay updated and read the asset forum sections. descriptions are long old an full of payment screenshots and always changing.. I think 2 weeks can upset some whales who want to get in early. Sometimes I take two weeks before checking email.
```
   5a) I think with any crypto we can easily lose perception that the most active forum readers cannot be the entire market or it will fail. in any industry 99 percent of the market place doesnt use facebook to buy their products or be persuaded by a saavy marketing agent.. what i mean is that even if it is only marketed here i think 2 weeks is short and once you get into the swing of things it is easy to ignore any forum for a week or two. I would vote 1 month.
```

Disclaimer

The man may keep me down but my opinions are my own and I have not been persuaded by any entity person or framework.

iKnow0

@dvndr007 Covered in 8 & 6 respectively.

iKnow0

@gpedro The reasons for one month are the following
Forum members can be away for weeks at a time.
It gives investors time to raise funds.
It gives investors time to carefully investigate the asset proposal.
It gives investors time to carefully investigate the asset issuer.
It will allow time to build hype for the asset.
It gives investors time to ask questions and for the asset issuer to respond.

darindarin

@iKnow0 sorry i didnt see you already were leaning 1 month i saw 2 weeks somewhere its all becoming a blurr.. need sleep

iKnow0

@darindarin said in Draft: Code of Practice for Issuing Assets:

@iKnow0 i think you are definitely onto something here..couple points i would like to add..
entire policy should be an option.. once one big asset does it everyone will compare new assets to that. It is a strong selling point for any new issuer.. if issuer cannot be bothered with some sort of template they will lose interest and sales easily. It should definitely be considered by serious issuers

simplify it to a small amount of points to complete policy template..then it could have a cool name like the 8 pillars of trust or something.. if its too many it will be harder to track and will take longer to complete and become adopted.

country isnt needed. .. people are biased for starters and many other points to not want this.. if they are also verified by haitch he has their info.

age same as country. maybe haitch considers small revisions to his seal if he feels any are needed.
time frame for said pre-releases forum sections ( i am unclear if this was your idea and too tired to read back atm) etc. - 2 weeks very short time frame to release anything worth taking seriously. As a miner i find it grueling to stay updated and read the asset forum sections. descriptions are long old an full of payment screenshots and always changing.. I think 2 weeks can upset some whales who want to get in early. Sometimes I take two weeks before checking email.
   5a) I think with any crypto we can easily lose perception that the most active forum readers cannot be the entire market or it will fail. in any industry 99 percent of the market place doesnt use facebook to buy their products or be persuaded by a saavy marketing agent.. what i mean is that even if it is only marketed here i think 2 weeks is short and once you get into the swing of things it is easy to ignore any forum for a week or two. I would vote 1 month.
Disclaimer

The man may keep me down but my opinions are my own and I have not been persuaded by any entity person or framework.

Re: 1, My thinking is that there will be two asset categories, those adopting the "Code of Practice" and those that do not. By defining a standard we set an achievable goal for asset issuers. Those that achieve it will be held in higher regard by investors and less so by scammers.

Re: 2. Simplify... If it is made too simple then it loses its value.

Re: 3. Country requirement gone.

Re: 4. I think this is important, investors need to know this. Being young should not stop one from issuing an asset, however transparency and honesty is. If a young person can comply with all of the other requirements then it shows maturity beyond their years and even I would be willing to invest.

Re: 5. I agree, one month seems reasonable as most here are part-time crypto.

Thanks for your feedback.

RichBC

@iKnow0 I am uncertain about the Month before the Asset can be formally released? Although I agree with the logic 1 Month is a very long time in Crypto. Suppose I have a brilliant idea for an Asset and have it fully formed and ready for release.

If I then post details of the Asset it gives others a Month to come up with a similar or competing idea and release on BN where the approval process can be completed in a Day.

I think we should consider 1 Week max otherwise everything will just be released over on BN.

Rich

iKnow0

@RichBC Good point, i had not considered that. A week it is then.

Gadrah_

I think the escrow fund should be optional as stated above (but still recommended).

One thing to add maybe is that the issuer should regularly update the OP with every change, news, or relevant information that happens after the release. I see quite a lot of assets that have information that is not always up to date in the OP, and new investors can be mislead when there are 10+ pages in the thread, "hiding" important updates. Maybe provide a changelog at the bottom of the original post or something like that.

iKnow0

@Gadrah_ Change log, i like this one a time saver too. :-)

Merci Bien