Corporate Matters Category

I was wondering if the group would consider a new category called ‘Corporate Matters’ where topics like the strategy/Marketing and New Fundraising could be grouped under. I have at least another corporate matter to raise.


I think the term ‘Corporate Matters’ is not that specific.

There’s the term ‘Corporate Identity’, referring to the combo of vision, mission, strategy, culture.

And then there are of course terms for the financial kpi’s etc.

What’s the issue you want to discuss?

1 Like

Thanks both for starting the dialogue around that.

Probably, we need to discuss when the investors can speak to the management (only once a year through closed annual shareholder meeting? or more frequently) - i would say more frequently.

In those meetings, what would the structure be like - are we gonna discuss the results and then move on to Q&A? i would prefer for us to have one separate session to discuss strategy, one session to brainstorm marketing and one day to talk about past finances / look at forward guidance.

It’s all great to write about ideas and proposals here - but we need to get buy in - we need for the management to look at these and reply to these. Not happening at the moment / doubt it will happen in the future.

This is why i would rather discuss those formally in the meeting or send those formally to the management. Don’t want to be seen as FUDing here or causing panic. There are some stuff you might want to bring up privately rather than here.

1 Like

All good points. To break it down, I would propose as a first port of call Corporate Identity, Financial Performance and Monetisation Strategy.

I suggested to marketing to invite the X most active members of the DAO (and Seedr Shareholders) for a live or Zoom meeting, where we could speak about these wishes

Of course these things will only happen if and when management/owner is really interested to do so,… otherwise we’ll have to wait until they are.

I think that working together as a DAO might improve the odds of being of value to the company. If we’re being perceived as a complaining bunch of people demanding this and that, there won’t be much intrinsic motivation to invite us.

It thus could pay out to get a DAO-corporate identity consensus (or something else) and then launch the proposal that this consensus is discussed with management/owner.

1 Like

In comparison to traditional companies, DAOs have a democratized organization. All the members of a DAO need to vote for any changes to be implemented, instead of implemented changes by a sole party (depending on the company’s structure). The funding of DAOs is mainly based on crowdfunding that issues tokens. The governance of DAOs is based on community, while traditional companies’ governance is mostly based on executives, Board of Directors, activist investors. etc. DAOs’ operations are fully transparent and global, meanwhile, traditional companies’ operations are private, only the organization know what is happening, and they are not always global.

We are a DAO only in name. Not in reality. We do not satisfy the criteria of being a DAO. There is a board in the business who has all the information and authority. They own most of the business. Most of the tokens are not owned by the community. The owners of the business are not the token holders.

I don’t think technically we should be allowed to call ourselves a DAO when there are shareholders who effectively own the business. Those owners are not anonymous. It’s public information on seedrs / share register.

Hi Viresh,

Maybe we shouldn’t -in this phase- focus too much on what we aren’t, but look if we want to be something, want to get involved in the evolution of has said to want to use this DAO-Forum to get into a meaningful interaction, and the Forum can make into a proposal any topic that gets enough support …

So… do we want to get involved? :wink: and on what issues?!

I like to get involved, and my focus would be:

  • strategy to take on hundreds of thousands of new customers a month in 2023.
1 Like

Since we are not clear what and if management are/will be implementing relating accepting input from us on such corporate matters why don’t we just ask them what they would see as the best means for us to tranfer our thoughts and concerns to the them? And if they are prepared to accept such recommendations and in what way? I have been in the crypterium ambassador’s telegram group for a long time and even though it was originally set up for this purpose it ended up with no real use as there was no real follow up or constructive answers by the company amd everyone does not really bother any more. I agree that this is not a real DAO so what would make us think that anything else formed would have a real impact on the company accepting feedback from us on its growth?

1 Like

Yeah people have given up.
If you read the seedrs page, you can see disgruntled investors everywhere and the business not providing any responses, except for some generic stuff which does not address the concerns.
The business is looking down on its investors.
The business does not see its investors as partners in the journey
Someone even said when they spoke to Austin, Austin did not make any eye contact. This told them that the gig was up.
Annual shareholder meetings are not being held.
It’s broken promises, one after the other.
There is no response on the telegram ambassadors page from the relevant people.
And yeah the DAO thing is just a diversion - this business has owners - investors, who are publicly identifiable to some extent. This is not a DAO. Investors own! Not the token holders. A pig with lipstick on is still a pig. Let’s say things as they are.