Well this always works best with an example.
So let's say we wan't to do an SEPA transaction. 80% of the fee is for pervesk as the EMI provider. then we would receive wr over the 20% which Bankera makes. Are you telling us now that we would also make WR on the fee which Pervesk is charging, so wr over the 80% in this example?
BNK holders receive 20% of the net transactional revenue share. To calculate the weekly net transactional share, we take the difference between our weekly revenue from transactions and the costs that we incur, and then we get the weekly net transactional revenue. Therefore, costs (ours and/or 3rd parties) are not part of the weekly commission.
See it took us a while, but we are getting there. So now we all understand why we want BNK to have their own license instead of a sister company running away with the promises made in the whitepaper, maybe you can answer the question we had earlier.
Has BNK already aplied for his own license?
It was stated from the beginning that Bankera as a product will either be delivered through its own license or through partnerships. Obtaining a separate license for servics for which we already have a license in our ecosystem would be a waste of our time and resources - which can be better employed to develop our other services (such as the Exchange Platform).
Well it was stated from the beginning that you wanted to be a bank. Like we said earlier you never told us you were going to build an exchange. So I would call that a waste of time and money. We never invested in the exchange idea! We invested because we wanted you to achieve into building a blockchain bank. Not to make your own ecosystem from which we are receiving no revenue at all and in the meanwhile use the resource we gave you to build something what would improve the revenue for that but not for us.
So you can tell me what you want with your it was clear from the beginning. No it was not clear from the beginning! And becomes clearer by the day that you don’t have the investors (sorry contributors in your words) at heart.
The Exchange is a part of blockchain bank. We will have liquidity.
"exchange" as a service was always in the white paper.
We just later expanded this into the roadmap
o was it now? Or are you very hard hoping for support from some users.
But since you wanna go that way. Let us get the record straight on some things while we are ad it. Tell me who is or was lying. Your CEO or you?
i qoute Vytautus:
and Bankera is an ICO, an ecosystem which involves a number of different entities etc, to build a compliant crypto banking provider is not an easy task, otherwise there would be many of them, but I believe we are the ones who are have done most by know (we have cards live, we have required licenses, team, IT side is in development), so you will be able to see fruits soon
guys, rome was not built in a day. Yes, we had initial plans even to do pre-ICO in late June-July 2017 and yes ICO was delayed. However, we are here building a bank, not organizing a pump and dump scheme, so strategy and decisions are a bit different from other ICOs. We had always been clear that Bankera is about product, not bullshit and promises.
The Bankera exchange was even not in the original plan, but then situation changed as it became much more rational go and build our own exchange than paying 1m+ USD fees for getting listed on other exchanges. Also we have achieved core milestones such as EMI license and working hard to launch our products. Bankera's ecosystem is like a puzzle and at the end you will see how it all add ups. Bankera now has two offices in Lithuania with 70+ people being involved in the project. And Banker token has a usage as it will be used for banking services at Bankera's products such as utility token for zero-cost exchange as well as to pay for robo-advisory and other services as it was said in the whitepaper and elsewhere.
