I have not reviewed the entire Jak concept but a cursory glance at it makes sense. The longer a member has had a savings deposit with the bank the more available loan credits they are entitled to. Is this the general premise? I will review the entire concept a little later but it looks promising.
I have been thinking of another way to encourage loan repayment and community/bank participation and subsequent trust reward but I have to think it through a bit more before I post it here.
@senbonzakura I can send 3 BTC now of my conditional 10 BTC pledge if you would like. I would just consider it lending you 3 BTC for the moment at 0% interest until you get the shares/etc worked out and convert it into shares. You can use it for expenditures as needed and if the project dies I will accept a shared loss. If you have another proposal I am open to it.
If you want me to send 3 BTC now please post an address I should send to publicly here on this thread to make such transaction transparent.
Yes that's the general premise, points for amount of saved coins + points for term saved. it's explained in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktzRsH9qLiw&NR=1 It also points out the problem with inflationary currencys and interest free loans (maybe JAK would be better off using bitcoin ?)
Few differences between the JAK model, and the model proposed here that i can see:
JAK is a non-profit bank, its members (or shareholders) receive no dividends.
JAK's fees are just there to cover administrative costs and are equivalent to Swedens rate of inflation (2.5% inflation is roughly the official rate over there and that happens to be the fees it generates too on loans)
JAK doesn't engage in speculation/investment, it merely serves as a intermediary.
JAK is local, it can therefore enforce/use legal methods to deal with defaults.
In conclusion, JAK's only income stream are fixed fees on transactions.
And cut and paste from earlier post here about financing IBB, plus my own opinion (my primary concern here is sustainability):
Income streams:
1) Donations paid when repaying loans
2) Adverts on website
3) Dividends from stock/sharers (which IBB owns)
4) Fees from escrow service
5) Joint venture service, providing funds/capital for new business (profit as dividends)
1)
As opposed to JAK model, fees are voluntary (donations). But there is no legal way to "make sure" loans are repaid, for a potential loan "theif" it would be quiet easy to buildup points regardless of system of points to then use those points to take out a larger loan and never return. (same systematic abuse could be done on bitcoin-OTC, make tons of small trades to gain points then make one large trade and run).
Possible solution: offer only business loans, specifically projects that require specific development. For example, someone needs to develop a website that costs 200 BTC, the bank would then together with the client find the best offer out there to get the job done, and the final website (copy) would be sent to the bank, this could help to serve as "collateral" for the creditor in case the debtor defaults. Still requires some due-dilligence, a potential thief-debtor could endup being the programmer but the pattern should be very easy to spot if done right, i imagine the bank could also generate extra fees for the consultancy (providing advice, finding reputable developer etc).
2 and 4) is obviously ok
5) could be combined with my last point in (1) ?
3) Risky idea, propably not worth it. I've been involved in speculating in unregulated securities at all the exchanges in secondlife since late 2007, the only surviving one today is
www.slcapex.com (if you invested in the secondlife stocks during late 2007 when the first exchange was born, and continued to invest throughout 2008 today your investment would have lost as much as 95% of it's value)
I don't know the volume nor much details about GBLSE (because i have not figured out how to use the client), but only way i could find this reasonable is if there is enough volume to engage in shortterm trading, get in and get out. Unregulated one man shows are risky on multiple levels, apart from business risks there's also the risk of the CEO cease to exist (this can be anything from illness, to death, or even outright fraud), there is no procedure to transfer assets to a new management and there is no real corporate governance (can't replace a bad CEO). I'd much rather see those funds utilized on projects that relate to- or increase the banks primary-activities, or in worst case if passive income is "needed" rent some mining contracts (when/if that is a profitable venture right now probably isn't).
@senbonzakura I can send you 2 BTC right-away, just provide an address. More to come when i better understand how this idea could work sustainably.
