Common Asset Society FAQs

Mettodo

We have been asking a number of questions in this low impact post and elsewhere (Telegram groups, in person and online events, etc.).

Shall we try to aggregate them here?

Mettodo

I have one: at Txirrin, we are in the situation where an investor is willing to invest more (in €) than the € value of the UCOs the commons is selling. What would you do in this situation?
Some options we are discussing:

Offer investors who bough TXI (our UCOs) to sell TXI to this new investor. The question would be, at what price?
Tell the potential investor that he can not invest as much as he wants to.
Accept all his € and tell him that the common might mint more TXI when there is an opportunity

More context:

We are al volunteering to bring this project forward (getting some "income" would not harm)
I do not find it OK to dilute previous investors and mint TXI above what we budgeted.

DaveDarby

aggregating them on the forum might be a good idea - but in the housing section if it's about housing commons?

DaveDarby

@Mettodo - quick answer is I don't know, but I'll send this to people who will know.
But I think:

if current txi holders sell to new investors, I think they can negotiate the price
you could set up a reserve account for the cash from new investors, and tell them that they can have txi in the next round of issuance (or if that doesn't happen, they can have their cash back)
but I think you're right, you can't issue more than you budgeted, because that's unfair of the first investors (who should be rewarded not punished), whose vouchers won't be worth as big a fraction of the asset as when they bought them.

dilgreen

I Agree with Dave.

Option 1

better in some circumstances (if it makes make existing investors happy that they are carrying less risk, or have made a small profit ).
If the opposite applies, then it's worse!
Also, if the big investor ends up being a 'whale', this may be unwanted.

The price is probably best left to negotiation between buyer and seller, unless you have placed some rules. Beware of rules trying to control people too much - they can make informal agreements to get around them (grey markets).

Option 2
Could be the way to go if you don't want whales, but otherwise just deprives you of cash. Dave's idea could work, but be wary of ending up with large amounts on such arrangements - financial regulators don't seem to like that.

Option 3:
Always possible. No guarantee, of course, that the extra money will be available when you are ready for it.