You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The Governance contract does not necessarily need governance tokens. But the Governance contract defines contractually specified corporate actions according to "Shareholder´s agreement", as publicly visible in a separate attribute governanceContract
For the drag along, currently, you can manage the vote and the sell-offline and than burn/mint the corresponding token.
A part to reduce gas fee, it is not really useful to have a function drag
I propose to implement first a system to allow shareholder to vote on-chain with the blockchain
But the payment has to be performed off-chain
2. Secondly, a system to allow the paiment on-chain (e.g. with a stablecoin) like aktionnariat
But I think this second part will be more complicated to implement and I think it is actually to early to have a paiement on-chain (no real demand for it)
I don't think we should define a governance contract with governance token if the voting weight is proportional to the amount of token owned.
Outline of the scheme proposed:
Modification of CMTAT contract
governanceContract
attribute, with the address of the governance contractdrag(src, dst, amount)
function to force-transfer tokens between 2 addresses; callable by the Governance contract (and the issuer)Creation of a Governance contract
Separate from the token contract. Owned by the issuer company.
Manages the governance tokens.
Fully separate/synchronized with asset token vs. single token vs. wrapped?
Also: "consideration" tokens (can potentially be any asset).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: