Dan I think I'm following here, but could you explain why a token is preferable to selling municipal bonds?
RE: Flint Water Token ICO Initial Thoughts
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Flint Water Token ICO Initial Thoughts
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Great question, I'm no expert in those, I wrote this as a thought experiment.
If I had to guess, I might speculate that having an auction mechanic could allow the bonds to be sold at a more competitive price, and being on-chain fungible might create a more liquid market, again, mostly about helping price reflect willingness to invest, competitively.
Maybe bonds could be structured that way too, I mean since y requires the city to back it with water, it really is just a city loan, I'd be curious to see why municipal bonds haven't already been deployed here, maybe lack of city credit?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There's definitely a market mechanic difference between securitization and tokenization. One is backed by profit returns, the other is simply a service voucher. I think some great research could be done here on the real differences, it's tough.
For one thing, a token holder is incentivized to see the project succeed. They won't just be insured and paid out if it fails, and so there's both an alignment aspect there and a more competitive market for an investor to flip a profit.
I wonder if this would result in lower overall costs to the municipality or what. Maybe unfair to use a desperate case like Flint as a laboratory, I'm just looking for things that might help.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit