- "Legal Asset Securitisation Modules on Holochain powered by HoloREA"

We are solving the funding issue.

The problem:

  • Current securitisation processes are flawed which is why we have a global banking system that lacks integrity.
  • Funding of new projects is a struggle for people who are trying to build businesses that don’t exploit nature (however that looks like for you).


  • To enable more investment to stream into holochain ecosystem.
  • To bridge the gap between the traditional world and the new web3 world.
  • To enable funding to startups building on holochain through asset securitisation (this is how banks fund themselves).
  • To enable end-to-end transparent asset securitisation for managing the commons (however that looks like for you).
  • To enable investors of value to feel safe knowing they have legal ownership status of assets which are protected by the state, allowing holochain to legitimise their activities in the finance industry and rapidly into the next market of adoption.
  • To allow institutional investment to flow into these investments.
  • To enable us to build the core asset securitisation processes of a Transparently owned and run “Deposit Taking Institution” in Australia… In other words (A normal bank built on Holochain) our law firm is about halfway towards this goal of evolving into a bank self-regulated by
  • To enable regionally owned/commons managed ISPs running on Holochain (I spent a year building a startup ISP which did very well) but we now want to take this for-profit ISP model and evolve it into a transparent commons model. Comms should be free or cost price, not held hostage by for-profit greed.

Project Status:

  • We’ve built a first pass of the announcement website at: under password protection (username: user Password: valueflow )
  • We are building an Investment Portal that will eventually allow investments to be made and profits to be withdrawn, this is enabled by our financial services law firm:
  • Our MVP will be live in September with MongoDB backend until Holo goes live. Then we move over to HoloREA modules and will allow projects to list, and collect Expressions of Interest. Since this forum has launched we will encourage people to refine their idea in the water cooler chat before collecting official expressions of interest.

Asset Securitisation Processes:

  • This is a very practical real world implementation of the brilliant work Lynn and Bob have done at and Sensoria’s Buckets of Value: If you are not aware of Sensoria’s work it’s worth studying these slides:
  • We think different buckets of value that get returned by an asset will have different securitisation rules depending on the context and the people who feel they have claims to that bucket.
  • We envision investors are rewarded with a limited profit for putting the funds up and subject to risk and enforced by value flow equations, before assets eventually become managed by the commons.
  • We are not clear on our securitisation processes even for InvestorEngine (as a peer owned asset).
  • We have created a suggested value flow equation that splits assets and limited dwindling revenue rights into different buckets. As per the image below.

But are still unsure how each bucket should split equity.

Questions to the Holochain Community

Buckets 1 and 4: Work done by Crowd-sale workers

  • Equity in Asset: 15%
  • Limited Revenue Split: 15%

How should these two bits of value flow be split to individuals who have claims to these buckets?

  • We are suggesting we track time or award Equity and Revenue rights based on time spent, but what about people who have expertise?

This is where we want to work with the community to work out if we should be creating sub engines like:

  • Dynamic Equity split Engine based on time
  • and Dynamic Equity split Engine based on time and expertise powered by @philipbeadle’s Persona hApp, making use of Composable Credentials, Claims, and Assertions.

Buckets 2 and 3:

  • Equity & Revenue split based on funds invested to pay for development of the platform.
  • Traditional equity split at this point.

Bucket 5:
Should there be a driver bucket (Bucket 5) owned by a management company that drives the execution of the project?
If not what other solutions are there to for someone to be responsible to drive the project forward?

Should there be a Bucket 6 that just flows value into other projects building on HoloREA to build the ecosystem?

Basically these buckets need to scoped up and equiped with different measurement methodologies that would govern equity and revenue rights, but at the same time the projects be measured by frameworks such as MetaImpact Framework:

We want to float these ideas in this thread and tighten down the design of these Equity Split Engines and tie up all the loose ends before we refine the project home page and announce it to the world.

We also want to work open and collaboratively with you and discover what works for you to feel motivated to work on this project or a project designed to be an Open Value Network.


Wow, love what you are doing and would love to work with you guys… would be great to finally get some funding for my Our World project, which after 7 years I still am yet to find any because it is too far into the future and is focused on actually helping the world, people & the environment rather than on profits.

I hope your new system can help change that… :slight_smile:


Regardless of what my opinion is about this, I wonder if it might be best for there to be some flexibility for different startups, so the people involved can decide what makes most sense for them, and so there can be some diversity of approaches.


Thanks @Brooks for your vital feedback.

After writing this post and how buckets should be governed I’m thinking as a final catch all, the database entries that people make for instance tracking time or simple adjusting the equity people get in a bucket for a specific activity they completed should be proposed by members of that bucket, but then final confirmation from all members of the bucket, even loose members via a multi-signature confirmation.

So if there are 15 people loosely connected to the bucket and 3 core people. Everyone can add their time or make their proposals on how much of the bucket they get. But then all 15 might be part of a multi-signature ring, where 5 of the 15 have to confirm they think each time entry is fair.

That way there is no one person that can run a dictatorship on the equity/revenue rights in that bucket, even if they are the one who has done the most work in that bucket.

And the subjective fair play final decision is distributed amongst all peers interacting with that bucket even the loose peers because they still have an interest in fair play.

I’m currently working on a project where we have just implemented this for

I’ll create an image to demonstrate it for a bucket.


Thanks for sharing @ThomasMiller. It’s really well thought out and much needed.

  • Regarding people with expertise contributing: I’m guessing there could be a gradient/reputation score developed? The payout can be weighted against this gradient.
  • For bucket 5: A driver bucket for the management company is a great idea. We’ve been sitting on this question for our project as well.
1 Like

Where can we read more about this?

1 Like

@philipbeadle is there a document that is public that outlines “Composable Credentials, Claims, and Assertions.” powered by the persona hApp?

1 Like

Thanks Tom.
@philipbeadle we’re just piecing together the architecture for our Reputation Interchange. This would be super useful for us.