Owning stocks, etc. doesn’t come with liability (that’s literally what the ‘L’ in LLC/ plc./ Ltd. means).
My example was issuing receipt tokens / depository tokens and allowing peer to peer trade. I can’t even count the number of liabilities. We’d effectively be opening a brokerage.
Instead of an “ADR” it would be a “PDR”. I spent some time today digging around in AI, it seemed to believe the easiest route would be in allowing non-us citizens access to securities from all markets, including US ones. It presents an interesting opportunity since many brokerage firms require minimum deposits in excess of $10K to open accounts for non-us citizens. It seemed to believe this could be done for <$2M, $50K/country partner setup & $500K/yr maint costs.
We could utilize DID and a global network of partners to meet the necessary criteria (FATF, CIMA, EU NCA, etc).
Under the VASP unrestricted secondary trading would classify it as a virtual asset trading platform which would require a VASP license. VASP would require 3 CIMA approved AML Compliance officers, an enterprise level virtual asset risk asssessment, full FATF (KYB/KYC), Enhanced due diligence, active transaction monitoring, pattern analytics, etc. Transfers over $1000 would be required to push originator and beneficiary info to TRISA. Various on-going monitoring, reporting, etc.
So, probably not a good idea to issue depository or receipt tokens from a FC. But either way…
Now, if I were to just go setup a company to do this somewhere – the trust would still be required and there would be exactly no ownership conveyed. At any time I could yank the shares off chain or say we’re moving to ethereum, or whatever. These are things that could definitely be blocked by the articles of incorporation. Yuga’s web2 partner for the “.ape” GTLD at any time could rug and say “We’re not doing on-chain anymore, you have to use our website, good luck!”.
So, basically, I guess for me (based on what you’re saying) it comes down to…
Use a trad structure, still have to trust the executives and directors but have no ownership conveyed
Use a trad structure wholly owned by PCF, still have trust issues, can mitigate bad behaviors to an extent as you alluded to, but have 100% of ownership conveyed and have directives and rules that prevent the ceo from rugging the service from the chain as I mentioned above with the .ape gTLD.
In the articles of incorporation, couldn’t we exactly spell out what actions directors, executives are allowed to take, when they need to get additional approval.. Then we could just build a portfolio of acceptable actions with anything else defaulting to requiring additional approval. If additional actions need to be taken, toss in a ref to instruct the pcf to modfiy the articles to add, modify, etc clauses / sections, verbiage, etc.