/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>56799021
>Liabilities are countered by assets.
Such as? The building they rent? The rights to Monty's book. LCX have no assets besides the IP of their barely functional exchange.
>Their tokenized bonds just got regulatory approval this year, and are capped at 10 million euros initially
My proof they haven't sold any is that the terms of the bond was as soon as the sale went live they were supposed to show the smart contract of the bonds as per the legal documents on their website concerning the bonds and 6 weeks later they haven't done it. That is 10 seconds work.
The burden of proof is not on me. They said they would make the smart contract address public, in fact that was part of the bond prospectus and then didn't do it. The only reason they would refuse to do the ten seconds work to do this is if they sold no bonds considering that any user who bought bonds would want to see them on chain and ask for a link to them. Pic related from here https://www.lcx.com/EURt7/
>Other sources of income include sales of tokenized assets and fees from the exchange.
It definitely costs LCX more to rent secure vaults to store the diamonds than they make on trading feess
>Liechtenstein Cryptoassets Exchange (LCX) signed a memorandum of understanding with Monerium, a regulated e-money issuer, agreeing to form a long-term strategic partnership that will enable LCX to leverage some of the infrastructure provided by Monerium.
This means LCX pay them to use their service. LCX are one of their many customers and pay them for the privilege.

>They were quite open about selling some of the reserves to cover the costs of regulatory auditing.
They admitted this after it happened and after claiming they would increase their reserves to 190 million.
>Most of the services offered by LCX are still in the initial piloting phases.
The exchange has been live for 5 years.
>If you do not see where we are going with CBDC and the digital euro
An inflationary death spiral and the death of the EU?

>>54515420
The burden of proof is not on me. They said they would make the smart contract address public, in fact that was part of the bond prospectus and then didn't do it. The only possible reason they would refuse to do the ten seconds work required to do this is if they sold no bonds especially considering that any user who had bought bonds would want to see them on chain and ask for a link to them.

>>54490637
They never bothered publishing the contract address since nobody bought any bonds. I am honestly not even sure they ever had approval to launch the bond given they didn't do this as it was clearly a condition of being allowed offer them.