Unchained - Harbor and TrustToken on Why They Don't Mind Being Unsexy - Ep.77

Episode Date: August 14, 2018

Josh Stein, CEO of Harbor, and Danny An, cofounder and CEO of TrustToken, talk about security tokens and tokens backed by real-world assets, often called an unsexy area of crypto. They explain the strategies their teams are using to tackle the tokenization of what currently constitute $250 trillion in assets, what kinds of new behaviors and business opportunities "faster, cheaper, more liquid" assets could open up, and how they'll comply with regulations across all jurisdictions for markets that are global and trade 24/7/365. Thank you to our sponsors! StartEngine: https://www.startengine.com/unchained The Sun Exchange: https://thesunexchange.com Episode links: Harbor: https://harbor.com Trust Token: https://www.trusttoken.com True USD: https://www.trusttoken.com/trueusd/ An overview of security tokens: https://medium.com/@apompliano/the-official-guide-to-tokenized-securities-44e8342bb24f More on Harbor and security tokens: http://fortune.com/2018/05/18/security-token-harbor-ce More on True USD: https://venturebeat.com/2018/07/18/trusttoken-readies-sale-of-more-trueusd-asset-based-tokens/ The PICO: https://medium.com/harborhq/introducing-the-private-ico-pico-3e8b782924c1 Episode with Meltem Demirors and Jill Carlson: http://unchainedpodcast.co/episode-74 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hi, everyone. Welcome to Unchained, your no-hype resource for all things crypto. I'm your host, Laura Shin. If you've been enjoying Unchained, pop into iTunes to give us a top rating or review. That helps other listeners find the show. Start Engine is a regulated ICO platform with a community of 155,000-plus registered users that's focused on issuing tokenized securities. Go to StartEngin.com slash Unchained for a 20% discount on setup services to launch your regular. ICO. This is not legal advice. Sun Exchange is a solar power marketplace for the crypto economy. Sun Exchange members all over the world are earning cryptocurrency for helping to deliver solar power generation to businesses and communities in emerging markets. Visit thesunexchange.com to start earning solar powered money today. Today our topic is security tokens and tokens backed by real world assets. And here to discuss are Josh Stein, CEO of Harbor, and Danny on co-founder

and CEO of Trust Token. Welcome, Josh and Danny. Thank you. Hey, great to be here. I want to have each of you describe your products, but before we do that, let's just start simply with your areas of focus. Josh, Harbor focuses on security tokens. What is the definition of security token? A security token is a token that represents a security interest. So you can think, in Harbor, in particular, we're focused on traditional private security. So I think a share in a private company, a share in a private reed and LP interest and a fund. Things that we know are securities, but now you simply put an electronic wrapper around it.

And Danny, trust token focuses on tokenizing real-world assets. How do you define that? And what are some examples? Yeah, definitely. So rural-world assets, we create asset-backed tokens, which means there's an underlying real-old asset backing a token out there. A large majorities will probably be security tokens. We started off by tokenizing currencies.

And so the first tokenized currencies that we created was true USD. and that's just tokenized dollars. And the basic idea there is that there's $100 sitting in the escrow somewhere, escrow account, and there's 100 true U.S.D out in circulation. So far, the vast majority of the ICO hype has been around utility tokens. Why did you guys decide to go with what some people or even a lot of people in the space view as a less sexy area of crypto? So at Harbor, our founding story was having an aha moment.

So David Sachs was raising his first venture cap. fun last year and wanted to tokenize it and realized there was no compliant way to do so. And then that's where the idea of Harbor came from. It's a huge market. I mean, there are so many necessary protocols and daps and other things we need out on the blockchain, but there's also a tremendous amount of real world assets that would benefit from tokenization to make them more liquid and readily accessible. And so I don't think it's an either or.

I think both sorts of endeavors are really useful. And we don't mind not being sexy. Danny. Yeah, and for us, we kind of saw Ethereum as this world computer that would run humanity's most important computation. And when we asked ourselves what's actually going to run on a world computer, it's pretty clear that the primary use case of digital assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum was just trading the back and forth, logging financial transactions.

And when we looked at today's markets like the New York Stock Exchange, basically everything that's traded is real world assets and their derivative. And so for us, when we looked at the space, we thought that there was a potential for a new global financial system to emerge and that, you know, cryptocurrency at that time was, you know, a couple dozens of billions and rural assets are 250 truly. And so we saw that the long-term potential would be, you know, the bridge between rural assets and this new global financial system. Interesting. So let's now focus in on each project. Josh, why don't you start? What are the problems you're trying to solve and how it is hard? Harper solve them? We're attacking both the initial formation of private capital and then the secondary liquidity. So I'll start at the end and then go to the beginning.

So right now, private securities today are highly illiquid. They're almost completely illiquid. And there's three main reasons why. Buyer and seller can't find each other. You have to repaper every transaction the most expensive and irritating way possible. And most importantly, there's almost always a prohibition on the transfer of that private security. If you own an LP interest in a fund or a share in a private reet, even

if you found a buyer and even if it made economic sense to pay 20 grand to repay for the transaction, you can't do it. You have to go through that fund manager, through that GP or that refund manager. And the reason why is there's all these complicated compliance rules and contractual rules that you have to enforce for. We call it the who, what, where of compliance, who the buyer and seller are, what the trade is, where it occurs. And so as a result, because you can only control those things by making it go through the fund manager, these things are highly liquid. And the end result is that it takes months, sometimes years to get out of a position. It takes a lot of elbow grease, phoning, faxing, emailing, emailing around to a limited number of people. It takes 10 to 20 grand to repaper the

transaction. And then you take a big hit on valuation at the end of the day. It's called the illiquidity discount. So academic literature tells you it can range to 20, 30 percent or more. We've heard a lot of stories from folks out there with LP interests or shares in private For example, where the discounts 40, 50 or even 60% off of the nav. But when you need liquidity, you need it. And so if you can unlock liquidity, you can deliver tremendous value. So tokenization attacks all three problems and Harbor attacks one in particular. So buyer and seller can now find each other because of all these exchanges that are springing

up in the U.S. and around the world. And I think there are particularly interesting aspects to the decentralized exchanges, folks like zero X that we should talk about a little bit later. If you set up your corporate documents correctly, you do not need to repaper every transaction every time you trade that token. That is enough to do everything you need to do from a legal basis. And then most importantly, Harbor was established to control that who, what, where of compliance. So who the buyer and seller are, things like KYCAML and a credit investor status that people

talk about all the time. It's a lot of other restrictions that people don't talk about as much. Things like special restrictions on control officers, special restrictions on affiliates. What the trade is are things usually related to the cap table. So minimum number of investors or maximum number of investors, limitations on any one investor or group of investors, holdings, holding periods, and then where the trade occurs. So that's the venue. Is it going peer to peer or is it going trading on a compliantly licensed exchange? So essentially the way Harbor works is every time that security token goes to trade, it calls to Harbor, and I'm oversimplifying here.

harbor is the all-knowing trade compliance oracle. We check the who, what, where of compliance. And if it's compliant, the trade goes through and no one knows Harbor was ever involved. And if it's not compliant, we throw an error like an email message bouncing back that explains why the trade didn't go through. So, for example, the trade would result in too many or too few shareholders. As a result, that fund manager can lift the prohibition of transfer on the private security, allow it to trade to the limits of the market conditions and the regulatory rule sets.

And you can now unlock tremendous value by making something that was formerly completely a liquid, now much more liquid than it used to be. It's interesting. But just one quick question before we turn to Danny. So what if Harbor goes away, then what happens? Then you, there's two different alternatives. You come up with another provider. And so you reissue another set of security tokens.

And if the whole blockchain effort goes away, which I think, think we would all agree is extraordinarily unlikely. Then you revert back to paper. And so let me explain. Harbor is designed to fail close. So if Harbor goes away or if you terminate Harbor as a provider, the security tokens will no longer trade, but you now have a perfect cap table. You know exactly who owns the shares.

And then you go to another provider and you simply reissue a new set of security tokens. You know who all the owners are, both by real world identity and by wallet address. You simply reissue them new securities on, but the new provider or you could keep using Harbor and do it on a different blockchain. And if the blockchain technology in general fails, you would revert to paper. But because you always have that perfect cap table, you know exactly who owned what, when, you have this ability to change providers, change blockchain technologies, or revert to paper. Yeah, I think this is an interesting contrast to trust token, as we'll soon find out. So, Danny, why don't you tell us for a trust token what

problems you're trying to solve and how trust token solves them. Yeah, definitely. And so we're also involved in real world asset tokenization, but we're much more interested in kind of the global nature of the financial system that's emerging. And so you can think of some tokenization companies. What they do is they're the centralized entity that tokenizes assets and then sells them off in the crypto markets. And then there are more decentralized players, for example, Polymath comes to mine, where they create a token, which is used as a means of payment to bring all the providers necessary to tokenize an asset. So that could be on the legal side as well as on the actual issuing side. I'm sorry, I missed the name of that project. What did you? Polymath.

Oh, polymath, right. Okay. And we're kind of sitting right in the middle where we are a centralized tokenization service where the first thing that we tokenize is US dollars, which is true USD. And then what we do is we say, what's the single component, which is most important to decentralize and expand across the world. And the component that we picked is kind of the, of decentralized underwriting where if you're a Chinese business person and you're buying, you know, assets from, let's say real estate token from Brazil or U.S. equity token, it's difficult for you to understand the language and legalities of the underlying legal connection between the asset and the asset token. And so we created a token. It's called trust token.

And what it's used to do is stake on these asset tokens, which acts as a on-chain collateral and a signal and guarantee of trust. And so if there were a case where, you know, there is no actual house connected to house token, it would reimburse the asset token purchasers. And this happens in traditional finance whenever, let's say, Goldman underwrites an IPO or Moody's does a bond rating. Whenever there's a representation of an asset created, there's always some entity that's doing the due diligence and taking on some form of the liability so that when the asset purchaser or the asset token buyer buys, they don't necessarily have to do the research. They can just piggyback off of the research done previously.

And when someone puts an asset on using trust token on the blockchain, does that verification happen before that or after it goes up? Good question. And so it's usually right before there's a purchasing, there's a, let's say, a bid to sell the asset tokens. And so there's kind of a request to stake model and or a request for stake. And what that requests for stake trigger is, is essentially research into the underlying mechanics of how the asset token is created and how it's connected to the underlying asset.

Yeah, I think this is what I find interesting because this is like, you know, you did say at the beginning that there is an aspect of the set centralized, but this part is decentralized. And in that regard, I think you will always at any given moment have tokens or or there is the possibility at any given moment that there will be tokens that have been put on the blockchain using trust token that are fraudulent. And they would only be. found out after the fact, right? Whereas like with Harbor, you would know for certain beforehand that, you know, something is legitimate. Isn't that? Am I correct in thinking that? Yeah. So with acet tokenization, in the space, it requires some of the most trusts because you're relying on

someone to have done a sound legal connection. And so if you have a trusted entity like Harbor, you know, most people will generally trust that unless Harbor isn't as well known across, let's say, in the Asian regions. So there's always this problem of how do you create a standard by which the world can accept that that's a signal and guarantee of trust. And so one way to think about that is if you're on Alibaba or Amazon, you're looking at the five-star ratings and reviews. But when those were coming online, you know, it wasn't accepted as the standard means

of who to buy from and what to buy. And now it's kind of this. But the problem with buying asset tokens is that you're never actually getting, let's say, a shoebox where you can expect the quality immediately after you purchase it or sometime soon after. You're buying a representation of the asset, and that asset changes in value over time, and the underlying asset also changes over time as well. And so they need to be a process by which people can have a, let's say, a new and improved ratings and review model where you can start to see where the stake accrues to the most trustworthy asset token issuers, as well as the stakers themselves,

who would be given the most stake if they were, they did the best due diligence and took on most of the liability. Okay. So yeah, this whole thing is interesting. We can get more into it later. But I just want to find out from you guys. So if your projects are successful at tokenizing these types of assets, what new types of trading or investing behaviors or products and services do you think they'll enable? So I think you're going to see a really interesting unbundling and then rebundling of property interests. I think if you step back what tokenization does and the software platforms that onboard the investors and the issuers do, is it allows you to form private capital. faster, cheaper, and easier. And then it allows secondary liquidity that is faster, cheaper,

and easier by orders of magnitude. And so as a result, if you think of these things as Lego blocks, you can unbundle property rights down into smaller units and different units and then re-bundle them together in interesting ways. So if you take real estate, for example, which is where we're seeing a lot of concentrated interests, you can imagine a world in which you have tokenized interests in a bunch of the Class A office buildings around the New York region. You could then create a fund that owns 10% of the interests in the Class A in downtown, essentially it'd be a Class A ETF. You could do the same for Midtown for the Upper East Side. You could then create a fund on top of that that would be a Manhattan Class A ETF, in essence, the way it functions. You'd have the same

thing for Jersey, for the boroughs. And then using great technologies like DYDX, you could very cheaply go long downtown, short uptown. You could go along Manhattan, short the boroughs, long New York, short San Francisco. In other words, you can make a much more concentrated investment bet than you can otherwise and really express your thesis and lay off or take on risk as appropriate. I think what becomes really interesting as well is if you think about, say, sports teams, and I think those are interesting because you can now re-bundle in rights not normally associated with a private security. So take, for example, let's take a sports team, say the 49ers. And let's use a round number. let's say they're worth a billion dollars. You could tokenize a portion of that asset. You could create

a class of stock that owned, say, 10% of the 49ers. Today, if you did that, you'd go sell that to a single individual who would then want a lot of onerous control provisions. If you tokenized it, if you broke it up into a lot of smaller pieces, say 2,000 pieces, which is the maximum number of shareholders for a single class of equity, that's now a $50,000 unit of investment. So there's a lot of people around the Bay Area who would love to own a piece of the 49ers. And that would be a real piece of stock with potentially dividends as well as capital appreciation when it sold. But now you could bundle in other interesting rights. So you could say everyone who's an equity shareholder in the 49ers now has first dibs on box seats or on season passes. You could say every home game, you get to meet the players

after the game just for the shareholders. You could have an annual meeting where you talk to the coaches and the GM about the strategy. And the 49ers would get a much. better price, a much higher value for that small minority interest in the company. The shareholders would get things that they value so much more, things that are property interests not normally associated with securities. And what's really interesting is all those little extras I talked about have enormous value to the fans who become shareholders, but have almost no cost to the 49ers. And so as a result, what you're doing is you're unbundling and then re-bundling property interests in ways that allow each side to get the maximum value that they're looking for because they can

get precisely what they want. And the reason that's not possible now is simply because of the cost of administration of that type of thing. Is that what it is? Yes. It simply becomes impractical. I think if we step back, we think about the effect of tokenization. I think of it as the transition from snail mail, the email, right? It used to be with written communications. We typed it out. We clicked print. We threw it an envelope. We paid 50 cents. We weighed three days and that seemed just fine. And then suddenly, I can remember distinctly when we started clicking send and was orders of magnitude, faster, cheaper, and easier to send that communication. The content of the written communication was the same. But by putting in electronic format, you can do wonderful things with it.

And I think similar as private securities, once you put it in electronic format in a way that's interoperable and interchangeable across all these different systems like exchanges that are springing up, you can now do things with it on a practical level that you couldn't before. I mean, it used to be no one in the history of the world ever mailed a letter to somebody saying, where are we going to lunch today, but we send that email all the time because it simply wasn't practical to do so before email came along. Danny, did you want to add anything about new behaviors or services? Yeah, definitely.

I think Josh put it very well. We can, I guess, geek out on the ramifications of tokens and tokenization of assets. And the thing that I'm most excited about, but I don't get a lot of chance to talk about because I think it's kind of more of a far-out futuristic scene. is around when you start to connect these assets onto a transparent, interoperable, codable system, the amount of things that you can build on top of, let's say, house coin and USD coin and dollar, or Eurocoin is amazing. And so one one concrete example of this is, you know,

there's a lot of work going into tokenizing US dollars to create tree USD, but then soon afterward, a project called set protocol bundled up MakerDAO and a couple of other stable coins like true USD in and created a set of, of stable coins. And on top of that, you can create more stable coins and you can start to have what Josh was describing where you are able to create bundles or sets of all these different tokens, and then there can be code written on top of them about how these tokens should be traded and valued. And so that kind of future world where the financial system is transparent and people can build on top of it anything in the barriers to entry to doing that is very low. I think has unforeseen consequences

that will be make our species much more productive and transparent as a result. And Danny, you mentioned a figure earlier about the size of the current securities market or investment vehicles based off real world assets. And I don't remember the number, but what is that? And then how much bigger do you think it could grow? The number is $250 trillion. How much bigger it could grow? It generally is trending with, I guess, human productivity and how much we value assets.

And so it grows just as quickly as I would guess productivity grows for humanity. Okay. And so let's go to the exchange question that Josh brought up earlier. Where will these types of tokens trade? Are there any exchanges that are set up now that can trade security tokens or other real world? Well, I guess there are ones that can do real world as a back tokens. But yet, let's start there.

There are a number that are in place today, and there's a lot more there in the pipeline that should be getting their proper regulatory approvals shortly. We're big fans of folks on the zero X protocol in particular. And I think what's really interesting about that, Laura, is the ability to have a worldwide order book. If you ask today, why isn't everything in one exchange? And the answer is because there's so many different stacks that you have to do. There's a tech stack to running exchange, which is a non-trivial lift. There's a relationship stack. You have to have relationships with market makers and investors and others. And then there is a regulatory stack where you need to get the right licensure. You have to have the right compliance people. You've got to

generate the right reports. You have to control for all the right regulatory things. And we've seen that the failure to do that in some of the recent headlines around WASH trading and Bitcoin in particular. And so as a result, you have a bunch of different exchanges by jurisdiction. And what X I think is really interesting that allows you to do is now in a security token world, you can have exchanges around the world that are compliantly licensed in their jurisdiction that specialize in their countries, relationships, and all the folks that they need, that relationship stack, that business stack, that tech stack, that regulatory stack. And yet there can be one worldwide order book, one worldwide pool of liquidity, which today you can't do. All those different

exchanges are fragmented pools of liquidity. And I think that's really exciting and something that's only the blockchain can do and something that's very new. And so just name some of the exchanges where people can trade security tokens now? So there are folks that are compliantly set up and licensed are open finance and templum spring to mine. There's T0 as well. I'm not quite sure on the status of their project. Ocean X, or the ocean, as they're now called, should be coming along shortly. And there are a number of other folks that are in the pipeline, both in the U.S. and abroad. Okay. Let's talk about regulation. I think there's kind of a whole soup of regulations that apply in this realm, especially around securities law. Can you name some of these like

reg D, reg S, and define them and any particular rules in foreign jurisdictions that might be important for people to know about? Just so as we keep, you know, moving through this discussion, people have a framework. So, sure. So reg D, reg S, reg A, those things you hear about apply to private securities that are trying to avoid becoming public securities. They're exemptions. So the rule generally is, you start with the rule that if you're going to offer securities, you have to publicly register. You go file an S1 with the SEC. They have to review it. You have to comply with a whole host of ongoing regulatory restrictions, both on raising the capital and then ongoing as an enterprise. There are exemptions to that that allow you to raise capital privately, and they become very big.

People raise more capital now privately than they do public. not just in the U.S., but in almost all places around the world. Because if you fall in one of these exemptions, you avoid a lot of expense and delay inherent with complying with all these regulatory requirements. So one of those is reg D. It's probably the most commonly used. And that allows you to be exempt from filing for registration with the SEC. You have to hit certain requirements.

And one of the biggest ones is to oversimplify is essentially we're only dealing with accredited investors, individuals with more than 200,000 in income or couples with more than 300,000 income or assets over a million dollars. And so it becomes restrictive. And you'll hear a lot of that about this issue when we're in other crypto forums, simply because people feel like it excludes a lot of people from investment opportunities. I think what's notable about those reg D securities is that after a year, you can have non-accredited by them, particularly for non-equity securities.

Another class is what they call reg S. So those are securities offered overseas, sold to overseas investors. Essentially, what it says is the U.S. will not apply most of its rules as long as they're sold overseas and you take reasonable precautions to keep them from filtering back into the U.S. And then finally, there's regulation CF or reg crowdfunding, which allows you, I can't remember the exact limit is it's $2 million or $5 million, but allows you to raise money from non-accrediteds more widely. and there's reg A or reg A plus where you have a filing with the SEC and you can take in non-accredited but there are certain restrictions around them and there are different classifications of requirements depending on how much money you raise. People refer to reg A a lot of times as IPO light and depending on how much money you're raising and what you're doing, it's much more on the light scale

or much more feels like an IPO. And Danny, are there any other types of regulation that you feel like people should know about when it comes to the other types of assets that trust token deals with? No, Josh did a good coverage of it in the United States. Okay, yeah. And for any, are there any foreign regulations that we should talk about now before we move forward? No, I don't think so. There was, I guess the China had a restriction on ICOs, but that was just kind of a blanket ban. I just got back from Beijing. It seems like they've lightened and relaxed that and said proceed with caution. Huh.

Interesting. Oh, I miss that news. Okay. So let's just dive a little bit deeper into security tokens. How do you make sure that any investors that are holding these securities are compliant with the regulations in that jurisdiction? So at Harbor, the way we deal with is we're a platform plus a protocol. So we're a software as a service platform for onboarding the investor.

And that way, we always have a real world identity that we can correlate with a blockchain wallet address, and then that way we're able to check the who-out wear of compliance constantly. There are certain things you can't encode. So you cannot encode whether or not there's underlying fraud going on in the business or the businesses cooking its books, obviously. There are certain other aspects to the rules around how this trade that you can't encode. So if you trade after 90 days in the U.S., you can do it according to what's called a Section 487 exemption where credit investors can trade amongst themselves. But they can't post a public ask. They can't generally solicit someone to buy from them. It has to be done among preexisting

relationships or quietly, what we would call peer to peer. And so in essence, what Harbor can control for and does control for is that if it's posted on exchange, it's on an exchange that's compliantly licensed, but we can't control whether or not someone's generally soliciting under 4A7. That's something that occurs off the blockchain. So I think there needs to be a real distinction between what's occurring on blockchain that you can't control for and what it occurs out in the real world that doesn't have a connection that you cannot control for. And just to have curiosity, so what standards are you using for identity to ensure compliance? Are you using blockchain-based identities or something else?

We go through a standard KYC-AML process. So, for example, when an investor goes to set up a Harbor account to be vetted to invest, it's a very streamlined process, but it's very similar to opening up an account at another financial institution, name, address, social, date of birth, a few other pieces of info, And then they upload a copy of the driver's license, both sides. And then we go through an automated KYCML process to do some initial vetting. And we also check sanctions lists and other lists that you look at to avoid people that you don't want investing. But fundamentally, it's not something that can be done wholly on the blockchain for both technical reasons and for regulatory reasons.

So then how do you make sure that the secondary trading is compliant in terms of who's buying? If the buyer is unknown, the trade won't go through. So short term, what it means is it means the buyer would have to go through the Harbor platform to get vetted. Longer term, we hope to establish relationships with exchanges around the world where we can rely on each other's K.YC. So that way and you would pass that information probably via API off chain or perhaps in the future through certain designations on chain that would allow the trade to go through without any friction. But ultimately, some people view that you could put this entirely on the blockchain and rely on that. But the problem is you can outsource the work of KYCML. You cannot outsource the responsibility.

So ultimately, if you want to rely on someone else's KYCML work, one, under the regulations, if you're going to rely on it, they need to be a licensed financial institution. And two, you want to make sure they're doing it correctly. And so you would want to kick the tires on their compliance program. You would want to know that they were reputable. You simply some unknown party having written that this is an okay investor on the blockchain is not something that at least I would want to wager my livelihood on. We're going to get into more specific questions for each project, but first I'd like to take a quick break to tell you about our fabulous sponsors. Sun Exchange is a solar power marketplace for the crypto economy. Sun Exchange members all over the world are earning cryptocurrency while solar powering businesses and communities in emerging markets.

Through this sun exchange.com, for as little as $10, and in just a few clicks, you can purchase solar cells and lease them to projects in the world's sunniest regions, earning you an income stream of monetized sunshine, paid in Bitcoin. Sun Exchange members can earn between 10 and 15% IRA, backed by the power of the sun. Founded in 2015, Sun Exchange is operating solar projects across Southern Africa, entirely powered by our members' solar cells. Our partners include Solar Coin, the United Nations Development Program and the Energy Web Foundation. Visit www.w.w.Thesunexchange.com to check terms in eligibility to join the crypto-solar revolution. Start earning solar-powered money today. Interested in raising capital through a security token offering, StartEngine is your full-stack solution. Start Engine, a regulated ICO platform with a community of over 155,000 registered users, was founded in 2014 by Howard Marks, co-founder of Active. Division Blizzard. Since the implementation of the Jobs Act, StartEngine has helped over 160 companies raise

capital. In fact, StartEngine can help a company build its own tokens and is creating a secondary market upon which those tokens can be traded. In short, StartEngine provides a complete token ecosystem. If your company wants to launch a security token offering, just go to startengin.com slash unchained for a free consultation and a 20% discount on future regulated ICO setup services. That's Startengin.com slash unchained. Bet mode activated. The scorebed app here with trusted stats and real-time sports news. Yeah, hey, who should I take in the Boston game?

Well, statistically speaking. Nah, no more statistically speaking. I want hot takes. I want knee-jerk reactions. That's not really what I do. Is that because you don't have any knees? Or... The score bet.

Trusted sports content, seamless sports betting. Download today. 19 plus, Ontario only. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or the gambling of someone close to Please go to conicsontario.ca. Local news is in decline across Canada, and this is bad news for all of us. With less local news, noise, rumors, and misinformation fill the void,

and it gets harder to separate truth from fiction. That's why CBC News is putting more journalists in more places across Canada, reporting on the ground from where you live, telling the stories that matter to all of us, because local news is big news. Choose news, not noise. CBC News. This is not legal advice.

I'm speaking about security tokens and other real world asset back tokens with Josh Stein of Harbor and Danny on of trust token. So Danny, I actually wanted to find out. So, you know, obviously with Harbor, because it is more centralized and they are controlling this platform, if regulations change, they can probably do that upgrade. And Josh correct me if I got that wrong. But I was curious with trust token, how that works. if there is kind of a slightly more decentralized model. Yeah.

And so the way you can think about trust token staking is that it's shifting the counterparty risk that's off-chain on-chain. And so when there's the actual smart contracts for when stake is released, it'll be very clear about when is the case, in which cases it is released. And so that could cover any regulatory mishap. And so the way to think about it is that the stake essentially is a guarantee that there will be a reimbursement of the purchase of the amount of the asset tokens in the case that there isn't a regulatory adaptation that occurs. And so it's pretty difficult to actually

follow along with all the regulatory changes going around globally and making sure that whenever a new regulatory change happens, that there is a change in exactly how the code is operating. but you can create essentially a generalized insurance mechanism or some way of ensuring that someone is watching out for that and saying like, okay, I have my stake and so I will notify, let's say, the token issue or to change this because now they are outside of the bounds of a particular jurisdictions regulation. And just because we didn't go into detail on this before, I just want to have you spell out for listeners how it is that stakers get compensated for the work they do. Yeah. So staking incentives are, there's kind of a two-fold model. And so one staking

incentive model is based off of tokenized currencies. And it's all based off of velocity. And so acid tokens that tend to move around a lot will have a transaction fee or even collateral interest based off of the dollars or currency sitting in the bank account. And the second model is based off of acid tokens that are based off of commodities or assets that you tend to just hold for the appreciation value. so they don't have a lot of velocity. And so this model, we've kind of derived just by looking at how bond ratings occur with bond issuers. And so in the 2008 financial crisis, the aftermath, S&P 500, got fined, say, close to

a billion dollars because they have an incentive to give good bond ratings to the bond issuers for continued business. And that became a problem in 2008 financial crisis because, you know, they were giving better bond ratings than it was warranted for those bonds. And the way that the, incentive model works for staking is that there will just be a set fixed token dilution, where it will be printing, let's say, there's 100 gold coins, some number of gold coins per month to give to the actual stakers as recompensation. And so that better aligns the incentive

where now the staker itself has a automated way of receiving incentives, but also is aligned in, you know, giving actually staking only things they have long-term belief in. Josh, Harper has proposed what it calls the private ICO or PICO. What is that? That was a thought piece we put out there, a blog post where we talked about ways to navigate the securities laws in the U.S. if you were doing an ICO that would be deemed as a security. It is, in essence, an explanation of how you can get increasing liquidity over time,

even under the current restrictive security guidelines. And we propose as a way for ICOs to navigate those issues. think it becomes difficult, though, because for a protocol token, which is what I refer to when I'm talking about ICOs, for a protocol token, fundamentally, you don't want to be treated as a security because if you are, you can't play that role as a payment service within the particular DAP, and you can't become a long-term store of value, which seems to be for a lot of protocol tokens, the important way that they get increasing value. So it is one way to comply with the securities laws while you're waiting for regulatory clarity. But ultimately, I think for most

protocol tokens, they won't work if they are deemed to be securities. Oh, interesting. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Danny, I wanted to ask you, I know that you guys work with a licensed trust company that will hold assets, at least, I guess, in the case of true USDA on behalf of token holders. So let's say that there ends up being like, I don't know, $100 million. worth of for true USD in that account. And in that instance, I'm assuming KYC AML has been done in all the purchasers, will that also be done on everyone that they trade with? And if not, how does that affect any regulations that the trust company has to abide

by? And if so, how do you enforce KYC AML being done on all purchases of, secondary purchases of true USD? Yeah, definitely. And so we do KYCML upon all purchases whenever there's Fiat involved, so wiring money in and out. And then we rely also we have a policy that we send to all the exchanges, kind of clarifying what are the KYC AMA policies that we expect of them. And this is similar to the idea of that Josh mentioned where you could piggyback off of other KYC practices. And so there is a kind of a question of whether or not you have to KYC AML every single true USDA holder.

And so the kind of argument that I've heard from attorneys about this is that you don't KYC AML, every single person that holds cash. And there is a bit more transparency in exactly where the funds are for true USD in these pseudonymous wallets. Oh, so that there isn't legal clarity about whether or not there needs to be KY, CEML and all those traits or transactions. Yeah. And generally, a lot of the space has very little legal clarity on exactly what is the amount of, or there's very little legal, full legal clarity here in the space. And so one thing that we've test drive, which is, to how Harbor probably does it with KYCAML, and then we have a public key address that we do identity of verification on, and then we link the identity with the public key, and we have a

white list. So 0X and the relators there are testing a way where you could have a decentralized exchange that peens the KYCML white list to be able to confirm that this person has a verified identity based off of our KYCML practices. And so it would be a similar methodology for checking each trade, whether or not both the buyer and seller have the proper identity of people to facilitate the trade. I actually want to go back to our conversation about Dex's. Josh, I definitely understand, you know, what points you were making there about why Dexes seem quite promising to use. And particularly in the case where you're using relayers that can perform KYC AML procedures, you know, that would make a lot of sense. But then if you're using

the protocol in the peer-to-peer fashion, then doesn't that risk securities being traded out of compliance? No, it doesn't. So when it's traded peer-to-peer, when it goes from one wallet address, the person who owns it, to the buyer, the buyer must have been vetted if it's a harbor-issued token. If the buyer is unknown, it'll throw an error in the trade will never happen. Because the whole point is if you can't in real-time correlate real-world identity with blockchain identity, with the walled address. You can't control that who, what, what, where of compliance. Oh, right, right. Okay. That's because of the centralized aspect. Yeah. So we have in Harbor, it's interesting. So we're not fully decentralized. I think some systems like Trust token or Polymath are interesting in the sense of it's fully

decentralized actors who trust each other because they've posted bonds. It's an interesting model. Some folks are fully centralized where they're the issuing platform, the exchange and everything can only happen within their walled garden. The approach Harbors take it is what we feel is the sweet bottom in between, where we are decentralized as to everything but compliance. Harbor centralizes the compliance functions, which we think for both regulatory reasons in the state at which the markets currently are make the most sense, but we're decentralized as everything else. These are ERC 20 standard tokens that work with any wallet, any exchange, any system that works with ERC 20 standard tokens.

So let's keep talking about the centralization because I don't know, you may not have heard, but on a recent skeptics podcast I did with Melton Demirers and Jill Carlson, Melton said something hilarious. Everybody needs to listen to this episode if you haven't heard it because she, you know, was just saying like she really felt like there was no value add to securitizing financial, to tokenizing securities. And she said, just use it an Excel spreadsheet. I had another person tell me they thought tokenizing securities gave marginal improvements

of maybe like at most 1.5x. And in general, I feel like, you know, some of these people are saying, well, you know, the purpose of blockchain technology is for trustless transactions. And so in the case of, you know, a tokenized security where, let's say it's a share of a company or something, you still have to trust that that company will honor its obligations to you. So how can you enforce that? You know, they feel like this doesn't, this doesn't solve some of the other problems that we have in centralized systems. So they're correct in the sense of you're not in a crypto nirvana where everything is trustless. I think you can think of what the blockchain does for tokenized securities and trust in three

areas. You can think of in terms of the investment, the record or evidence of ownership, and then secondary liquidity. In terms of the investment itself, it doesn't change anything. When you invest, you're investing your money into the hands of somebody else. And that's why there's securities laws to begin with, because there are trust issues. was called the principal agent problem. So you need to do your due diligence on the investment.

And that doesn't change. It doesn't change at all. If you have a terrible investment and you tokenize it, it's now a much more liquid, terrible investment. I've used more scatological comparisons. Oh, no, the title of that episode with Meltem and Jill was something called like something about the shit coin waterfall. So I literally had to give an explicit warning because they had warned me in advance

that there was going to be explicit language. Yeah, if you have a crappy investment, you tokenize it. You now have a more liquid crappy investment. And any parent of young children knows that that's a bad idea. So you're, but your record of ownership is suddenly much better. Why? Because you have one record, that distributed ledger that shows who owns what. So particularly for overseas investors relative to where the investment is, but even for

anyone, you don't have the double counting problem. You know if you own a share, you own that one share and no one else. owns it. You don't have the Dole Foods problem where Dole was, if I can remember the facts correctly, was public going private. Dole thought they had 34 million shares outstanding. The investing public thought they had 46 million shares in the Delaware Chancery Court threw up their hands in the air and said, you guys go figure it out. Yeah, this is, Caitlin Long always references that when she talks about the promise of blockchain. But anyway, keep going. It's a great one. So you know you own what you own, and particularly for companies as well, if we go to,

back to that sports team analogy, the 49ers, for them to bundle other property rights into securities that aren't normally associated with them, they need to know who all their shareholders are. And in the public markets, the companies don't. All Apple knows or IBM knows is that DTC owns all their shares. And then DTC only knows they have these huge broker accounts. And those brokers only know they have the subbroker accounts. And that's why the records get out of whack and nobody can reach out directly. So the investment is still centralized. You still need to have trust and do your due diligence. Your record of ownership now is clear. You know you own what you own. You don't have double counting. But now secondary liquidity is where you get the magic of the blockchain.

And that is where you can trade 24-7, 365 around the globe with near instantaneous settlement and no counterparty risk and tokenization of the blockchain. And only the blockchain can deliver that. And that is a revolution in value. And to go back where you say, well, it's only one point. 1.5x, 1.5x seems wonderful if what you're referencing is the value of the asset. When you think of the tens of trillions of dollars of assets to tokenize, if you could increase the value of them by 50%, that's a tremendous amount of value to unlock. Like I said, we don't mind not being sexy. Well, I want to ask you about having this record of ownership that you, well, that isn't inaccurate, right? But what if, let's say that I own a share of a private company and I say that I lose

my private keys and, you know, the company thinks I'm just claiming that I lost it. So do I lose that share forever? Does the company, and so does the company just keep that money or do they replace the share for me? And if so, then how can I actually prove that I did really lose the access and I'm not just trying to get a second share? So at Harbor, what we would do is we would cancel the lost share, the shares that are in that lost wallet, and then reissue new shares. So let me explain that a little bit. As a private company, you have to have the ability to control your cap table. If, for example, if a court orders that ownership be delivered from one person to another, you have to be able to amend the books and records of your corporation,

that stock ledger, to show that Josh no longer owns this share, Laura does. If, for example, there's a divorce or there's a court decree and you have to move ownership, you have to have the ability to do that. So in the way we've organized our spark contracts and the way it interacts with the off-chain platform, we have the ability to cancel shares and then reissue them. And you need to have the ability to do that. That becomes controversial in the crypto world sometimes in the sense of people say, well, then how do I own what I own? The answer is you own it in a sense in the same way you do today. It's not the token itself. It's the record of ownership that the token is that shows you own what you own. And that record of ownership needs to be transferred as appropriate.

Interesting. So here's a question for both of you. Do the token standards that you're creating, do they work together? Are they interoperable? So at Harvard, it's an ERC 20 standard token. It works with any other system or DAP that works with ERC 20 standard tokens. There's just simply a vetting process. So if there's an intermediate wallet, we would have to whitelist that wallet because we would have to ensure that it's trading on a compliantly licensed exchange. But otherwise, like I said, only the compliance is centralized. Everything else is decentralized and fits into the larger Ethereum ecosystem. So if I, let's say, you know, this kind of global exchange that you described earlier comes to fruition. If I want to exchange a security token that is built on the Harbor standard

with a different security token built on the trust token standard, can I do that? That is not something I thought through before. I know we're on a podcast, but I'm staring up the ceiling thinking. You know, that's something we'd have to work through. But to be honest, I'm really excited about a particular class of trust tokens, true USD, or I'll call it just crypto fiat. We have with our platform come up with a way for investors to pay with Bitcoin or ether when they buy security tokens.

But the issue, that doesn't seem too revolutionary. What was revolutionary and took a lot of engineering and a lot of thought in designing processes was nobody wanted to take cryptocurrency risk. How do you do it in a way where people invest? You can hold the cryptocurrency in escrow and then later convert and no one bears any cryptocurrency risk. It's actually a very difficult problem. And it made me convince that stable coins with on ramps and off ramps to fiat out in the

real world are extraordinarily necessary for the crypto economy to really take off. And so we look forward to true SD being available to more retail-like individuals to use because we would love to be able to accept it and facilitate it. People are buying securities as they're issued. Yeah, Danny, why don't you talk about that? Because I know you have an interesting strategy around why you guys decided to start there in the universe of all the different world world assets that you could have tokenized. Yeah. So the way that we thought about which assets to tokenize and which sequence is how complex the asset. The way we think about that is how much information would you need to know from me if you're buying that asset.

So currencies, you're buying US dollars from me. You don't need to know basically any information. If you're buying commodities, you need to fill more, gold and oil. And when you get into securities like real estate or corporation shares, that's when you need most disclosures. And so a lot of that is actually about information of symmetry, how much information you would need to know and how much information could someone take advantage of to price the asset in their favor. And so the advantage of tokenized currencies is that, one, they had more legal clarity, meaning that there's a strong legal argument that it's not a security

token because there's no expectation of profit. People generally buy true USD a dollar and expect to sell out a dollar. The second thing was that there was proven demand and there was space for, let's say, more trustworthy alternative as a stable coin. And three, it was just the simplest asset class to tokenize, but that makes it also one of the most pragmatic and useful ones that the crypto economy could use for sure. So a question for both of you, how do you plan to compete against traditional finance and all the firms that are currently profiting from securities and other real world assets. So we don't think that Harbor competes with those. I think the best analogy is Salesforce.com. No one ever said, oh, let's not use Salesforce because it's going to compete with our salespeople.

They went and bought the technology because it was a platform that enabled them to be more effective and efficient. So similarly, we view Harbor as a platform for companies, raising capital, for brokers, investment banks, and others to be able to raise private capital more efficiently and raise more of it and to enable this secondary liquidity in private securities that never really existed before. And so we don't view ourselves as competitive to them. We view us as enabling them with the new technology. So they'll be your customers?

The people raising capital are our customers, so ultimately the companies. But we want to be partners with the investment banks, the broker dealers with and others. So you're still going to need networks of broker dealers to sell some of these investments. You still need investment banks to structure it and place it. You still need the services of other folks in there. But if we can all become more efficient and play those rules better by using Harbor, then everybody's better off. It's lower costs and more capital more quickly to the companies that need capital to go

do real things in the real world. And it's a better market for everyone involved because it's a bigger, more liquid market. Danny, what about you? How does trust token plan to compete? Well, since we have a decentralized model, it very much is the case that we see it as long as people, if people are willing to adopt, let's say, trust token staking across the world, not just in the United States. Ours is as much collaborative. And so we will tokenize assets and we'll use as a demonstration of the standards. But we hope to work with, you know, many asset token issuers as well as traditional financial. firms that enters space and collaborate.

And a lot of people in crypto are talking about how in order for the space to take off, we need infrastructure to be built. What kinds of infrastructure need to be built in order for this particular area with security tokens or other tokenized versions of real world assets to become easily tradable? So I think we're well on our way there. And I think it's going to be a process as it gets better and better more and more. but I think I'd illustrate that with some things that seem more trivial or administrative are actually big lifts.

The great part about tokenization is that you can break things down to smaller units of investment. You can create more shares. You can syndicate more widely. But that actually increases the administrative burden. So an investment where you were raising $100 million that you would normally take on 20 investors or 30, and now suddenly you're taking on $2,000 means that's $2,000 more or $1,800 more people to track.

if you're a REIT or a fund that's doing distributions, that's 10x, the number of checks you got to write, 1099s or K-1s you have to distribute. In other words, there's going to need to be a whole bunch of services around CapTable management and fund administration, and that will enable this to go forward even more. For investors, they're going to need a lot more friendly UX and UI in how they interact with the tokenized securities. This has been said on some of your podcasts and others before, which is we'll know we're successful and we know we have mainstream adoption at the point at which no one hears the word crypto or token. It just feels like dealing with the normal SaaS interface and you're just focused on the investment,

not the underlying technology. Yeah. Danny, do you want to add anything? Yeah, I think custody is a large component here, both from personal and institutional custody, where a lot of people still aren't comfortable at all with private key management. And for widespread adoption, being able to hold crypto and actually own it is an important component where there's wider adoption. So I think actually that's true in certain cases. I think it's less true or a misnomer in others that's important to understand, which is in the case of private securities, we get led astray by using the term token. Token is a mental model that's not actually accurate.

There is nothing physical to a token. A token is simply a notation and ledger like the old stock ledger that companies kept that just says Josh owns 50 shares. And then when we trade, it says Josh minus 20 and Laura plus 20. So there is actually no share to custody. There is no stock certificate out there. So you don't have the same custodial requirements you would. You need similar services because you don't want to lose your keys and then go through the hassle of having that old share canceled and then reissued. So there are practical administrative reasons. But tokenized real world assets are very different than cryptocurrency or crypto assets in the sense of if you're hacked and lose a

cryptocurrency, you are out that money. The asset is gone. If you lose your share in a company, the company hasn't gone anywhere. The asset is still there. The record of your ownership is still there. All you've lost was an easy way to transfer that ownership. And now you need to be reissued a way to transfer that ownership. The magnitude of loss is not the same. And why you want good security hygiene to avoid administrative issues down the road. It's not the same threat of loss or custodial issues that you get when it's actual assets. Yeah, I think I'm just realizing for Danny, I have a question, because I sort of ask this of Josh, what happens if I lose a true USD that I've bought secondarily? Since there are actual dollars in a bank, you know, obviously

if I'm the one holding the private keys for those tokens, then what happens? Do I just lose that money? Or can the bank somehow issue me new to USD? Or what happens? Yeah. So we have centralized control of true USD. The ability to mint and burn true SD, as well as freeze funds, cancel funds, issue funds into any public key. And so similar to how Josh described the centralized control over the asset token smart contract, we have that ability. we haven't had anyone reach out to us saying, you know, we've completely lost millions of dollars of true U.S.D, but that's something we would be able to do if we were, if that was proven. Okay. Okay. So in that regard, I think maybe the custody issues are not as great even for true U.S.D. Yes, the custody issues are not as great, but you still need a, you still need to do private key management. And people who don't like to do private key manager.

I would second that motion. So who are some of the issuers that plan to use, either the R token standard or the trust token standard? And what will the first, well, I mean, obviously, aside from true U.S.D, what will be the first projects we'll see coming out of both of your teams? So for Harbor, there's been a real flood of interest in real estate in particular. And I think it's interesting to discuss why. So I think an interesting question is what makes sense to tokenize and what doesn't. So I think what makes sense to tokenize are those interests and assets that are relatively capital intensive, that are sensitive to the cost of capital and relatively indifferent to the

identity of the investor. So our mantra is lock up the capital, not the investors. So things like real estate uses a lot of capital, very sensitive to the cost of capital, long-term assets where it's difficult for them to give redemption rights or to take cash back out, but relatively indifferent to who the investors are as long as they're legal investors, that's a great area to tokenize because you can now unbundle things into smaller units of investment, gather more capital from around the world, and lower your cost to capital. I think great contradistinction is, say, tech startups, folks could tokenize the equity in their

Silicon Valley startup, but it really doesn't make a lot of sense because most of them don't want investors trading freely in and out of their cap table. They're not going to allow for liquidity. So in that case, tokenizing, it gives you a little bit better cap table management. There's some incremental administrative value. But if you're not allowing widespread trading, you haven't delivered any true transformation of value. tokenization hasn't done much for you. And Danny, obviously you've got true SD. How is that going, by the way?

What are some metrics or stats around how much is out there? Yeah. So right now we're at a market cap about $60 million. And then four months into creating true SD had $80 million. And so true USD price fluctuates or the market cap fluctuates as people's perceptions of what crypto will do change. And so if it's going down, people definitely like true USD as a crypto safe haven to write out the downwave. And then if it's going up, they want to participate in the positive appreciation. And so they go into, let's say, Bitcoin.

But overall, it's doing well. It's the second largest stablecoin. And it's only all of the free op-back stablecoin besides Setheran market right now. And what are some of the other first projects you'll do aside from TrueUSD? Yeah, so we're looking at other tokenized currencies. We're really looking at security token exchanges going alive and getting more adoption before we're really looking at the most complex assets like real estate and tokenizing other complex assets that will definitely be security tokens and commodities as well. So maybe a gold or silver token. And which currencies are you looking at? Most of the major currencies. So euro, Hong Kong, dollar. and others.

Okay. All right. Well, thank you both for coming on Unchained. Where can people learn more about your work? Best places, harbor.com. It's all there. Trust token.com for us. Perfect.

Well, thank you both for coming on the show. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks so much for joining us today. To learn more about security tokens and real world asset back tokens and Harbor and Trust token, check out the show notes inside your podcast episode. New episodes of Unchained come out every Tuesday. If you haven't already, rate review on

subscribe on Apple Podcasts. If you liked this episode, share it with your friends on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn. And if you're not yet subscribed to my other podcast Unconfirmed, I highly recommend you check it out and subscribe now. Unchained is produced by me, Laura Shin, with help from Raylene Gallipoli, fractal recording, Jenny Josephson, Rahul Singhierdi, and Daniel Nuss. Thanks for listening.