Our Inventory Monetisation transactions can be funded also via the traditional routes (securitisation, asset based lenders) and leveraging the Global Inventory Fund (Alternative regulated Fund) we launched recently.
We think that the “token route” could be a complementary funding stream to support our Clients, attracting digital assets investors (retail, family offices, institutionals), accelerating the scalability of our model.
In briefly, we believe on a sort of cross-fertilisation between our multiple funding streams. Accordingly, we do think that, after announcing a first Inventory Monetisation transaction via a dedicated Centrifuge pool, being also our Company listed, we will attract a lot of investors on Centrifuge (an example: just our investors in the listed Company which are thousands).
For each criteria, either a (criteria not met) or (criteria met) will be given.
Below you will find the results of the individual criteria:
Business Years in Operation:
Off-Chain Institutional Investors:
Volume Originated last 2 years:
Historical Loan Tape:
Pool Value at Launch:
Pool Value in 1 Year:
This proposal meets the threshold of >66% and has passed step 2.
Step 3 will be to get a recommendation from the Centrifuge DAO. This will be done within the next 5 days and the result will be published here on the Forum.
If you want to see all the steps of Stage 1 of the POP process, you can check this post here .
Hi, I’m not really clear what you mean by “we don’t envisage the TIN tranche”. Currently on Tinlake, all pools have to have a TIN tranche. On POCC, we might be able to do a single tranche but that is still in the works. Can you explain what you mean? Even for current issuers who have a off-chain junior tranche: they still have a TIN tranche, which basically acts like the mezzanine tranche.
On the other hand, in order to raise capital via Centrifuge, we would need an official launch of a dedicated pool in order to arrange the marketing activities vis-à-vis the [email protected]’ community (investors in the listed companies, potential investors interested in subscribe the DROP tranche, …).
Are you saying that capital would flow into your Centrifuge Pool via both/either Tradeflow or VeChain partnerships? If so, I think the Centrifuge Community would like to understand their commitment to deploying those funds on the assumption your POP is approved.
I’d like to suggest a language shift:
from “in order to raise capital, we need an official launch of dedicated pool”
to “in order to launch a pool, we need an official capital structure in place”
The process of progressing through the POP is highly dependent on bringing capital partners to the community.
I think there’s a difference between organizations that need capital, versus those that want to transfer their entire asset management / structured credit from off-chain to on-chain. The latter sees the early days of Centrifuge a very small first step, but hold a vision for the entire ecosystem of asset-backed securities moving on-chain.
The latter are bringing the assets, the capital, and the vision for the future, partnering with Centrifuge to execute that vision.
Our documentation is a great place to start, but there’s also some key ideas being proposed here by Blocktower below, that speak to a long-term vision of the future.
Hi I’m Mike, the Founder of DeFi Capital Markets (“DCM”), an entity in the Centrifuge community that is focused on building the future of decentralized capital markets by onboarding institutional investors, assets and infrastructure to the DeFi ecosystem. Previously I was a core member of the Centrifuge team and we at DCM are currently contributing to the Centrifuge, RWA Market (Aave) and MakerDAO ecosystems. The current, and future, employees of DCM are largely from institutional investment and credit backgrounds and we intend to provide views on proposed pools coming through the POP process. Our views do not amount to financial advice and nothing contained in this post constitutes a solicitation, recommendation or endorsement of any investment. Community members should do their own independent research.
I will reuse my recent macro wrap: Macro conditions have broadly deteriorated across markets as inflation has reached a multi-decade high and has spurred a more aggressive Fed policy. The resultant rise in interest rates has driven a sharp sell-off of global financial assets, crypto being no exception. DeFi liquidity has contracted markedly in the last few months, and recently we have witnessed several large scale insolvencies that have shaken confidence in the sector. As deFi investors retreat and significant swathes of capital are erased from the ecosystem it makes for a notably difficult backdrop to raise new financing. That being said, real-world assets tied to productive cash flows outside the crypto ecosystem offer investors a new avenue to generate yield in a more sustainable fashion. Given the financial conditions, investor appetite for new endeavours is expected to remain limited for the time being, however we are optimistic this could improve once the dust settles and RWAs continue as an emerging trend.
We echo the KF recommendation, having concerns that a lack of capital will remain a constant challenge to succesful launching this pool. The expected senior pricing also looks relatively tight to us given the aforementioned backdrop. Altough we would love to suggest that all process proceed, we don’t currently see merits here at the moment.
As articulated in the quality conversation above, there simply is a lack of capital demand for this POP at this time. More broadly in TradFi it seems that capital is available off-chain, but unable to move on-chain.
Within the on-chain ecosystem, there does not seem to be capital providers willing (or visibly supporting) the initial launch and/or future growth of this POP.
Thanks @alexzambo for the continued dialogue and the application.