What should the exit strategy be?

@pospi testing the tagging.

that proposal could work where you want to get rid of someone that no one wants to remain in the group but it would be unfair for people who are active contributors and just need to divest some of their equity because of an emergency. If it was a very liquid market it could possibly work but imagine I had to dell my share and there is no one in the group who has the cash to buy my tokens and there is no one waiting in the wings. This arrangement could mean at the end of a few weeks someone could buy my share of the property for a few hundred dollars. This arrangement would only work if everyone's shares were worth the Sam at that time and were up for sale at the same time. This would mean at some point any member could buy any other members tokens at the devalued rate. I think the correct answer is to use a similar or identical mechanism for a share sale in a private company.

the bigger question is what are we exiting from - do the tokens represent the not for profit project or the investment we have each made to make it possible?

Do we really think it's that much of a problem if in the event of an exit, somebody's tokens don't get bought up? Maybe they could just go into a holding pool at some pre-agreed value and don't get counted as part of the voting shares until someone buys them... or maybe we could just limit the amount they depreciate. Just thoughts.

if the tokens represent the value of the underlying assets and value of the cashflow they generate then having someone hold a small proportion of assets that can't materially influence the decisions as to how the assets are used seems like they are really just passive investors without active participation or involvement. Isnt that the ideal kind of investor for us as a group? If they are no longer interested in the project and they cant realistically negatively affect the progress of the project why would we want to force them to sell at a certain price to someone else? if existing token holders have first right of refusal at an offered price like shareholders in a private company then any token holder can choose to buy them out at a fair market value. Such issues only become a problem if they own a majority stake and could determine how the surplus cashflow is used or allocated.

If it is possible to put so much money into an investment fund that is used to buy and sell cryptocurrency like dean does, over time that money would be enough to buy someone out on their exit if no one else could/would buy the assest value. The assest value would then go back into the foundation for reinvestment or whatever is needed to keep the investment fund alive. Not sure how to initially fund the account unless people have to put in for a buy in, or etherium is willing to donate coin to start the system. Feel free to poke holes in this theory of build off it.

I know this thread is old and we have a much more refined structure now, but there are still some refinements that have not been well articulated around the way shares will be offered in LBPL for work & $ put into ELF. Elf cant really just create shares in LBPL which will represent a tangible value, since they are backed by LBT assets ie the property etc. The terms of the lease agreement here could be the key to keeping the accounting straight and legal. If ELF is by its efforts increasing the value of the property and providing management services for LBT then there should be a reward for these services. This reward could be in $ or in LBPL shares or both. The lease agreement is a contractual document that should build in this accounting logic. It also then means that ELF can legitimately "pay" for work done on its behalf using its shares in LBPL. From an accounting perspective it could also borrow shares from LBPL as well if it doesn’t have enough to pay for work it does to improve the property. Now the other issue which Luciano has raised a few times is that some of ELF activity is not actually increasing the capital value but does support cashflow. For example a business accounts for shares it owns or capital equipment it owns quite separately from things that create cashflow or keep equipment working etc. In our case installing header tanks was a capital item, but keeping the water in the tanks is not. Without water in the tanks the rental income is not possible so it is supporting cashflow but doesn’t add to the capital value of the property at all. Another clear example is the roof on the house is a capital item, but maintaining it and cleaning out the gutters is maintenance that will both limit depreciation and maintain cashflow by ensuring that we collect enough water. So Luciano may be right, we may need two classes of ELF tokens/LBPL shares. Alternatively there is a possibility that there be a certain amount of actual cash paid back into LBT via LBPL for the lease rights and these be distributed to those who do the work that supports the business but does not add to the capital value of the property. This needs discussion before we formulate a proposal to vote on. It could be good to get an actual accountant to give some advice on it. Which brings me to another outstanding issue. We need to transition to a new accountant. Our current one is good but is costing us 4K per year and we can reduce that I am sure. if we cant do this my march we will be up for another 4K accounting bill in 2019. Luciano suggested mary meddows I think. Thoughts??