Partnership with JST Capital to bring on-chain securitization at institutional level

What is a partnership in this context? Is it fair to say that the RWF team is equally partnering with Centrifuge? Can you pay my legal bills as well? :slight_smile:

Hi Seb–I visited the JST webpage and it seems like they’re mostly a Trading and Risk management outfit–I don’t see anything related to working w/Smart Contracts, or Legal Contracts (maybe I missed it). Will you be doing a follow up/write-up to get a better grasp?

2 Likes

It’s mainly that they will invest in some pools, so we are aligned and will share our notes on the due diligence and monitoring going forward. Two teams are better than one.

3 Likes

Hi @ElProgreso, this is Raymond from JST. Historically the core business of the firm has been focused around trading and risk management as you’ve mentioned but JST is looking to take a more active role in investing on-chain and in defi.

As Sebastien has mentioned, this is more of a collaboration where we will be sharing notes and developing robust frameworks for bringing real world assets on-chain. I personally have 10 years of experience on the investing and structuring side of these deals, feel free to contact me directly with any questions :slight_smile:

10 Likes

Got it! Thank you for clarifying–I misunderstood the post. Looking forward to hearing more and getting the Maker Community involved.

So is this a Collaboration or a Partnership?

There is a level of Maker stuff that is open, and another level that is completely NDA and closed. The open stuff is easy to review, the closed not so much.

Help me out here on some of the details of this collaboration.

What ‘notes’ will be shared?
Who benefits from this ‘developing robust frameworks’?
Who is paying for what here?

And some of the larger questions. Who is bringing what to the table, to give and get what?

The bigger question will be how is stuff that falls under the RWA Maker NDA’s going to be quarantined in such a collaboration?

Thinking about this from say a 6s or Centrifuge point of view. If I spent a ton of money to create a legal structure I am not going to want collaborators to just look in and basically take all this work and then start using it themselves. In the loosest sense the legal documentation structures themselves are paid for and owned by the entities constructing them. Just because they give the DAO an open look into them doesn’t mean someone else gets the rights to just copy and paste them. At 1-2K/hr or higher I expect these structures cost a lot of money to create and I’d hate to see a collaborator basically taking everything our partners have done legally and basically using these structures to compete against us somehow.

I guess what I don’t want to see is entities who are getting access to the legal IP being constructed basically being able to ‘fork’ via a copy-paste without compensating or negotiating agreements with those paying to construct these and making them open to MakerDAO/public.

Is there going to be a non-compete agreement signed here?

3 Likes

@MakerMan there is no contract nor money at stake here. @RayJST and JST Capital have expertise so if they invest in Tinlake pools, it makes sense to discuss with them.

On both ends (JST and ours) we will monitor what happens in the pools. Therefore it makes sense to avoid bothering the Asset Originator with 2 sets of reporting requirements, twice the amount of audit meetings, conflicting demands, and so on.

Regarding the structures, they are mainly public anyway and Tinlake code is open-source. We are not going to fork it at all. It just happens that we both have buy-side concerns and we organize ourselves which seems to make sense to me.

1 Like

and then.

So it sounds like:

  • There is money at stake (i.e. as you write in the Centrifuge pools)
  • And you have joint interests in doing analysis on verifying reports etc.

So basically you want to collaborate or partner regarding monitoring of Centrifuge. This was not clear in the announcement and why I ask these kinds of questions. To get clarification.

Is the information regarding the collaboration between JST and Maker RWA going to be public or private?
I guess my question is how will Maker be able to audit the time against some sort of collaboration perforance. I mean if this is just a cursory lets collaborate to check notes regarding pool buy-side concerns then great, but if this is a you do this work, and we will do this work and lets share our work together. I think there will be questions about who gets better part of information sharing arrangement.

FYI: Often times larger financial firms will actually sell their analytical services in a contract agreement. And they can often do cross firm contractual agreements so basically each party is clear about what is being shared, whether there is a cost, timeframe and terms. Most real FinTech firms won’t even talk to someone in such a way without having a NDA signed (i.e. what we talk about you can’t share openly with others) due to the fact that this kind of information costs money to get, and hence has value to other parties.

Community shouldn’t expect much more than this announcement. You will see the results of this partnership in the changes we ask the assets originators to make, in some ideas we will discuss the community.

The New Silver audit we published is an example of what we mean by sharing notes. Asking if they see something else, if they feel different about a proposed solution, if they have something else to be added to the list, …

Hi Makerman, happy to provide more context on the partnership below:

JST and Maker are collaborators and partners in the goal of bringing more real world assets into defi. We are proponents of defi and believe that bringing real world assets on-chain is the next big step for the ecosystem. JST has also been a partner to Centrifuge and we are an investor in pools on the Tinlake platform.

Prior to our partnership with MakerDAO, JST has already engaged lawyers (and spent dollars on legal fees) to address some of the action items that Sebastien has detailed in his roadmap: On-Chain Securitization Roadmap / New Silver audit. As JST and MakerDAO are both investors on Tinlake, our interests are aligned with respect to building out the most robust legal structure to protect our token interests. Going forward, we will continue to each have our own lawyers but will be working together in a coordinated fashion with respect to the roadmap. We believe these enhancements will go a long way towards motivating Institutional Investors to consider investing in the DROP and TIN tokens, and thus accelerating the growth of the Defi community. The end result of our work will be reflected in updated (and hopefully more robust) DROP/TIN subscription agreements that will benefit all investors.

7 Likes

Hopefully Seb’s answers and my response above provide more context, as always we’ll be available :slight_smile:

Out of curiosity, does JST:

  1. Receive CFG rewards? If so, any chance you’d be willing to advocate to Centrifuge that Maker gets the same rewards as all other platform participants?

  2. Invest in pools Maker is involved in? If so, would you be willing to commit to informing us before initiating redemptions? Maker’s credit is currently used to pay exiting investors, so if you see some issue, it would be really nice to learn it when you do.

Thanks! Excited to hear more!

@RayJST

So your goals are bigger here is this just with Centrifuge/Tinlake or a general interest in being a RWA facilitator of some kind. I don’t think that was clear from announcement either and I am still not clear what this means for JST. What exactly is JSTs business? (forget that question reading https://jstcap.com/#services now).

This part is a bit of news to me. I understand being an investor but if you were/are also a partner beyond being an investor (i.e. if you helped/assisted Centrifuge with TinLake platform) then that is a kind of ‘potential conflict of interest’ disclosure.

Does JST own or hold any other interest in Centrifuge beyond Tinlake and/or DROP tokens. i.e. a private ownership interest in Centrifuge?

Also what is the size of the JST DROP investments as a % of total?

I see part of the JST services are reports on investments to clients. Has JST signed a NDA regarding this collaboration between Maker RWA CU or SebVentures? I mean literally Maker could just buy your reports on Centrifuge? Once we start back feeding information that could be used in reports your company sells we then become an information/analysis supplier. Given that your company specializes in selling these services and wouldn’t want anyone else to give out information you might consider proprietary have any agreements regarding information sharing been signed between JST and Maker?

I don’t want to give the wrong impression here. As a consultant I had to deal with a lot of companies and restrict flows of information from me to clients for various reasons. I want to be supportive of collaborations and partnerships that are mutually beneficial. I just have concerns since your company is an information/report broker that there are no new conflicts of interest not addressed within some written agreement of cooperation/partnership and elucidation of JSTs roles with Maker and Centrifuge both historically and intended going forward.

I think it’s worth taking a time-out in these comments to provide some context to Raymond regarding the way the forums operate - I assume he’s already been briefed by Seb and Centrifuge, but as someone who brings external and legacy counterparties to the DAO, I’ve seen how the experience can impact the relationship. This is in no way an indictment of any comments in this thread, I think all the questions so far have been great.

  1. So first of all, I want to say (in my capacity as an individual), thank you very much for joining and collaborating with MakerDAO. We are lucky to have a counterparty of your caliber join our ranks. I hope that you feel welcome.

  2. We hash out everything in public here. It’s a bit uncomfortable, but for better or worse it’s how we have to do things. Any comments you receive are more than likely well intentioned and contain the shared goal of making MakerDAO a better protocol.

  3. We (in general) ask a ton of probing questions and are very direct, please don’t let this turn you off. If you engage and contribute, this is the greatest community in the world.

Again, apologies if this didn’t need to be said, but I often find that it’s better to be safe than sorry when new companies start doing business with us. Welcome to the DAO!

10 Likes

@MakerMan Let’s pause and just take it a little slower here

Not everyone lives on the forums like you and I do :slight_smile:

2 Likes

@PaperImperium Hey I am happy to wait a week for a reply… :slight_smile:

But appreciate the ‘pace yourself, pace yourself’ type comment. lol

3 Likes

Well put @g_dip.

I tend to forget the social niceties in hopes of just clearing the decks of the hard crap so we can get to the juicy good centers. That has its pros and cons…

2 Likes

Hi @RayJST. Just a gentle nudge on a few of the questions the community had:

Perhaps maybe you could also give us a little information on the extent to which JST is investing in these pools? An aggregate amount would be fine, but feel free to talk about specific pools, too!

1 Like

Hi all,

JST is an investor in CFG tokens but we don’t have any ‘private ownership’ beyond that. While we can’t share the size of our investment, it is a meaningful investment for us and we look forward to continuing to work with the teams at Centrifuge and the MakerDAO community. We aim to be as communicative as possible but can’t commit to providing any advance notice of our trading decisions. It is important to note that we at JST are not privy to any credit information above and beyond what is available to the Maker RWA CU.

-Ray

3 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.