• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Pre-proposal: business integration into retail sector

Status
Not open for further replies.
After looking at @Biltong 's Evaluator Guidelines https://goo.gl/bIydYX which include the completion of a Project Proposal template I will offer the following assessment on https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Business_integration_into_retail_sector:

This Proposal gets a rating of 18%
  1. Proposal Presentation 1/2
  2. Character 2/5
  3. Responsiveness to Template format 0/5
  4. Experience 3/10
  5. Samples of work 2/10
  6. Technical expertise 1/10
  7. Risk vs. Reward 2/15
  8. Bonus Points 0
Total Score 11/60

This proposal is currently passing nonetheless...
 
Benglian said:
Total Score 11/60
Click to expand...

I absolutely LOVE the @Biltong 's system for evaluation! I think it's genuinely crucial:)

Is exactly this evaluation by some committee? Was this based on opinions of a group of people?
As far as I see, It's you subjective and, somehow, biased opinion:)
 
Benglian said:
- In order to process payments the reputable company 'Profit Solutions' should have a legal contract with the payment processor (the proposer) detailing the relationship. They will ostensibly be relying on the proposer to provide a fiat > DASH exchange rate, and settle funds from a DASH transaction into fiat so that it can be paid to the processor, and on to the merchant. You can't do that without a contract.
It needs to details fees, settlement cycle, service agreement, relevant law applicable, lots of things.
Click to expand...

We don't have a contract yet but we're working on it. Legal part is the most important in this integration so it takes the most amount of time.
I'm not sure that we can show the info of contract publicly but we'll definitely let everybody know if it is possible.

You mentioned that fork.sale is not working with Paypal, we do know that so we turned it off for some time, until our negotiations with Paypal will be solved (I suppose you know that it takes a lot of hassle to make it work legally). What is important though is that currently we have the plans of changing fork.sale's purpose from exchange into processing center that is going to work with legal entities only. In fact, that will be one of our main requirements.
 
I'm quite pleased that Benglian used the PEC Evaluator Guidelines https://goo.gl/bIydYX
However, to be fair I must just mention that the PEC is not sanctioned by the MNO's as yet and that the Originators were at a disadvantage:
Once the PEC is up and running, an Evaluator will be assigned to a new Pre-Proposal and the following will happen:
The Originator will be told:
  • Who the Evaluator will be
  • How to prepare the Pre-Proposal,
  • How the Proposal will be Evaluated,
  • How much time (4 days) there will be before the 1st Report is posted
Obviously none of these steps happened and especially in the case of
3. Responsiveness to Template format 0/5
They had no warning or information how to prepare.

I did urge Benglian to post his concerns on the Pre-Proposal thread, since I believe the community should see them.
The PEC will provide no input or Report for this Proposal since our 1st test run is only scheduled after the vote and this proposal will be voted on by the MNO's as per normal.

However, it won't do the Originators any harm in trying to up the marks that Benglian provided. ;)
That is one of the main reasons of the PEC Reports - to provide concrete feedback (multiple times in the Pre-Proposal phase) of areas of concern so that Proposals will end up with the best chance possible when they finally go to the MNO vote.

Good luck :)

And thank you to @Benglian for going to all the effort for Dash :D
 
Well done @Benglian and @Biltong

@dmitriybtc -- this is an example of how all proposals should be evaluated, and I really appreciate that you are handling this increased level of scrutiny well. It may seem unfair since much worse proposals have received much less examination and passed, but hopefully going forward all proposals can get evaluated in this manner.
 
dmitriybtc said:
We don't have a contract yet but we're working on it. Legal part is the most important in this integration so it takes the most amount of time.
I'm not sure that we can show the info of contract publicly but we'll definitely let everybody know if it is possible.

You mentioned that fork.sale is not working with Paypal, we do know that so we turned it off for some time, until our negotiations with Paypal will be solved (I suppose you know that it takes a lot of hassle to make it work legally). What is important though is that currently we have the plans of changing fork.sale's purpose from exchange into processing center that is going to work with legal entities only. In fact, that will be one of our main requirements.
Click to expand...

Hi Dmitry,

I am sorry to say but in business if you don't have a contract you have nothing. I speak to many payment providers who are pitching their new payments systems to me and I really like some of them, and give positive feedback, but that doesn't mean I am willing to sign a contract. Even when I do sign a contract it doesn't mean that I will integrate and activate a payment method anytime soon. I have had contracts signed for two years before I actually integrated.
Can you clarify the legal entity that you will be using to sign the contract? Meaning which company will you use to sign the contract with Profit Solutions ? Can you provide evidence that the company that does sign the contract with Profit Solutions for this proposal is connected to you?

Regarding your website; Paypal appears to be the only funding source for your site, and as that is not working, then it is not a demonstration of either your technical capability or your business acumen. As you stated 'we have the plans of changing fork.sale's purpose from exchange into processing center' and that is admirable, but I believe that you under-estimate the work this involves and the timeframe needed to achieve it.

I would urge you to reconsider your own ability to deliver on your proposal in the stated timeframe, and honestly re-evaluate whether you wish to pursue the proposal as it stands.
 
slava_m said:
I absolutely LOVE the @Biltong 's system for evaluation! I think it's genuinely crucial:)

Is exactly this evaluation by some committee? Was this based on opinions of a group of people?
As far as I see, It's you subjective and, somehow, biased opinion:)
Click to expand...

As I stated, I am a forum user of no particular standing, who happens to have experience in the eCommerce payments space. I used @Biltong 's efforts to bring some structure and evaluation of proposals to fruition as my guide in offering my commentary on the proposal.

I am not biased against the proposal, and I think the sentiment of what is trying to be achieved is admirable. However, given my experience in this field, I do not believe that the proposal as it stands is likely to be achievable.
 
@dimitrybtc

Can you clarify how your exchange and your POS integration proposes to comply with the 4th EU AML directive that brings with it lots of regulations and requirements and penalties and fines.

Also, the EU commission commented here and explicitly states that virtual currency exchanges are within scope.
--
How can virtual currencies be used to finance terrorism and what can we do to prevent this?

Banks and payment institutions fall under the scope of the Fourth AMLD, which requires them to comply with specific rules, such as verifying customers’ identity and monitoring financial transactions. Virtual currency operators were initially not included in the scope of the Directive.

Virtual currencies are developing quickly and are an example of digital innovation. However, at the same time, there is a risk that virtual currencies could be used by terrorist organisations to circumvent the traditional financial system and conceal financial transactions as these can be carried out in an anonymous manner.

That is why the Commission proposes to bring virtual currency exchange platforms and custodian wallet providers under the scope of the Fourth AMLD, in order to help identify users who trade in virtual currencies. Bringing these two actors under the Fourth AMLD and making them "obliged entities" will ensure better controls, ensuring that they apply customer due diligence and contribute to preventing money laundering and terrorist financing.
--

I do understand that Ukraine is (not yet) in the EU but AML regulations are in place throughout the world, and Ukraine as a prospective member of the EU will want to show its willingness and ability to comply with EU directives.

How will you tackle compliance with the regulations?
 
Dear @Benglian,

Please note that despite the fact that Ukraine is not an EU member, it has been demonstrating its willingness to implement EU directives into national legislation. Directive 2015/849 was not an exception, and I am hereby quoting the Order No 1407-p of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated 30 December 2015: "Implementation of the EU Directive 2015/849 of European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of money laundering and fight against terrorism into national legislation, amending Regulation (EC) 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council and abolishing Directive 2005/60 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2006/70 / EC of the Council and of the Commission".

Because our activities fully comply with the legislation of Ukraine, we, therefore, see no obstacle in complying with the above mentioned Directive.
 
slava_m said:
Dear @Benglian,

Please note that despite the fact that Ukraine is not an EU member, it has been demonstrating its willingness to implement EU directives into national legislation. Directive 2015/849 was not an exception, and I am hereby quoting the Order No 1407-p of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated 30 December 2015: "Implementation of the EU Directive 2015/849 of European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of money laundering and fight against terrorism into national legislation, amending Regulation (EC) 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council and abolishing Directive 2005/60 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2006/70 / EC of the Council and of the Commission".

Because our activities fully comply with the legislation of Ukraine, we, therefore, see no obstacle in complying with the above mentioned Directive.
Click to expand...
Its great that you plan to comply with the directive, but how exactly. I work in a company of 400 people who is spending a lot of time and funds on outside resources in order to comply with the directive. How many staff will you employ to comply with the necessary KYC element of the directive?
 
I would also ask if you have already formed the business entity that will hold the bank accounts that will be used to pay the merchants the fiat balances that result from their acceptance of DASH at the POS terminals?
And that you have passed the due diligence that is required by a bank when opening such accounts....?
 
Benglian said:
I would also ask if you have already formed the business entity that will hold the bank accounts that will be used to pay the merchants the fiat balances that result from their acceptance of DASH at the POS terminals?
And that you have passed the due diligence that is required by a bank when opening such accounts....?
Click to expand...

Yes, we did
 
Benglian said:
Its great that you plan to comply with the directive, but how exactly. I work in a company of 400 people who is spending a lot of time and funds on outside resources in order to comply with the directive. How many staff will you employ to comply with the necessary KYC element of the directive?
Click to expand...

Dear @Benglian,

Please note that we have do have a compliance committee, and the KYC is currently being developed. We also fully comply with the Exclusions set forth in the Directive.
 
Benglian said:
Great!

Can you provide evidence for the company you have formed? Or a link to the registrar of companies entry for the Ukraine that corresponds to your business entity?
Click to expand...

Dear @Benglian,

Are you asking for scan copies of our Charter and registration documents? We are definitely not going to provide that on a forum. You can, however, look up for our company on https://usr.minjust.gov.ua/ua/freesearch under the registration number 40610345.
 
Was just looking for an English translation of their company page on the Ukrainian gov database website.

Thought its fine by me if others who speak the language can verify.
 
GuerraDiValute said:
Was just looking for an English translation of their company page on the Ukrainian gov database website.

Thought its fine by me if others who speak the language can verify.
Click to expand...

Don't have time to do proper translation, so PM'ed you version, translated by google.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top