Well this always works best with an example.
So let's say we wan't to do an SEPA transaction. 80% of the fee is for pervesk as the EMI provider. then we would receive wr over the 20% which Bankera makes. Are you telling us now that we would also make WR on the fee which Pervesk is charging, so wr over the 80% in this example?
BNK holders receive 20% of the net transactional revenue share. To calculate the weekly net transactional share, we take the difference between our weekly revenue from transactions and the costs that we incur, and then we get the weekly net transactional revenue. Therefore, costs (ours and/or 3rd parties) are not part of the weekly commission.
See it took us a while, but we are getting there. So now we all understand why we want BNK to have their own license instead of a sister company running away with the promises made in the whitepaper, maybe you can answer the question we had earlier.
Has BNK already aplied for his own license?
It was stated from the beginning that Bankera as a product will either be delivered through its own license or through partnerships. Obtaining a separate license for servics for which we already have a license in our ecosystem would be a waste of our time and resources - which can be better employed to develop our other services (such as the Exchange Platform).