The exchange isn't a problem as is. The problem lies in the fact that they are moving away further and further from the original plan. The plan was to make a crypto bank! BANKERA not EXCHANGERA If you have read everything correctly i have asked multiple times if and when they applied for a banking license.
The answer to that was:
that it would be a waiste of time and resrouces to go and get a banking license because Pervesk already has one.
Next to that we always have been told that pervesk was part of the whole "eco-system", but yesterday they told us there will be no wr from Pervesk.
So to keep it simpel. The revenue which should make our wr is now done by a sister company which they can let charge every price as they are the owners and whatver goos into Pervesk they don't have to share with you and me.
And for Bankera there will be no banking license what was the idea what attracted me to the project.
From the whitepaper:
To achieve this, Bankera will not only become a regulated European bank, but
also will seek to become authorised issuer and acquirer of payment cards and obtain
banking licenses in key jurisdictions to avoid dependency on the correspondent bank
services, which are extremely fragile nowadays as identified by the World Bank when
they concluded that correspondent banking relationships (CBRs) are declining due to
several factors including AML risk or reduction of risk.
Are you saying they have gone on record completely changing their tune about not wanting to rely on correspondent banks (like Pervesk) and abandoned the goal to become a fully licenced bank?
I'm not saying anything. This is what i'm trying to find out, if you read the last few pages this is the conclusion one might draw. But you tell me what you make out of it?