For longs that are puzzled why Sfor supporters like me are questioning the BSAFE setup... it’s because of how it was organized. Here me out:
If BlockSafe was set up as a “brand” or a product category under Strikeforce, just like guardedid and mobile trust, Strikeforce would control the expenses and revenue, thus receiving 100% of the profit. This would result in shareholders reaping 100% the benefits.
But BlockSafe is set up as a private subsidiary which sfor owns 49%. Because it’s private, we as shareholders, do not know how George and Mark are compensated. We only know that we get a monthly “fee” for licensing the Strikeforce patents/products. So much like Strikeforces relationship with ACS and other channel partners in only receiving a percentage of sales, this is the same with BlockSafe (monthly fees). We will not receive 100% of revenues or profits even though BSAFE is using Strikeforce patents. Regardless of the total sales under BSAFE, Strikeforce will only receive its monthly fee.
So what’s the good news? The good news is the wave of publicity BSAFE is getting and it will be a success. Which Strikeforce will see some success from this.
The bad news: shareholders of Strikeforce will not reap the exponential benefit. Regardless of how well BSAFE does, Strikeforce will only receive the monthly fees. Executives will make their compensation/salary/bonuses BEFORE sfor realizes it in their financials. George and Mark are not relying on the success of Strikeforce and will be paid handsomely for the success of BSAFE... as they should. But this will not bode well for the loyal shareholders as more potential revenue is funneled elsewhere, like ACS and the channels.
Just think about it.
I want sfor to be a success. But I think we are putting far too many eggs in the BSAFE basket and should be focused and holding Strikeforce accountable on the deals, revenues, lawsuits, international patent, etc. of Strikeforce.
