✒ How can we standardize issuer agreements transparently? #4
Description
It makes sense to have a standard place for material operating terms across clients. My biggest inspiration comes from drafting the Taylor agreement, because of all the minutiae sections related to updatable securities laws.
In practice, much of the antifraud issuer schematic will need integration into IssuerLink flows. Thus, it makes a ton of sense to direct issuers to a stable TIP defining the terms of engagement needed by Board approval.
For instance, there's no changing the registrar-level delineation to seven decimal points, and other ledgering particularities. The existing agreement is a great baseline for this because it maps out everything needed to implement the minimum restricted securities releases, including going into an IPO.
Future work past this initial issue scope includes carveouts for internal equity consideration. The different comp instruments have more legal jargon.