I’d echo a lot of what @aaron shared as well which I’d summarize as
1. Reporting: Reporting obligations already exist, and are **baked in** meaning they are cemented into every one of the existing funds real-world legal agreements. I’d encourage you to participate in upcoming pools so you can both assess, and help guide new reporting requirements for pools you might want to participate in.
2. Existing Backers: Already receive reports from the funds as part of the funds existing reporting requirements.
3. Access: As @aaron though highlights, while the beauty of decentralized underwriting means that investors are composable, a drawback has been that borrowers really didn’t know how to practically deliver their transparent reporting to the specific Backers who initially invested given backers and senior pool participants are fungible. This hurdle is thankfully being solved by the tooling eluded to and we’re pretty excited about this new level of transparency that hasn’t really existed before.
4. Demands: Fully appreciate the authors acknowledged the reporting requirments are on a go forward basis, I’d just like to emphasis the word of caution. It’s pretty easy to make demands and paint those who don’t want to kneel to your demands as being bad actors. So would suggest wording things more collaboratively.
@dbektemissov hopefully sharing some more context to help address some of your fair points:
This needs to be “baked in” into the protocol. If the borrower pool is late on reporting it should be given a grace period to cure that. Once the grace period has elapsed there need to be on-chain consequences, such as inability to draw down on the line. In any real-world credit agreement, borrower reporting on covenant compliance etc. is a strict requirement and in failure to publish required information on time can be treated as an event of default.
and
I need to kindly disagree here. The RW collateral for GFI investors are mostly loans issued by fintech originators to downstream borrowers. Those are only as good as the underwriting that goes into them. Investors need some kind of ongoing visibility into downstream loan book performance. We can at least approximate that if the credit funds (that create borrower pools) publish data on how well their credit lines (that they open to fintech originators) are performing. I believe this will be a basic requirement for any institutional investors if they are to consider deploying their capital via GF protocol in the future.
Kindly do see my #1 and #2 above as the reporting is already baked in, with #3 being the key that unlocks easier access to said transparent reporting. There’s additionally proposed work related to the Goldfinch roadmap (#2 under Front End Refresh) which should be surfacing more standardized data into the Dapp
All said, looking forward to working with the whole community to build more tooling, and bring even more transparency to the sort of markets Goldfinch is helping investors gain access to.