[ANN]BANKERA – Building the Bank for the Blockchain Era

[huup]

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).

Well it was stated from the beginning that you wanted to be a bank. Like we said earlier you never told us you were going to build an exchange. So I would call that a waste of time and money. We never invested in the exchange idea! We invested because we wanted you to achieve into building a blockchain bank. Not to make your own ecosystem from which we are receiving no revenue at all and in the meanwhile use the resource we gave you to build something what would improve the revenue for that but not for us.

So you can tell me what you want with your it was clear from the beginning. No it was not clear from the beginning! And becomes clearer by the day that you don’t have the investors (sorry contributors in your words) at heart.

[1714214342]

1714214342

[1714214342]

1714214342

[1714214342]

1714214342

[1714214342]

1714214342

[1714214342]

1714214342

[1714214342]

1714214342

[Bankera]

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).

Well it was stated from the beginning that you wanted to be a bank. Like we said earlier you never told us you were going to build an exchange. So I would call that a waste of time and money. We never invested in the exchange idea! We invested because we wanted you to achieve into building a blockchain bank. Not to make your own ecosystem from which we are receiving no revenue at all and in the meanwhile use the resource we gave you to build something what would improve the revenue for that but not for us.

So you can tell me what you want with your it was clear from the beginning. No it was not clear from the beginning! And becomes clearer by the day that you don’t have the investors (sorry contributors in your words) at heart.

The Exchange is a part of blockchain bank. We will have liquidity.
"exchange" as a service was always in the white paper.
We just later expanded this into the roadmap

[huup]

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).

Well it was stated from the beginning that you wanted to be a bank. Like we said earlier you never told us you were going to build an exchange. So I would call that a waste of time and money. We never invested in the exchange idea! We invested because we wanted you to achieve into building a blockchain bank. Not to make your own ecosystem from which we are receiving no revenue at all and in the meanwhile use the resource we gave you to build something what would improve the revenue for that but not for us.

So you can tell me what you want with your it was clear from the beginning. No it was not clear from the beginning! And becomes clearer by the day that you don’t have the investors (sorry contributors in your words) at heart.

The Exchange is a part of blockchain bank. We will have liquidity.
"exchange" as a service was always in the white paper.
We just later expanded this into the roadmap

o was it now? Or are you very hard hoping for support from some users.
But since you wanna go that way. Let us get the record straight on some things while we are ad it. Tell me who is or was lying. Your CEO or you?

i qoute Vytautus:

and Bankera is an ICO, an ecosystem which involves a number of different entities etc, to build a compliant crypto banking provider is not an easy task, otherwise there would be many of them, but I believe we are the ones who are have done most by know (we have cards live, we have required licenses, team, IT side is in development), so you will be able to see fruits soon
guys, rome was not built in a day. Yes, we had initial plans even to do pre-ICO in late June-July 2017 and yes ICO was delayed. However, we are here building a bank, not organizing a pump and dump scheme, so strategy and decisions are a bit different from other ICOs. We had always been clear that Bankera is about product, not bullshit and promises. The Bankera exchange was even not in the original plan, but then situation changed as it became much more rational go and build our own exchange than paying 1m+ USD fees for getting listed on other exchanges. Also we have achieved core milestones such as EMI license and working hard to launch our products. Bankera's ecosystem is like a puzzle and at the end you will see how it all add ups. Bankera now has two offices in Lithuania with 70+ people being involved in the project. And Banker token has a usage as it will be used for banking services at Bankera's products such as utility token for zero-cost exchange as well as to pay for robo-advisory and other services as it was said in the whitepaper and elsewhere.

[jamolo]

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).

Well it was stated from the beginning that you wanted to be a bank. Like we said earlier you never told us you were going to build an exchange. So I would call that a waste of time and money. We never invested in the exchange idea! We invested because we wanted you to achieve into building a blockchain bank. Not to make your own ecosystem from which we are receiving no revenue at all and in the meanwhile use the resource we gave you to build something what would improve the revenue for that but not for us.

So you can tell me what you want with your it was clear from the beginning. No it was not clear from the beginning! And becomes clearer by the day that you don’t have the investors (sorry contributors in your words) at heart.

The Exchange is a part of blockchain bank. We will have liquidity.
"exchange" as a service was always in the white paper.
We just later expanded this into the roadmap

o was it now? Or are you very hard hoping for support from some users.
But since you wanna go that way. Let us get the record straight on some things while we are ad it. Tell me who is or was lying. Your CEO or you?

i qoute Vytautus:

and Bankera is an ICO, an ecosystem which involves a number of different entities etc, to build a compliant crypto banking provider is not an easy task, otherwise there would be many of them, but I believe we are the ones who are have done most by know (we have cards live, we have required licenses, team, IT side is in development), so you will be able to see fruits soon
guys, rome was not built in a day. Yes, we had initial plans even to do pre-ICO in late June-July 2017 and yes ICO was delayed. However, we are here building a bank, not organizing a pump and dump scheme, so strategy and decisions are a bit different from other ICOs. We had always been clear that Bankera is about product, not bullshit and promises. The Bankera exchange was even not in the original plan, but then situation changed as it became much more rational go and build our own exchange than paying 1m+ USD fees for getting listed on other exchanges. Also we have achieved core milestones such as EMI license and working hard to launch our products. Bankera's ecosystem is like a puzzle and at the end you will see how it all add ups. Bankera now has two offices in Lithuania with 70+ people being involved in the project. And Banker token has a usage as it will be used for banking services at Bankera's products such as utility token for zero-cost exchange as well as to pay for robo-advisory and other services as it was said in the whitepaper and elsewhere.

From his words I understand that in the original plan (previous of whitepapers And ico) they had no plans of creating AN exchange, but they discovered that the costs to be listed in Big exchange is similar to build his own exchange. The exchange is clearly write un the whitepapers.

[bnkbuyer]

A week or 2 ago I noticed the https://bankera.com site is not working in Belgium anymore, I get following message:

Dear Bankera visitor,
Our platform is currently not available in your country. We continue to work to make it available for your country and we apologize for any inconvenience caused.
In the meantime, we invite you to test the demo of our exchange platform.
If you believe this might be a mistake or if you would like to leave a message, please write us at info@bankera.com.

The https://chat.bankera.com was still working so I mentioned the problem there and the admins said "we are working on it"
Today I find out it's still and same AND also the chat is blocked for me with the same message!
It looks like they implemented a redirect from https://chat.bankera.com/ to https://bankera.com/index/index.html

So no chat anymore for Belgians and probably others. This is not looking good...

[dishku]

A week or 2 ago I noticed the https://bankera.com site is not working in Belgium anymore, I get following message:

Dear Bankera visitor,
Our platform is currently not available in your country. We continue to work to make it available for your country and we apologize for any inconvenience caused.
In the meantime, we invite you to test the demo of our exchange platform.
If you believe this might be a mistake or if you would like to leave a message, please write us at info@bankera.com.

The https://chat.bankera.com was still working so I mentioned the problem there and the admins said "we are working on it"
Today I find out it's still and same AND also the chat is blocked for me with the same message!
It looks like they implemented a redirect from https://chat.bankera.com/ to https://bankera.com/index/index.html

So no chat anymore for Belgians and probably others. This is not looking good...

Than it could be problem with your service provider maybe connection is not accepting access request from server. You should have to reboot your modem and clear browsing history and cache I hope you will get access to this website or you can use some alternative ways like VPN to get access to your account.

[bnkbuyer]

Than it could be problem with your service provider maybe connection is not accepting access request from server. You should have to reboot your modem and clear browsing history and cache I hope you will get access to this website or you can use some alternative ways like VPN to get access to your account.

I tried on several different places/PCs, with different browsers and providers, also mobile devices and 4G. Same problem.

Yes VPN or something I could try, but then again, is it worth it, I mean it's not on me to go through all these steps, they should fix this long standing problem, not me...

PS: https://blog.bankera.com and https://spectrocoin.com still works, for now ...

[jamolo]

Than it could be problem with your service provider maybe connection is not accepting access request from server. You should have to reboot your modem and clear browsing history and cache I hope you will get access to this website or you can use some alternative ways like VPN to get access to your account.

I tried on several different places/PCs, with different browsers and providers, also mobile devices and 4G. Same problem.

Yes VPN or something I could try, but then again, is it worth it, I mean it's not on me to go through all these steps, they should fix this long standing problem, not me...

PS: https://blog.bankera.com and https://spectrocoin.com still works, for now ...

Try with Tor browser, its extrange that It doesnt work in belgium only in Europe. It seems like a DNS problem for me.

[bnkbuyer]

..... It seems like a DNS problem for me.

Well here's what I get from wget for example:

Code:

wget https://chat.bankera.com
--2018-10-08 20:56:30--  https://chat.bankera.com/
Resolving chat.bankera.com (chat.bankera.com)... 104.17.202.206, 104.17.203.206, 104.17.200.206, ...
Connecting to chat.bankera.com (chat.bankera.com)|104.17.202.206|:443... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently
Location: https://bankera.com/index/index.html [following]
--2018-10-08 20:56:30--  https://bankera.com/index/index.html
Resolving bankera.com (bankera.com)... 104.17.203.206, 104.17.204.206, 104.17.202.206, ...
Connecting to bankera.com (bankera.com)|104.17.203.206|:443... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: unspecified [text/html]
Saving to: ‘index.html.1’

Where does chat.bankera.com and bankera.com resolve to if you do it?

[Ansault]

Ansault thanks for that. I suppose it depends on the interpretation of currency exchange. My interpretation was an extension of SC functionality as a brokerage exchange converting fiat between fiat/ fiat to the big crypto's, crypto back fiat. A trading platform/exchange for just crypto is a different beast all together IMHO.

Given the crypto/blockchain background of this project, I don't think it's a stretch to take it to mean crypto-centric exchange. Spectrocoin's platform was already operational during the ICO and so was the (trading) exchange demo, which any ICO participant could test drive. I don't see any kind of misleading or obfuscation there.

Why is the exchange suddenly a problem anyway? It's a revenue generating mechanism that benefits all token holders.

[Wekkel]

I have no problem logging into spectrocoin. Bankera website seems up as well.

[qf3l3k]

To be fairly honest, we can review original Whitepaper. I have this "bad habit" of saving documents when spending money on something.
I have Bankera's WP dated (saved on my PC) 20 August 2017, so means it's more likely first one from pre-ICO and ICO stage.

Here is link to it: https://we.tl/t-VLoN7LjZ62

From the roadmap we can see that Bankera (not partner companies) should do following: "Mid-2018 Establishing EU regulated bank".

Section 1, intro

"We encourage supporters to try Bankera’s services before participating in the ICO."

Section 5, about banking

" Licensing is one of the key assets of financial institutions. Currently, Bankera’s management team has obtained a payment institution’s (PI) license and is authorised to operate in all European Economic Area (EEA) regions. Bankera expects to obtain an electronic money institution (EMI) license before the ICO, to have a solid foundation in place to provide the planned services except accepting deposits and offering investment products, which will come later."

Section 9, timeline

" In terms of revenue streams, Bankera will initially focus on core banking activities such as lending and payment processing, following the establishment of an EU banking license. The next product option that Bankera will introduce will be low-cost investment options for clients via EFTs. Eventually, the bank will offer a full range of investment services including trading, custody and investment banking services for its clients. Bankera will also offer robo-advisory based wealth management services for its clients."

" The preliminary timeline is: pre-ICO by the end of August, the launch of the minimum viable product with working IBAN and payment cards support by mid-October, a start of ICO preparations by late September, the end of ICO by the beginning of November. Bankera will offer advanced payment processing solution by summer 2018. Applying for a banking license by autumn 2018. Getting banking license in EU by late 2019. Starting deposit and lending business by mid-2019 (initially from Bankera’s capital)."

I didn't see (at quick look) any mentioning that Bankera will use partners with licenses, etc.
Whitepaper refers to Bankera as main entity obtaining all licenses required for proper functioning of hybrid banking institution.

It's been clearly said that Bankera will apply for banking license.

Now we can confront original Whitepaper with current one and statements from Bankera project.

Solution to get all clarified might be face to face meeting with board.
ICO is form of investing, so investors meetup is nothing unusual.
That way we could confront board with facts and see what they say.

Suggestion to Bankera

Because lot of promises has not been met as well as you not providing proper feedback and banning people asking right questions you should consider buy-back program, where you buy back tokens from ICO investors paying ICO price. We bought into different idea and project, described in original whitepaper and it doesn't seem it is being delivered as per original promise which made us invest.
Oterwise, it might turn into official legal battle. Not sure if people you mentioned in Whitepaper (EU officials) are willing to be involved in this type of "business".
Basically we invested in Bankera as product and future company and now money is being distributed amongst child companies which, I would assume, are not even own by Bankera, just by same people running those project/companies separately.

PS.
I did try Bankera services, as advised in intro. Had virtual credit card, then Bankera (SpectroCoin in fact) cancelled it because WavesCrest cancelled agreement with them. Support said that in 2-3 months I will get new virtual CC, once they will have partnership with new card issues. That was about 6-7 months ago and of course as we can imagine, replacement card never showed up.

[Bankera]

We are happy to announce that Darius Kulikauskas, an expert in financial regulation, has joined Bankera as our Advisor. The knowledge Darius has accumulated in traditional banking will be adapted to FinTech and digital banking with the Blockchain technology.

For more information, please visit our blog: https://blog.bankera.com/2018/10/09/expert-in-financial-regulation-has-joined-bankeras-advisory-board/.

[Ikikyabut]

To be fairly honest, we can review original Whitepaper. I have this "bad habit" of saving documents when spending money on something.
I have Bankera's WP dated (saved on my PC) 20 August 2017, so means it's more likely first one from pre-ICO and ICO stage.

Here is link to it: https://we.tl/t-VLoN7LjZ62

From the roadmap we can see that Bankera (not partner companies) should do following: "Mid-2018 Establishing EU regulated bank".

Section 1, intro

"We encourage supporters to try Bankera’s services before participating in the ICO."

Section 5, about banking

" Licensing is one of the key assets of financial institutions. Currently, Bankera’s management team has obtained a payment institution’s (PI) license and is authorised to operate in all European Economic Area (EEA) regions. Bankera expects to obtain an electronic money institution (EMI) license before the ICO, to have a solid foundation in place to provide the planned services except accepting deposits and offering investment products, which will come later."

Section 9, timeline

" In terms of revenue streams, Bankera will initially focus on core banking activities such as lending and payment processing, following the establishment of an EU banking license. The next product option that Bankera will introduce will be low-cost investment options for clients via EFTs. Eventually, the bank will offer a full range of investment services including trading, custody and investment banking services for its clients. Bankera will also offer robo-advisory based wealth management services for its clients."

" The preliminary timeline is: pre-ICO by the end of August, the launch of the minimum viable product with working IBAN and payment cards support by mid-October, a start of ICO preparations by late September, the end of ICO by the beginning of November. Bankera will offer advanced payment processing solution by summer 2018. Applying for a banking license by autumn 2018. Getting banking license in EU by late 2019. Starting deposit and lending business by mid-2019 (initially from Bankera’s capital)."

I didn't see (at quick look) any mentioning that Bankera will use partners with licenses, etc.
Whitepaper refers to Bankera as main entity obtaining all licenses required for proper functioning of hybrid banking institution.

It's been clearly said that Bankera will apply for banking license.

Now we can confront original Whitepaper with current one and statements from Bankera project.

Solution to get all clarified might be face to face meeting with board.
ICO is form of investing, so investors meetup is nothing unusual.
That way we could confront board with facts and see what they say.

Suggestion to Bankera

Because lot of promises has not been met as well as you not providing proper feedback and banning people asking right questions you should consider buy-back program, where you buy back tokens from ICO investors paying ICO price. We bought into different idea and project, described in original whitepaper and it doesn't seem it is being delivered as per original promise which made us invest.
Oterwise, it might turn into official legal battle. Not sure if people you mentioned in Whitepaper (EU officials) are willing to be involved in this type of "business".
Basically we invested in Bankera as product and future company and now money is being distributed amongst child companies which, I would assume, are not even own by Bankera, just by same people running those project/companies separately.

PS.
I did try Bankera services, as advised in intro. Had virtual credit card, then Bankera (SpectroCoin in fact) cancelled it because WavesCrest cancelled agreement with them. Support said that in 2-3 months I will get new virtual CC, once they will have partnership with new card issues. That was about 6-7 months ago and of course as we can imagine, replacement card never showed up.

Thank you

[Ikikyabut]

Ansault thanks for that. I suppose it depends on the interpretation of currency exchange. My interpretation was an extension of SC functionality as a brokerage exchange converting fiat between fiat/ fiat to the big crypto's, crypto back fiat. A trading platform/exchange for just crypto is a different beast all together IMHO.

Given the crypto/blockchain background of this project, I don't think it's a stretch to take it to mean crypto-centric exchange. Spectrocoin's platform was already operational during the ICO and so was the (trading) exchange demo, which any ICO participant could test drive. I don't see any kind of misleading or obfuscation there.

Why is the exchange suddenly a problem anyway? It's a revenue generating mechanism that benefits all token holders.

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing what I’m saying is that it was a deviation away from the original plan. Huup in his previous post showed from chat with Vytautas one of the reasons why.

[huup]

Ansault thanks for that. I suppose it depends on the interpretation of currency exchange. My interpretation was an extension of SC functionality as a brokerage exchange converting fiat between fiat/ fiat to the big crypto's, crypto back fiat. A trading platform/exchange for just crypto is a different beast all together IMHO.

Given the crypto/blockchain background of this project, I don't think it's a stretch to take it to mean crypto-centric exchange. Spectrocoin's platform was already operational during the ICO and so was the (trading) exchange demo, which any ICO participant could test drive. I don't see any kind of misleading or obfuscation there.

Why is the exchange suddenly a problem anyway? It's a revenue generating mechanism that benefits all token holders.

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.

[Ansault]

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?

[huup]

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?

[Wekkel]

All Crypto card projects are suffering delays. So that’s not Bankera exclusive.

[Daydream 61]

the bankera website is still the same as it was a few months ago. there's no big change there either. you don't have a web designer. the project disappoints me a lot. I thought the team is great. But I was wrong. the little LYMPO ICO is much better.