The Introducer Network
Make the introduction once.
Get paid for as long as it lasts.
You make the introduction. The deal closes. Two years later that client does another deal and you find out from LinkedIn.
Every introduction here is recorded, hash-chained and anchored on chain. Five years from now, when that client transacts, the ledger still knows who brought them — and pays accordingly.
No fee to join. No exclusivity. You keep your book — see zero-knowledge clients.
The decision everything hangs off
Attribution is always recorded.
The payout is separately gated.
Nobody ever loses their claim. What changes is whether the money can move today, and through whom.
Why it has to work that way
Paying someone a cut of a securities transaction because they brought the investor is the textbook definition of acting as a broker. Exchange Act §15(a) requires registration to do it, and transaction-based compensation is the single factor regulators lean on hardest.
It reaches the payer too, not just the recipient. §29(b) can make the compensation contract voidable — so the introducer can sometimes keep the fee and sue for more, while the investor may separately have a rescission right. One handshake, two exposures.
So this is better, not more cautious
A commission paid unlawfully is one that gets clawed back years later, usually at the worst possible moment. A commission routed through a licensed firm survives audit.
We are not being careful. We are making the commissions collectable.
And when a payout can't lawfully move today, you don't lose it. The claim is recorded permanently and the system tells you exactly what would release it.
| Outcome | When | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| Pay | Platform fee, asset sale, service engagement, commercial lending | Paid. Not a securities transaction, so no registration question arises. |
| Route via BD | Registered rep, their own firm engaged on this deal | Paid — by the firm, to its own rep. Never direct from the issuer or from us. |
| Accrue & hold | Unlicensed introducer on securities · rep whose firm isn't engaged · state finder pending counsel · suspended party | Entitlement recorded permanently. Money held. Remedy stated on the record. |
| Refuse | Issuer personnel under Rule 3a4-1 | Never payable in this shape, and it doesn't even accrue — converting it later would defeat the safe harbour. |
Three honest ways to release a held line
Register with the engaged firm
The introducer becomes a registered representative of the broker-dealer on the deal, and the fee routes through the firm.
Restructure away from the transaction
A flat fee for defined work, paid whether or not anyone invests. The payment stops depending on the outcome, so the hallmark disappears.
Take equity or revenue share in the platform
Rather than a cut of the trade. You participate in the business, not in the security.
The system states which of these applies to your specific held line. It doesn't leave you to guess.
What you earn
Run your own numbers.
The pool comes out of UnyKorn's own fee — never the investor's subscription, never the issuer's proceeds. A network paid out of investor money is a network that eventually eats its clients.
Projection
The curve
Weight against time since the introduction. It falls toward a floor and never reaches zero.
| Since introduction | Weight |
|---|
An old introduction is worth less than a recent one and more than nothing — which is both fairer and far more defensible than "forever at 100%", a promise no counterparty actually believes.
Why a longer chain never costs the client more
Shares are normalised: whatever the depth of the chain, the total is always exactly 100% of the pool. Recruiting somebody above you dilutes the person who made the introduction — it never enlarges the pool.
Nobody in this network can increase what a client pays by recruiting. That is a property of the arithmetic, not a policy someone has to enforce. It is also the honest answer when somebody asks whether this is an MLM.
| Chain | You | +1 | +2 | +3 | Total |
|---|
Before you do the work
Find out if you can actually be paid.
Describe the deal and who you are. You get the answer, the rule it comes from, and — if it can't be paid today — exactly what would change that. No sign-up, nothing recorded.
Zero-knowledge clients
Stake priority without handing over your book.
At the moment of introduction you commit sha256(client + salt). That digest and its timestamp go on the chain. Nobody — including us — can read who it is.
You reveal only when a transaction needs to resolve, or to settle a dispute. A wrong reveal is refused.
This is what makes the network safe to join. You prove priority over a relationship without giving the platform your relationships first.
Priority
First recorded with evidence wins.
A later claim over the same client and scope is still recorded — it just ranks behind, and it is visible to both parties. A claim ranked second blocks payment until priority is settled.
Disputes then argue over dated records instead of over memory, which is the only version of that argument anybody wins.
Protection
No more being a passthrough.
The oldest failure in this business: your client comes back eighteen months later through a different door — a new entity, a fund vehicle, a different name on the paperwork — and nobody tells you.
It runs automatically
Every new counterparty is screened at intake, before a deal can open. You don't have to be watching, don't have to find out, and don't have to sue.
It matches on identity, not names
Tax ID, shared wallet, domain, principal, normalised legal name — all stored as hashes. Same domain plus same principal is enough to attach automatically.
The burden flips
On a match, the attribution attaches by default. It is then the platform that has to justify not attributing it — with a named person and a stated reason, on the record.
Run the matcher yourself
An introducer brings a client. Two years later the same people come back as a different entity. Below are two counterparties — edit either side and the real matcher scores them. Try to fool it.
The trust layer
Who decides, and what stops us deciding badly.
Every referral arrangement eventually turns on these four questions. Here are the answers, and the mechanism behind each one.
Who decides attribution?
Nobody, in the discretionary sense. Attribution is decided by who recorded the client first, and the record is timestamped when it is written, not when a dispute starts. Rank 1 is the earliest live claim over that client and scope. There is no override — an administrator cannot promote a later claim over an earlier one, because rank is derived from the record rather than stored as an editable field.
What if two of us claim the same client?
Both claims stand, both are dated, and both parties can see both. The later claim ranks 2 and nothing pays out to anyone until the priority is settled — the engine refuses the payout rather than quietly paying the person who happened to be asked. Neither claim is deleted while it is resolved. Ranking behind someone is not the same as losing your record.
How are disputes resolved?
A claim can be attached or declined, never removed. Declining requires a named person and a stated reason, and the database itself enforces that — a decline with either one missing is rejected at write time, not by policy. The resolution is written to the receipt chain and the introducer can read it. A claim cannot quietly disappear because there is no code path that makes one disappear.
Who verifies any of this?
You can, without asking us. Every record is hash-chained: each entry commits to the one before it, so an edit, an insertion, a deletion or a reordering all break the chain. The verifier below replays it and names the first sequence where the arithmetic disagrees, if any. It is public and unauthenticated on purpose — deciding whether to trust a ledger with your book shouldn't require our permission.
The network right now
Join
Two ways in.
Pre-register
Thirty seconds. Puts you on the list and gets you the terms in writing before you commit to anything.
Register as an introducer
The full record. Creates your entry in the network so you can start recording attributions immediately.
Registering records your identity in the network. It does not by itself entitle you to compensation on any particular transaction — that is decided per deal by the eligibility guard above, and the guard is the same for everyone.