With a lower debt-to-equity ratio of 0.02, the company relies less on debt financing and maintains a healthier balance between debt and equity, which can be viewed positively by investors.

Performance Comparison: Copart And Competitors In Commercial Services & Supplies Industry

Copart CPRT has outperformed the market over the past 15 years by 11.87% on an annualized basis producing an average annual return of 22.13%. Currently, Copart has a market capitalization of $41.62 billion. Buying $1000 In CPRT: If an investor had bought $ ...

$1000 Invested In Copart 15 Years Ago Would Be Worth This Much Today

Advance Auto Parts stores in the New River Valley have teamed up with Montgomery County law enforcement to provide some assistance to drivers.

Advance Auto Parts partners with Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office to help drivers

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Advance Auto Parts, Inc. ("AAP" or the "Company") (NYSE:AAP) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Levi & Korsinsky Notifies Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (AAP) Investors of a Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline

Celebrate Godzilla Day with Bandai Namco Toys & Collectibles America Inc. All New Godzilla Figures! (CNW Group/Bandai Namco Toys & Collectibles America Inc.) Retail availability for these new figures comes at a time when Godzilla is making a monumental ...

Celebrate Godzilla Day with Bandai Namco Toys & Collectibles America Inc. All New Godzilla Figures!

The stock market indices have been declining since August, along with most stocks. The sell-off has been accelerating in the latter part of October. The SPDR S&P 500 Trust (ARCA: SPY) is down 10% from its July high.

These Quality Stocks Are Becoming A Deal For Long-Term Investors

RevolutionParts, an e-commerce platform that connects automotive parts buyers and sellers, is putting the pedal to the metal when it comes to online fulfillment through an expanded same-day delivery offering with Walmart GoLocal. The collaboration with ...

RevolutionParts Accelerates Same-Day Delivery for Automotive Parts Retailers with Walmart GoLocal

There’s a lot to be optimistic about in the NA sector as 2 analysts just weighed in on Lithia Motors (LAD – Research Report) and

Analysts Offer Insights on NA Companies: Lithia Motors (LAD) and O’Reilly Auto (ORLY)

In this article, we discuss the 10 fastest-growing auto stocks to buy. To skip the latest news and detailed analysis around the auto industry, go directly to the 5 Fastest Growing Auto Stocks to Buy.

10 Fastest Growing Auto Stocks to Buy

COPART INC

copartinc

Christian Science by Mark Twain, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . APPENDIX F here APPENDIX F Few will deny that an intelligence apart from man formed and governs the spiritual universe and man; and this intelligence is the eternal Mind, and neither matter nor man created this intelligence and divine Principle; nor can this Principle produce aught unlike itself. All that we term sin, sickness, and death is comprised in the belief of matter. The realm of the real is spiritual; the opposite of Spirit is matter; and the opposite of the real is unreal or material. Matter is an error of statement, for there is no matter. This error of premises leads to error of conclusion in every statement of matter as a basis. Nothing we can say or believe regarding matter is true, except that matter is unreal, simply a belief that has its beginning and ending. The conservative firm called matter and mind God never formed. The unerring and eternal Mind destroys this imaginary copartnership, formed only to be dissolved in a manner and at a period unknown. This copartnership is obsolete. Placed under the microscope of metaphysics matter disappears. Only by understanding there are not two, matter and mind, is a logical and correct conclusion obtained by either one. Science gathers not grapes of thorns or figs of thistles. Intelligence never produced non-intelligence, such as matter: the immortal never produced mortality, good never resulted in evil. The science of Mind shows conclusively that matter is a myth. Metaphysics are above physics, and drag not matter, or what is termed that, into one of its premises or conclusions. Metaphysics resolves things into thoughts, and exchanges the objects of sense for the ideas of Soul. These ideas are perfectly tangible and real to consciousness, and they have this advantage—they are eternal. Mind and its thoughts comprise the whole of God, the universe, and of man. Reason and revelation coincide with this statement, and support its proof every hour, for nothing is harmonious or eternal that is not spiritual: the realization of this will bring out objects from a higher source of thought; hence more beautiful and immortal. The fact of spiritualization produces results in striking contrast to the farce of materialization: the one produces the results of chastity and purity, the other the downward tendencies and earthward gravitation of sensualism and impurity. The exalting and healing effects of metaphysics show their fountain. Nothing in pathology has exceeded the application of metaphysics. Through mind alone we have prevented disease and preserved health. In cases of chronic and acute diseases, in their severest forms, we have changed the secretions, renewed structure, and restored health; have elongated shortened limbs, relaxed rigid muscles, made cicatrized joints supple; restored carious bones to healthy conditions, renewed that which is termed the lost substance of the lungs; and restored healthy organizations where disease was organic instead of functional. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Mark Twain (2004). Christian Science. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October 2022 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3187/pg3187-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

THE CONSERVATIVE FIRM CALLED MATTER AND MIND GOD NEVER FORMED

BLEISTEIN v. DONALDSON LITHOGRAPHING CO. 239 Court Filing, retrieved on September 29, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 1 of 4. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Argument for Plaintiffs in Error Chromolithographs representing actual groups of persons and things, which have been designed from hints or descriptions of the scenes represented, and which are to be used as advertisements for a circus are "pictorial illustrations" within the meaning of Rev. Stat. § 4952, allowing a copyright to the "author, designer, or proprietor ... of any engraving, cut, print... . or chromo" as affected by the act of 1874, chap. 301, § 3, 18 Stat. 78, 79. And on complying with all the statutory requirements the proprietors are entitled to the protection of the copyright laws. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. r von Briesen for plaintiffs in error: Mr. Ansley Wilcox and Mr. Arthu This action comes here upon writ of error to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which court heard it on writ of error directed to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky. The Circuit Court, at the close of plaintiffs' case, instructed the jury to find a verdict for defendant, which was done and judgment entered thereon. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed said judgment. There were three causes of action which were all based upon sec. 4965 of the Revised Statutes, quoted on page 60. By order of the Circuit Court, dated June 10, 1899, the marshal seized 10,590 eight-page prints and 13,205 four-page prints, described in the writ, and also five metal electrotype plates, all of which he found in the defendant's possession (page 13). The action was tried at Covington, Kentucky, on December 12 and 13, 1899, before Hon. Walter Evans, sitting as Circuit Judge, and a jury. At the outset of the trial, during the direct examination of the first witness, the court anticipated the question upon which it afterwards took the case away from the jury and decided it, by the following remark: "The real controversy will able whether this is a subject of copyright, whether it comes within the Copyright law." At the close of the plaintiffs' case, defendant moved for "peremptory instructions for the defendant." The court said, " State why, in a word," to which defendant's counsel answered: "In the first place I want to say with reference to the Statuary Exhibit. . . . It is alleged in the petition, and is in fact copyrighted on the 18th of April, and the publication plainly shows it was prior to that. That is a specific objection to that one upon that ground specifically-that is the Statuary. "The Court: Now as to the other two. "Counsel: The specific objection to this one, the Ballet, is that it is an immoral picture. "And the general objection that I make to them all is that they are none of them subject matter of copyright. They are all mere matter of advertising." The next day the court delivered a written opinion which concludes as follows: "The case must turn upon the others (other questions), and especially upon the general proposition that the things copyrighted in this case were by no means such as either the Constitution or the legislation of Congress intended to protect by the privilege of copyright. The court cannot bring its mind to yield to the conclusion that such tawdry pictures as these were ever meant to be given the enormous protection of not only the exclusive right to print them, but the additional protection of a penalty of a dollar each for reprints from them. "As previously stated, they are neither' pictorial illustrations' nor' works connected with the fine arts' within the meaning of section 4952. Not being so, there was no authority to grant the copyrights, whether the Constitution authorizes Congress to promote the fine arts or not. "The judgment of the court is, that the plaintiffs, on their own showing, are not entitled to recover, and for that reason the motion of defendant will be granted, and I will instruct the jury to find a verdict for it." The jury, in accordance with said instruction, returned a verdict for the defendant. There is no question as to the fact of infringement. The sheets in evidence, made by defendant, contain reproductions by means of cheap .electrotype plates of each of the plaintiffs' designs. These reproductions are not in colors. The principal questions are: First. Whether on the question of artistic merit or value of these lithographic prints or chromos, the Circuit Court was justified in taking the case from the jury, and condemning them entirely as not being fit subjects for copyright. Second. Whether the copyrights were obtained for these prints in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States, and are valid copyrights. The second question involves the inquiries: Whether the copyrights were properly taken out by the plaintiffs, in their trade names of "The Courier Co." and "The Courier Lithographing Co.," and, incidentally, whether plaintiffs have the right to sue in their individual names for infringement of these copyrights; and whether the Statuary Act Design was copyrighted before it was published. YOJ. CLXXXVIII-16. The three pictures in question are show-bills or circus bills, also called posters and, more definitely, picture-posters. They are colored lithographs or chromolithographs, commonly called " chromos." They were designed primarily to be sold to the proprietors of circuses and other shows, and by them to be used for advertising; but they could be sold to any one, or used for any purpose for which they were adapted. They were made in the plaintiffs' lithographing establishment under a special contract with the proprietor of a circus, by which the plaintiffs agreed to design and get up certain representations of scenes supposed to be exhibited at the show, the plaintiffs reserving rights of design and of copyright, and with the usual understanding that so long as the proprietor of the circus used these designs he had the right to them, but if he ceased to use any of them, the plaintiffs could sell the design or the pictures which embodied it, to any one. The fundamental question of the right to copyright such show-bills or posters, is a question of great importance, involving the protection of an immense industry. The foundation of the copyright law is in the provision of the Constitution (art. 1, sec. 8), which authorizes Congress- "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." It is settled that the words "authors" and " writings," in this section, are not confined to literary writers and their works, but include, among others, designers, engravers and lithographers, as well as photographers. Burrow-Giles Litho. Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53; Trade Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82. Picture-posters or show bills, such as these chromolithographs were, are not designed for close inspection or long-continued study, like an oil painting, a steel or wood engraving, or an etching, and they are not to be judged by the same standards. They are intended to catch the eye of the passer on the street, or any one who merely glances at them, and to challenge his attention,-if possible to compel him to look again, so that he will observe what is the subject of the poster and have this forced upon his mind, and will be attracted by it. Their function is to illustrate something, and to advertise it by appealing quickly to the imagination, and conveying instantly a strong and favorable impression. Thus, to be successful, they require artistic ability, and above all things creativeness or originality of a high order, but peculiar. They must be designed boldly, and executed on broad lines, with not much attention to detail, so that the spirit of the picture will stand out at once, and almost leap at you, and will not be lost in a mass of details and minor features. Such is the ideal picture-poster, a special and peculiar branch of pictorial art, and one into which many gifted artists, highly successful in other fields, have ventured with greater or less success. Charles Hiatt's work entitled "Picture Posters," published in 1895 by George Bell & Sons, London ; "The Modern Poster," by Alexandre and others, published in 1895 by Charles Scribner's Sons. Certainly it does not lie in the mouth of the pirate, who has stolen and copied them at some expense and considerable risk, to deny that they have merit and value. I. The designs were proper subjects of copyright and each of these picture-posters was a proper subject of copyright, within the language and the spirit of the copyright law. There was abundant evidence of originality of design, of artistic merit, and of practical value and usefulness, as to each of the pictures. If any of these qualities was seriously questioned by the defence, it became the duty of the court to send the case to the jury. All of the pictures are new and original designs and involve new and original conceptions and creations. There was enough evidence on this subject to require the case to be submitted to the jury if any question was raised about it, citing, and in some instances distinguishing, as to definition of author, writings, etc., The Trade Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82; Lithograph Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53 ; Nottage v. Jackson, 11 Q. B. Div. 627 ; Brightly v. Littleton, 37 Fed. Rep. 103 ; Carlisle v. Colusa County, 57 Fed. Rep. 979; Drury v. Ewing, Fed. Cases, No. 4095. If any one of the pictures was sufficiently proved to be new and original, this was enough to carry the case to the jury upon this question ; they were all proved to be new and original. II. As to artistic merit and value. The pictures being original designs, we maintain that they are of sufficient artistic merit and of sufficient value and usefulness to be entitled to copyright. At least there was enough evidence of this to require the case to be submitted to the jury, if any question was raised about it,-and furthermore no such question was raised by the defence. "If a copyrighted article has merit and value enough to be the object of piracy, it should also be of sufficient importance to be entitled to protection." Drone on Copyright, p. 212, cited with approval in Henderson v. Tomkins, 60 Fed. Rep. 758, 765 ; Church v. Linton, 25 Ont. Rep. 121; Hegeman v. Springer, 110 Fed. Rep. 374; Bolles v. Outing Co., 77 Fed. Rep. 966; 175 U. S. 262; Richardson v. Miller, Fed. Cases, No. 11,791. We have nothing to do with cases involving attempts to copyright mere catalogues or price lists, or labels, sometimes containing pictures, reproduced by photographic or other mechanical processes, of articles intended for sale, but which obviously have no artistic merit or originality. These decisions, whether condemning or upholding such copyrights, do not touch the questions involved in the case at bar. Distinguishing Mott Iron Works v. Clow, 82 Fed. Rep. 216; also citing Yuengling v. Scltile, 12 Fed. Rep. 97, 101; Sehurmaker v. Schwencke, 25 Fed. Rep. 466 ; 1amb v. Grand Ra )ids School Furniture Co., 39 Fed. Rep. 474; Drone on Copyright, 164, 165; Grace v. Newman, L. R. 19 Eq. Cases, 623 ; Maple v. Junior Army &, .Navy Stores, L. R. 21 Ch. Div. 369; Church v. Linton, 25 Ont. Rep. 131; Carlisle v. Colusa, County, 57 Fed Rep. 979. "The degree of merit of the copyrighted matter the law is not concerned with. Any is legally enough. To use it or not use it, is voluntary on the part of the public." III. The copyrights were properly taken out by the plaintiffs in their trade names of "The Courier Co." and "The Courier Litho. Co.," and the plaintiffs have the right to sue in their individual names for infringement of these copyrights. That copartners in business, who are the proprietors of a  copyrighted article, may take out a copyright in either of their copartnership or trade names, is well settled. Scribner v. Clark, 50 Fed. Rep. 473; affirmed as Belford v. Scribner, 144 U. S. 488; Callaghaan v. Myers, 128 U. S. 617; Scribner v. Allen Co., 49 Fed. Rep. 854; Werckmeister v. Springer Lith. Co., 63 Fed. Rep. 808; Rock v. Lazarus, Law Rep. 15 Eq. Cases, 104; Weldon v. Dicks, Law Rep. 10 Ch. Div. 247; Fruit-Cleaning Co. v. Fresno) Home Packing Co., 94 Fed. Rep. 845. Finally, the plaintiffs were the "proprietors" of each of the copyrighted prints, and as such were authorized to take out the copyrights by the express language of the copyright law, Rev. Stat., sec. 4952, which includes "proprietors" with "authors, inventors (and) designers." Colliery Eng. Co. v. United etc., Co., 94 Fed. Rep. 152. No formal assignment of the right to a copyright is necessary. Consent is sufficient to constitute one the proprietor. Carte v. Evans, 27 Fed. Rep. 861. See also Schumacher v. Schwencke, 25 Fed. Rep. 466; Little v. Gould, Fed. Cases, No. 8395 ; Lawrence v. Dana, Fed. Cases, No. 8136 ; Sweet v. Benning, 81 Eng. Com. Law Rep. 459; 16 Com. Bench Rep. 459; Gill v. United States, 160 U. S. 426, 435. All of the pictures, and particularly the Statuary Act Design, were copyrighted before publication. The law is well settled that there was no publication of these prints when they were shipped from Buffalo on April 11, or when they were received by MHr. Wallace at Peru, Indiana, on or about April 15. There was no publication until they were exposed to the general public, so that the public, without discrimination as to persons, might enjoy them. This must have been some time after April 15, when the last copyright was surely completed. Publication is a legal conclusion which follows from certain acts. Drone on Copyright, p. 291 ; Jewelers -Mere. Agency v: Jewelers Pub. Co., 84 Hun (N. Y. Sup. Ct.), 12, 16; Callag7ian v. Myers, 128 U. S. 617; Black v. Henry G. Allen Co., 56 Fed. Rep. 764; Belford v. Scribner, 144 U. S. 488; Garland v. Gemmill, 14 Canada Sup. Ct. Rep. 321; Prince Albert v. Strange, 2 De Gex & Smale, 652; 1 MacNaghten & Gorden; 47 Eng. Ch. Rep. 25. The representation of a play upon the stage regularly at a theatre, does not constitute a publication. Tompkins v. Halleck, 133 Massachusetts, 32; Palmer v. De Witt, 47 NI. Y. 532; Boucicault v. Hart, Fed. Cases, No. 1692. The use by a teacher of his manuscript and allowing pupils to make copies for the purpose of obtaining his instruction, does not amount to a publication. Bartlett v. Crittenden, Fed. Cases, Nos. 1076 and 1082. The printing of copies of an operetta and distributing them to artists, for private use only in learning their parts, and the representing of the operetta on the stage, is not a publication. French v. Kreling, 63 Fed. Rep. 621; Reed v. Carusi, Fed. Cases, No. 11,642; Blume v. Spear, 30 Fed. Rep. 629; Exch. Tel. Co. v. Cent. News, Law Rep. 2 Oh. Div. 48. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 2023-0409 retrieved on September 29, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. tile.loc.gov

Circus Posters and the History of Copyrighting Adverts 

Section I.—James Watt and his Inventions

We often talk about how people are the most important aspect of your startup. Whether it’s your team, advisors, investors or clients, having the right people in your corner can be the critical difference between success and failure. And when it comes to finding those people, your network is as valuable as the money in your pocket. Something entrepreneur, and co-founder of fintech , knows a thing or two about: Moneymour Giacomo De Lorenzo I wouldn’t have imagined I could have had so much help from the people I talked to during the early stages of Moneymour, their advice had a hugely beneficial impact. Not only did Giacomo see a problem that needed solving, he ensured he was solving the problem by looking for help in the right places. the right way Not only did Giacomo see a problem that needed solving, he took advantage of every opportunity to reach out to his connections and gather valuable feedback on his fintech product. This led to such a strong project foundation that it sparked the interest of fintech unicorn before Giacomo had a chance to launch. Klarna My colleague Rui & I sat down with Giacomo to find out more about his incredible journey, and get his advice on building a startup. Interview with Fintech Founder Giacomo De Lorenzo Paolo: Can you tell us a bit about yourself and your path leading to Moneymour? I grew up in a family of entrepreneurs: my grandparents built the Garden Hotel in Praia a Mare, a tourist village in the north of Calabria. My passion for entrepreneurship led me to study business: three-years at Bocconi, then a Masters at ESCP Europe. Giacomo: In my first work experiences in Vodafone, Rocket Internet and Procter & Gamble I understood what I wanted. No big companies and titles. I preferred responsibility and freedom of action to structure. “I wanted to change the status quo. I wanted to be an entrepreneur.” I started among the founders of Mario App, a marketplace to find the best home-services professionals. Here I greatly enriched my experience and most importantly met Michele Giannotta, who later became the cofounder in our following adventure: Moneymour. Paolo: Can you take a moment to describe Moneymour? We started building Moneymour to provide instant loans for online purchases with a simple and transparent process. Something unheard of in the Italian market. People had to fall in love with the way we would simplify their access to credit, so we called it Moneymour — do you notice the assonance with the French “mon amour”? Giacomo: For the purpose of this discussion, it’s important to state that Moneymour never went to market. We were acquired right before launching. Moneymour was a technology provider for our partner bank, Banca Reale. We were entitled from the bank to take on the whole user experience and the credit scoring, and pass the client to the bank who disbursed the loan. Paolo: How did you come up with the idea? As I said, we were two co-founders Michele and myself, and we were working for Mario App. At the time, we needed a new computer, this was early 2017. We were working for a startup, so we didn’t have a whole lot of spare money. We set out to buy the computer with a loan. Giacomo: The loan landscape in Italy sucked at the time. In the end, we both asked for an online loan, from the same provider. We had to fill in countless forms, upload documentation like payslips and bank transactions, ID, etc. After spending half an hour to do that you’d have to wait for someone to decide on your application This is usually done in 2–4 days. However, for some banks & financial institutions, it can be as long as 7 days. We waited for two days, and Michele got the loan, but I didn’t. We later hypothesized I didn’t get the loan because of my lack of credit history. We were commuting for around three hours a day together, and we used the journey to talk about new ideas. This loan experience came up in a few of these conversations to and from the office. We realised that it was a problem that needed solving. “As entrepreneurs, we want to solve problems, it’s almost like an illness” We exited Mario App. And the time was right to learn more about the next opportunity. “I’m a firm believer in doing one thing and doing it well, which is why we waited for one project to finish before starting the next.” We saw other countries had companies like doing instant loans for online purchases. We wanted to bring that instant loan model to Italy. We didn’t have any experience in the vertical, but we saw that this was a problem that needed solving. Klarna So we went and started talking to people working in Fintech, and asking for feedback. We were asking for introductions to banks so we could present to them and so on. In August 2017, we were saying to each other “What are we going to do? Is this a real need in the market?” We were trying to talk to banks through contacts explaining what we wanted to do. We understood the problem we wanted to solve but we weren’t set on how to do it per se. We needed a bank to give us money so we could lend it online through an algorithm, which we’ll talk about in more detail later. We didn’t know who we wanted to build the algorithm, we didn’t know where to get the money etc. “We were feeling a bit lost.” Then Michele sent me a link of a fintech expert at a conference. It was very interesting so I reached out to him on LinkedIn with a personalised message. I asked for his advice on our idea. He gave me the opportunity to meet with him and present it.  So we had a call. It was mid-August. He liked the idea, he liked me. And he gave me some contacts I could speak with. Then, he invited me to one of the biggest Fintech events in Europe, , in Cannes. We decided to try it out. Trustech It was an interesting event in and of itself. But the key moment was when we met Michele Novelli, a partner from , the biggest startup accelerator in Italy. He came to us and asked us about the idea. He told us to apply to their accelerator programme. Digital Magics The acceleration programme was extremely important because it was there that we found the bank willing to risk the upfront money for us to lend through Moneymour. They also invested in the company. The lesson here is: “Never be ashamed of chasing people, asking for feedback, contacts etc. People won’t come to you and give you a present unless you really chase them.” Paolo: How did you meet your Co-Founder, Michele? We met when co-founding Mario App through a common friend. It was a random match. But after working together for two and a half years we knew we were the right match when it came to starting Moneymour. Giacomo: Paolo: We have experience working with banks and the sales cycle is long, how was your experience trying to partner with a bank? It was a really really long sales cycle. We started the accelerator programme in January 2018. We had Banca Reale particularly interested throughout thanks to the push and vision from their Corporate VC department and Andrea Birolo. Then, in June we had the investment day of the accelerator. But we didn’t finalise the partnership with a bank until April 2019. Giacomo: really “It’s common when working with banks that things get delayed. It’s par for the course when building a fintech.” As frustrating as it can be, it’s normal to face issues especially when it comes to compliance and the legal side. We wanted to disrupt an industry, get close to the boundaries of what’s allowed versus not allowed by law. And we wanted to do it in partnership with a bank supervised by the Bank of Italy. There were a lot of hurdles to overcome, but that’s all part of building a disruptive product. Paolo: What other difficulties have you encountered? Pretty much everything in this adventure has been a difficulty. As I said, we knew the problem but we didn’t know how to solve it. I knew I needed to hire a team, starting with data scientists. However, I didn’t know how to find the right data scientist for the job. Giacomo: So, I added around 200 data scientists on LinkedIn and had about 100 calls interviewing them and asking for their feedback. I asked them about our idea and what I should be looking for in candidates. The feedback told me we needed an expert not just in data science, but in our vertical. Then, I found Nicholas Parini, a data scientist with a great vision. Since the moment I first spoke to him I understood he was the right person for our mission. He had experience as a consultant working on banks’ credit scoring algorithms. Which meant he had a wealth of experience talking to banks. He had so much knowledge on that side it was like he was made for the job. So we onboarded him, and later another data scientist, Leonardo Totò, and a kick-ass full-stack developer, Antonio Trapani. We had some help from at this time, in the form of a convertible loan. We used this to pay the employees. Digital Magics “For us, the co-founders, it was a really hard time. We didn’t have any income for a year and a half. It was extremely stressful.” I was surviving on pasta and oil or rice in those early months. Not being able to take my girlfriend out to dinner was really frustrating. I didn’t have any internet at home because those 25€ per month could be invested in food. I can look back on it now and smile, but at the time it was tough. After the capital raise, Michele and I were able to pay ourselves a salary and we completed the team with other 2 key people: Alessandro Paolino, mobile developer, and Sabrina Copertini, designer. Paolo: You mentioned at the beginning of our conversation that you were acquired before launch. This is very rare, how did it come about? We didn’t really have any kind of exit in mind when we started. It just so happened that Klarna was scouting the Italian market at the time. There aren’t many fintech startups in Italy, maybe 150 or so. It’s easy to shortlist a dozen startups that could be interesting for a company like Klarna. And that’s what they did. They called a shortlist of startups and we were on the list. Giacomo: Two weeks later they were in our office. We had a three-hour meeting to explain Moneymour. They were clearly interested in us. They organised technical “deep dives” into our technologies and algorithm. “They recognised the value we had created in a short time. So they drafted a proposal for us and we started the negotiation.” This was all going on just after we had finalised with the bank. In fact, the first email from Klarna arrived in my inbox just one week after the partnership. We went from waiting for nine months, while building our top-notch product and algorithm, but still waiting,  to everything happening at once. In July, Klarna booked me for a call and their M&A team told me “Right, we’ve decided, we want to buy you: let’s start the negotiation.” Rui: As you were acquired pre-launch, how much of the product did you build? We built the entire product and now, with the knowledge I have of Klarna’s product, I can tell you despite our limitations we had the best UX possible. We started with the algorithm, which was supposed to make decisions based on Open Banking data. We asked the users for access to their bank statements. Then we could read their transactions and establish if the person was eligible to receive credit or not. Giacomo: We built it based on the information of 40k anonymized people with transactions and loan details. We made sure the algorithm was airtight. So airtight, in fact, that our algorithm had a very low default rate, also compared to the one the bank was using. Then we built the fintech platform itself. We were able to build a nearly fully-featured platform before going to market. I would’ve liked to go to market sooner, but obviously, we had to wait for the bank partnership to be closed. This was among the reasons Klarna acquired us. We’d created great technology and a great algorithm. We demonstrated the value we had beyond commercial value. I think we would’ve had different benefits if we had taken a leaner approach. Rui: Back when you were building the Product, what was a typical day in the life? I always tried to arrive at the office before everyone else; around 8:30. The day depended on the phase in which we were in. But, generally, my main time was used up with: Giacomo: Businesses are made of people, and I wanted to make sure we found the right candidates. Hiring: Pretty much the entire time at the early stages I was negotiating with someone, whether it was a bank, investor or service provider. Negotiations: So those were my priorities. Writing documents, preparing for presentations. Getting paperwork ready for the legal side of everything. Interviewing candidates. Reaching out to people on LinkedIn. Then the other side was the product. I wanted to make sure I was involved in the product side from a business standpoint. We wanted to create this great user experience for applying for loans. We also wanted to use the best providers. The best providers for Open Banking, Know Your Customer, etc. Paolo: One common thing entrepreneurs do is think of HR as the least important part of an early-stage startup. The “people” aspect tends to fall into the background. What do you think? I totally agree with you, and it’s something that universities and business schools don’t prepare you for. Giacomo: I remember when I was studying at university, in some courses we touched topics about culture, vision, mission, principles. At the time I was ignorantly convinced this was something negligible, a nice to have for a company. Now I deeply believe culture is the foundation of a company. “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” You can have the best product vision in the world, but if you don’t have the right people with you you won’t succeed in anything. Rui: Having the right people behind you is one of the key aspects of startup success and something we talk about a lot at Altar.io. Besides your team, did you have any advisors or mentors that helped you? This is a very important point. For us, it was Digital Magics, our accelerator. We participated in their acceleration programme because we wanted a bank. That was the only goal. Giacomo: As said, we found the bank. But we got much more than that. We gained access to a network with experience in banking and fintech from people with an institutional presence. We received strategic support. Introductions to partners and investors. Michele, the partner responsible for the fintech acceleration programme, the same person we met in Cannes, was especially helpful in so many ways. “The accelerator partners had that institutional presence. Having them in our corner when negotiating with banks was invaluable.” Me going to a bank, or an investor and saying “I’m gonna build this product that will disrupt the industry” is very different to someone with many years of experience and influence at an institutional level saying it. I was speaking with Michele or Maria Imbesi from Digital Magics a couple of times a day, and it really gave us the support to build what we built. Rui: What was the biggest lesson you learned with Moneymour that you carry with you? The first thing that comes to mind is to not surrender, and not be ashamed and keep pushing. That’s the rule for me. Giacomo: When we were 14 months in and we had no money, we could’ve given in. But we kept pushing through all our negotiations and it worked out. Resilience is an extremely important part of entrepreneurship. Rui: What would you do differently at Moneymour now? I would’ve looked closer at what other companies in our vertical were offering. Giacomo: My advice, don’t try and build the solution the way you think it’s best. Look at how the problem is being solved around you and don’t reinvent the wheel. For example, we went lean with Moneymour as we set up a solid regulated product with the minimum features. But now that I know the market I can say that, had we built a non-regulated product, we could have launched faster. Rui: Which resource was invaluable for your success? I would say, people. Or rather, the ability to ask for people’s help. I wouldn’t have imagined I could have so much help from the people I talked to at the early stages of Moneymour, and their advice had a hugely beneficial impact. Giacomo: Let me give you an example. Digital Magics were extremely helpful, as I mentioned before. But not all of the startups that were part of that acceleration programme made the right use of them. They were not calling them twice a day. Whereas I knew I had that opportunity so I took it, and it was very valuable for us. So embrace that ability to ask for help, it’s one of the most valuable resources you have. You’ll be surprised how many people will be happy to help. Wrapping Up It’s never too early to start building bridges. Whether it’s with clients, leads, investors, advisors, investors, mentors. Regardless of the stakeholder, there’s never a bad time to strengthen relationships and build new ones. And never be afraid to ask for help or advice, it will help you improve your product, and your business. This story was originally published here by Paolo Dotta

Expert Interview: Selling a Fintech Before Launch by Leveraging Your Most Valuable Resource - People

In the dynamic realm of blockchain and decentralized technologies, the Covalent Network is reshaping on-chain protocols with its innovative protocol revenue sharing model. Departing from traditional financial systems, this feature brings unparalleled accessibility, eliminates intermediaries, and empowers the community with direct access to granular blockchain data. CQT Market Buy-backs & Token Drivers At its core, the Covalent Network serves a dual purpose as both a decentralized physical infrastructure and middleware project, facilitating the connection between the supply and demand sides of on-chain data. Drawing parallels with well-known platforms like Uber, Covalent links query operators (supply) with applications (demand), employing a take rate to accrue protocol revenue and distinguish itself from traditional financial structures. In the foreseeable future, the Covalent Network will fully reside on Ethereum and exclusively utilize ETH for network fees. Through its (EWM), a pioneering solution designed to secure historical blockchain data access, Covalent ensures decentralization, avoiding reliance on centralized entities. This strategic move not only solidifies integration but also actively reinforces Covalent's commitment to the Ethereum ecosystem, cultivating a symbiotic relationship that enhances both Covalent and the broader Ethereum Network. Ethereum Wayback Machine How does it work? The CQT Network uses $CQT as a governance and staking token. Operators stake tokens to participate in network operations, with the share of work distributed proportionally based on their stake. Demand-side revenue collected by the protocol is distributed to operators through a revenue-sharing mechanism. The primary value accrual mechanism unfolds as follows: Applications directly query the blockchain data API by interacting with on-chain smart contracts and pay via stablecoins. Pricing of the API is determined by the network of operators. Stablecoins are converted to $CQT through a market-buy mechanism. $CQT is staked by Network Operators, serving as a security guarantee for their honest behavior. Earned $CQT is distributed to operators based on the work performed. Operators sell a portion of the earned $CQT for operating expenses, circulating back to the economy. Transforming Demand into Token Value Drivers Notably, the demand side of the Covalent Network’s protocol is priced in US dollars or fiat, ensuring predictable and forecastable consumption bills. The protocol collects revenue in US dollars, periodically converting it to CQT (Covalent's native token) through market buys. The CQT is then distributed to validators as a network utility token, circulating back into the ecosystem and sustaining the network. The Covalent Network guarantees equitable compensation for participants actively engaged in network operations, representing a notable departure from conventional models where value accumulation often favors passive stakeholders with limited or no direct engagement. Questions and Answers: Q: How does Covalent’s decentralized model differ from centralized models? A: Unlike centralized models where passive token holders benefit without active involvement, Covalent's decentralized structure ensures that token holders earn rewards based on their active contributions, such as staking or running validators. This emphasis on active participation establishes a fair and rewarding distribution model within the decentralized ecosystem. Explore Covalent’s for additional details. Staking Dashboard Q: What sets Covalent apart in terms of instantly accruing protocol revenue? A: The more API calls that interact with the network, the more revenue is generated. By leveraging token incentives this will drive costs down for users and turn long term data availability into a public good. Q: Can you explain the current method of revenue accrual for Covalent and any changes anticipated? A: Currently, revenue accrual involves a two-step process: demand-side API consumers pay the protocol in USD, converted to CQT and distributed to validators. As more validators join, the goal is to evolve towards a more direct flow, reducing reliance on centralized collection and promoting increased decentralization over time. About Covalent: ($CQT) powers the data layer in blockchain, enabling millions of users to build the new economy. It stands out for its deep commitment to democratizing blockchain data availability. Since its inception, Covalent has been helping developers, analysts, and enthusiasts with comprehensive, real-time data across over 200 blockchains. Learn how Covalent is building the . Covalent Ethereum Wayback Machine For more information, check out Covalent’s: | | | | | Official Website Twitter Discord Telegram Blog API Guides This story was distributed as a release by BTCWire under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. Learn more about the program here.

Stories, News & Mentions about COPARTINC

Copartinc’s Stories on HackerNoon

Copartinc's News & Mentions