As highlighted in the reference you provided, whether Arcehan...

As highlighted in the reference you provided, whether Arcehan requires an AFS depends on whether the scheme is classified as a Managed Investment Scheme (MIS). Whether the product is an MIS is based on the following three tests being true:

1. Do people contribute money or assets to acquire an interest in the scheme?
2. Will any of the contributions be pooled or used in a common enterprise to produce a financial benefit or other benefit for the people holding interests in the scheme?
3. Do the investors lack day-to-day control of the scheme?

Based on the information available on Archean’s website it is difficult to see how the product offering could not be considered an MIS. One interpretation is as follows:

i) people purchase tokens - Archean Tokens (ARCs) which represent an interest in a tokenised deposite of more than 8,816,701 grams of gold;
ii) the ARC Token is listed on the LBANK exchange which represents the common enterprise - producing the financial benefit; and
iii) investors lack day-to-day control of the scheme where trading in such sheme operates in an unregulated market (e.g. coin exchange may suspend or limit trading activity etc.).

Archean is not recorded as holding a current AFS license.

ASIC released further guidance regarding crypto assets in INFO 225 and INFO 230, however INFO 225 is perhaps most relevant here:

https://www.corrs.com.au/insights/asic-releases-guidance-on-crypto-assets

It was unclear from the information available whether Quillhash Technology, based in India and relatively new to crypto currency and blockchain auditing, satisfied obligations identified in INFO 225 (e.g. AUSTRAC registration, AML compliance).

Cryptocurrencies, and the blockchain technologies upon which they are based, carry with them high technical risk and uncertainty. People lose billions of dollars every year as a consequence of fraud (e.g. Ponzi schemes) and theft (e.g. cryptojacking, crypto wallet theft). This is a relatively immature and still evolving technology and is a target of nefarious actors (cyber criminals).

As occurred with the Managed Investment Schemes in the forestry sector, the source, security and sustainability of the underlying gold resource is unclear.

If Archean were proposing that its tokens were secured by CLZ’s gold assets, which are already owned by CLZ shareholders and therefore cannot be resold, this would represent a material breach.

The only way this could occur would be if an agreement were put in place for CLZ to sell Archean a proportion of the gold assets at (or above) market value (certainly not at a discounted rate - why would shareholders agree to this?) and only once there was sufficient confidence that the gold actually existed so the business was not exposed to unnecessary risk (i.e. commitment of value for underlying product that does not exist).

Such an agreement should require majority shareholder endorsement.

38.02b shares outstanding
6.59b shares held by top 20 shareholders