Member Info for Chaebol

To BFDinvestor (and anyone whose AI says otherwise)

Your AI is incorrect on the key point.Polish grandfathered VASPs (like Finferno) can continue serving the domestic Polish market under old national VASP/AML rules until 1 July 2026 (or until authorised/refused under MiCA, whichever comes first). That part is true.However, they cannot offer cross-border services across the EU during that entire grandfathering window.

BFD you dont understand the difference between graadfathering and passporting in poland Grandfathering gave them the right to exist in Poland but they never had cross border services from 30th dec 2024 , being a Polish VASP enabled finferno to trade in Poland but was never allowed to offer cross border services.

2/2

Bottom line

Yes — if Bake continued serving clients outside Poland via Finferno after the Lithuania transition (which appears to be the case, as the whole point was “continuity of service”), then those cross-border transactions were not properly authorised under MiCA. It was a regulatory workaround that carried real compliance risk.They mitigated it by suspending early (15 April 2026), but the period between ~January and mid-April 2026 likely involved unauthorised cross-border activity from a strict legal perspective.If you have specific evidence (e.g., Bake’s announcements to users, marketing materials claiming EU-wide access, or client complaints), that would strengthen the picture. Otherwise, this is the standard assessment based on public statements and the clear KNF/MiCA rules.

1/2

Bake (via GSTechnologies / GS Fintech) was very likely providing unauthorised cross-border services after transitioning operations to Finferno in late December 2025 / early 2026.What actually happened (timeline)GSTechnologies acquired the Bake platform earlier and ran it through GS Fintech UAB in Lithuania.

Lithuania’s MiCA transitional period ended on 31 December 2025. GS Fintech UAB did not obtain a full CASP licence by then.

On/around 31 Dec 2025, they migrated the Bake trading platform to the newly acquired Polish VASP Finferno to “ensure continuity of service”.

Finferno (as a grandfathered Polish VASP) could only legally operate under old Polish national VASP/AML rules and was restricted to the domestic Polish market only. It had no MiCA passporting rights for cross-border services.

They continued offering services (including to users outside Poland) until they voluntarily suspended all crypto trading via Finferno on 15 April 2026 — explicitly to “align with MiCA requirements” ahead of the 1 July 2026 deadline.

Did this constitute unauthorised / non-compliant activity?Yes, in regulatory terms:From 30 December 2024 (MiCA applicability) and especially after the Lithuania transition in late December 2025, any cross-border services (serving clients in other EU countries) provided through Finferno were not covered by MiCA passporting.

The KNF (Polish supervisor) explicitly stated in February 2026 that entities in the transitional period operate only under national rules, so MiCA cross-border rules do not apply to them.

Continuing to serve non-Polish EU clients (which Bake’s user base likely included, given its international nature and previous Lithuanian setup) would therefore be considered providing crypto-asset services without the required MiCA authorisation or passporting.

This is commonly referred to as unauthorised cross-border activity under the MiCA framework. Host-country regulators (in the countries where users reside) could view it as operating without proper licensing in their territory.How serious is this?Grey area / enforcement risk: Many firms operated in similar grey zones during the transitional chaos. Regulators (KNF, ESMA, and host NCAs) have not launched mass enforcement actions yet, especially while Poland’s implementing law remains stuck due to vetoes. Focus has been more on high-risk or consumer-harm cases.

They knew the risk: The company openly announced the move to Finferno as a temporary bridge and then proactively suspended services in April 2026 “to fully align with MiCA”. This suggests they were aware of the compliance gap and chose to wind down rather than continue pushing the boundary.

Consequences if pursued: Potential fines, orders to cease operations, civil claims from users, or complications when they eventually apply for a full CASP licence (they plan to resubmit in Lithuania or elsewhere). In extreme cases, it could affect future authorisations.

So bake has 4 and half months of unauthorised transactions I wrote to GST when they announced the Polish VASP to say cross border was illegal and what were they doing.

This is the end of bake now.

Polish VASPs (like Finferno) cannot provide cross-border services under MiCA passporting rules during the grandfathering/transitional period.

Why this is the case

During the entire transitional period (up to 1 July 2026), Polish-registered VASPs continue operating solely under old Polish national rules (the AML/VASP registration regime).

MiCA's passporting mechanism (freedom to provide services across the EU) only applies to entities that hold a full CASP authorisation from a competent authority in their home Member State.

Since Polish VASPs are not operating under a MiCA CASP licence (and cannot obtain one yet due to the lack of implementing law and designated authority), they have no passporting rights. They are limited to serving clients in Poland.

Vasp's in Poland can continue to operate until the end of June across the EU

You really know very little BFD, It was unauthorised for Polish VASPs from Jan 1 2026 to offer cross border services. Finferno could only serve with the grandfathering rule the domestic Polish Market.

There is a big mess in all this.

Go ahead blind me with your knowledge

Luckily we have options.

What are those options? are you gonna hark on about LT reapply that died in December, I think when a regulator tells you to withdraw your app and reapply its the regulator being polite that your app is sheet. LT was toast months ago but what are those options lol

And now according to you everyone understands it..

Some nuance here if Finferno have provided cross border services which was illegal or unauthorised from Jan 1 2026 does that mean Finferno is already corrupted with rubbish lol

Bfdinvestor

Posted in: GST

Posts: 10,975

RE: It wasn't 'a decision has been made'! they were forced to...

28 Mar 2026 10:22

So there is nothing in your AI that supports Kat's contention that they had to shut down now or they would be heavily fined Chaebol.

Vasp's in Poland can continue to operate until the end of June across the EU and afterwards in Poland until their application is completed one way or the other.

You didnt understand it 2 weeks ago.

Bfdinvestor

Posted in: GST

Posts: 10,975

RE: It wasn't 'a decision has been made'! they were forced to...28 Mar 2026 09:13

No company would 'choose' to stop trading 3 months early by choice... they are 'aligning' because if they didn't they would be fined, heavily.

What are your grounds for stating this Kat because if you don't have genuine reasons it is defamatory

Amazing

Volume (24h)

$3.28M

159.33%

How did i mess up when I actually posted the link for the RPT costs?

Fact is you called out my wrong number and then used that wrong number to explain lower costs.

I gave detailed links for how to check the figures, you told me those figures were wrong and then you denied even telling me they were wrong and then used those wrong figures to try and show me lower RPT cost.

I see a therapist coming into your world soon

I hope it works.

Not many understand that offering cross border services without a credible pending MiCA application is illegal

Under the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation, specifically Article 143(3), the right to provide services during the transitional "grandfathering" period is strictly limited to the national territory where the provider was already registered.

The Legal Basis: MiCA Article 143

Territorial Restriction: Article 143(3) allows entities registered as VASPs before 30 December 2024 to continue operating under national law until 1 July 2026. However, this is a local stay of execution, not an EU-wide license.

No Passporting Rights: The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has explicitly stated that entities benefiting from grandfathering do not have passporting rights. They are "not authorised" within the meaning of MiCA and therefore cannot legally offer services in other Member States.

Prohibited Cross-Border Activity: ESMA's guidance clarifies that conducting cross-border activities while under a transitional regime is forbidden unless the host country's own national laws specifically allow it (which is rare and complex under AMLD5).

BRUSSELS — The clock is striking midnight for Europe’s unregulated crypto sector. While the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation technically offers a "grandfathering" window until July 1, 2026, the reality on the ground is a brutal regulatory culling. For many Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs), the window has already slammed shut.

The Fragmented Finish Line

The 18-month grace period was never a guarantee—it was a maximum. Member states have aggressively pulled forward their own deadlines:

France (AMF): Firms not on track for a license must begin "winding-down" by March 30, 2026.

Italy & Bulgaria: Mandatory application filings were required by late 2025 just to stay operational.

Poland’s "Island" Strategy: Local rules allow VASPs to exist within Polish borders, but with a fatal catch, zero cross-border passporting. These firms are legally marooned, unable to scale into the broader EU market.

The Winding-Down Mandate

For those who failed to pivot, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has issued a clear directive: the exit must be surgical. Under Article 74, an "orderly withdrawal" requires

Impenetrable Asset Segregation: Client funds must remain walled off from corporate reach.

Frictionless Redemption: Users must have a guaranteed path to withdraw or transfer assets before the plug is pulled.

Operational Continuity: Systems cannot go dark until the final client is made whole.

Case Study: The Bake (GS Fintech) Exit

The industry saw a high-profile casualty in Bake. Lacking a viable MiCA application, the firm had no choice but to initiate a total withdrawal from the EEA. It serves as a stark warning: in the new European order, there is no "grey market." You are either a licensed Crypto-Asset Service Provider (CASP) with a passport to 450 million consumers, or you are managing a liquidation.

The Bottom Line: The era of the "unregulated VASP" is over. As July 2026 approaches, the market isn't just maturing—it's being cleansed.

Yes Chaebol you posted incorrect figures that, stupidly, I took at face value because I had never commented on or looked at two years figures. My only interest was 2025.

So ignore the link and page 77 clearly shows the years any type of clown could see what I did.

The question remains why did you say my figure was wrong and then use that lower figure to confirm RPT's were lower.

Do you see what youre doing here..........keep going because its highly amusing.

Kat, at .13p they would have to dilute the fully allowed 800 million, thats just over 1 million quid and a massive dilution for shareholders.

Surely loans from the Bai and Goh would be far more suitable at this point, anyhting other than a raise, that type of raise will send it to 0.08 to 0.07 ish. Would destroy the company, but they gonna need cash soon thats for sure!

Leew,

'I am not clicking some random link on this site.'

So why start a debate on an article you're never going to read?

The article is crystal clear: “GSTechnologies boosted investment sharply in the last year, with cash burn ramping by 96%.”

So no one is pretending the jump is purely “operational costs.” The 96% spike is explicitly tied to the ramp in investment/spending. The cash still left the building either way.

Here’s why the “just separate opex and capex, capex can go to zero” argument is nonsense

Free cash flow is the metric that matters. Wall Street doesn’t ignore capex when calculating burn — negative FCF is literally the cash the company is consuming. Calling the 96% increase “so false” because part of it might be investment doesn’t make the cash any less gone.

You can’t just flick capex to zero without consequences. In a fintech business, “investment” is usually what drives (or is supposed to drive) future revenue. They ramped spending while revenue collapsed 42%. That’s not prudent capital allocation — it’s the exact reason the article is “a bit worried.”

Plus all the expenses have not resulted in licenses which is the worst part and bake goes offline later today, so legal fees with Response legal and the failure of MiCA, a 3 month VASP in Poland with Finferno and then having to top up GS fintech and Angra cash reserves. YOu can see they are cutting expenses across the board but I reckon by July they will be screaming for cash, especailly if the court case drags and Zheng Zhu fight it.

And all way back to yesterday I provided detailed analysis and links so that anyone could confirm the 500k in RPT's over 2 years, but not you bfd

Here it is again probably too many words and verfications for you.

Chaebol

Member since Dec 2017

13 Apr 2026 13:36

Posts: 11,895

Price: 0.25

No Opinion

BFD youre wrong again on RPT's I stated 500k in the last 2 years here are the financials its on page 77

Here is the direct link to the official FY2025 Annual Report PDF for GSTechnologies Ltd (released 12 September 2025):→ http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/0394Z_1-2025-9-11.pdf

How to find Note 28 on page 77:Open the PDF above.

Go to the table of contents (page 1 or 2) — it lists “Notes to the Group Consolidated Financial Statements” starting around page 46.

Scroll to page 75 (or use Ctrl+F / Command+F and search for "28. Related party transactions").

On page 77, you will see the full Note 28: Related party transactions, which includes the table with: Rendering of services to parent company: US$260,000

Rendering of services to related parties: US$22,000

Loan to Director: US$47,000

Plus the detailed explanation about the £82,440.90 transfers to the director’s personal account (loan vs travel expenses allocation).

If the link doesn't open for any reason, you can also access it from the LSE announcement page here:

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/GST/results-for-the-year-ended-31-march-2025/17227724

Let me know if you need the exact text copied from that page or help with any other note!

Youre welcome

These are your words.

'
There is a specific section in the accounts that relates to RPT. It is nowhere near 0.5m lol'

'Nope Chaebol I never told you the RPT figure over two years was incorrect.'

hahahahhahha so nowhere near 500k is not telling me that the RPT figure I gave over 2 years was not you telling me I was incorrect?

Fook me are you confused much BFD?

What was you looking at when you told me I was wrong

Nope Chaebol I never told you the RPT figure over two years was incorrect. In fact I never mentioned it at all.

There is a specific section in the accounts that relates to RPT. It is nowhere near 0.5m lol

YOu claijmed you looked in that section if you did you would have corrected the yearly figures straightaway, but you told me my figure were wrong becaues it would have shown you the much higher figure.

So tell me im wrong on my figures and then tell me theyve reduced their costs on RPT's from my figures.

Just admit it, you are in clown land again.......You are getting very deluded.