Uncategorized
Need Capital for Your Funding or Lending Company? 3Jane Does it On Blockchain
July 27, 2026“I’m a big believer in agentic capital markets. I think we’re going to see a Cambrian explosion of novel primitives, driven largely by two pieces. Today, it’s just very easy to construct arbitrary financial building blocks using smart contracts,” said Jacob Chudnovsky, Founder of 3Jane, to deBanked.
3Jane provides credit facilities and forward flow arrangements across a range of products, including consumer loans, small business loans, and even merchant cash advances. The company previously provided a $10 million senior warehouse facility to consumer lender LendSwift, for example, and followed that with an inaugural $8.5 million purchase of small business loans from Slope, an embedded credit infrastructure provider that powers business lending programs for major players across the US, including Amazon. According to Chudnovsky, 3Jane would like to do even more deals in the small business lending and MCA space.
But with a twist.
3Jane has built an entire protocol on the blockchain. It offers a credit-backed “yieldcoin” that earns its yield “from warehouse facilities, forward-flow programs, and credit-lines.” Investors can mint the coin on Ethereum, and it earns a yield backed by the performance of 3Jane’s credit assets. Minting is not open to US investors, but the company’s capital markets offerings are focused exclusively on North America. So, if you’re a small business funder seeking a credit facility or forward flow arrangement, 3Jane wants to speak with you.
Chudnovsky is a software engineer by trade and entered the DeFi space in 2020.
“…around 2024, I basically came to the realization that credit is still an extremely underdeveloped vertical in crypto and particularly both the capital aggregation and the capital distribution side of it,” he said. “My initial focus was ‘can we get the best of crypto to distribute capital in a better way?’ and so I founded 3Jane, and we started off by doing unsecured lines of credit for crypto users in the United States who had a bunch of these different assets and could not really borrow against it in a streamlined way.”
That effort eventually led to 3Jane’s current business model. If the name 3Jane sounds familiar, it’s because Chudnovsky drew it from the 1984 novel Neuromancer, the famous William Gibson book that coined the phrases “cyberspace” and “the matrix.” By pure coincidence, Apple TV is releasing a 10-episode series based on the book in January 2027.
“I just think we’re going to enter this complete renaissance of new different financial primitives and I think it’s going to drive a lot of adoption, new ways of thinking about our financial system and that sort of really resonated with me with the book,” Chudnovsky said.
And that new way of thinking is starting to take root. The capital markets utilizing blockchain to create efficiencies is already cropping up around the industry. Since 3Jane last spoke with deBanked, its purchase of embedded finance products from Slope has increased to a total of $60 million.
3Jane’s customers do not need to be crypto experts. The company handles that side of the transaction while underwriting the risk and executing what is otherwise a conventional capital markets deal, but one in which the infrastructure is robust enough that this can be a lender’s first and last facility. On 3Jane’s part, doing this requires a strong understanding of the various financial products it evaluates, including MCA.
“…there are a number of MCA operators in the United States that are doing things right, they’re growing significantly and they need leverage to scale their business,” Chudnovsky said. “and so warehouse facilities and to a lesser extent forward-flows for MCAs sort of equally make sense for them as long as you are cognizant of the risks.”
SOLD OUT: Sponsorships to B2B Finance Expo in Las Vegas Have Sold Out
September 5, 2025The opportunity to sponsor B2B Finance Expo in Las Vegas this October is now gone but there’s still time to be a part of the commercial finance industry’s biggest event in Las Vegas by making sure you’re registered to attend. Taking place on October 28-29 at the Wynn, B2B Finance Expo will once again bring together leaders from Small Business Lending, Fintech, Real Estate Lending, Revenue Based Financing, SBA Lending, and beyond.
The room block is also full but the Wynn may still be honoring the discount code so be sure to take advantage now since it could shut off at any moment. Book Your Room Here.
Ready Capital Grows as Leading Non-Bank Small Business Lender
November 10, 2024
“Ready Capital has become a leading national non-bank lender to small businesses providing a full suite of loan options from $10,000 unsecured working capital loans to $25 million plus real estate-backed USDA loans,” said Ready Capital CEO Thomas Capasse during the company’s Q3 earnings call.
Ready, in some ways, has flown under the radar in recognition. On the one hand the company is the top non-bank SBA lender in the country and fourth overall SBA lender in the country. On the other hand, the company has previously acquired Knight Capital, iBusiness Funding, Madison One Capital, select non-SBA assets of Fountainhead, and Funding Circle USA. The result is that the overall organization is a powerhouse with a current public market cap of $1.25B.
iBusiness Funding, once the technology arm of Knight Capital, has played an integral role for the company. For example, when Ready acquired Funding Circle USA, it did it through the iBusiness Funding brand.
“[In 2019, iBusiness Funding was] a leader in unsecured small business lending,” Capasse said on the call. “And then they adopted their tech to the PPP which was very accretive. And since then there’s been the initiative within the SBA to emphasize small loans below $350,000, which many times are minority women-owned businesses, and so that’s been a significant initiative by the SBA& and so what we’ve done is iBusiness has developed a tech stack, which is now being marketed as a third-party underwriting model for banks. Banks just do not focus on that at all. Even if they do SBA loans, it’s mostly for larger loans again above the $350,000 to the $5 million. So the idea with iBusiness is to grow the revenue stream from this software-based business.”
On Funding Circle, Capasse said that the newly acquired subsidiary would be “accretive to earnings once fully ramped.” The numbers offered so far was that $6.6 million growth in Q3 origination income came from small business working capital loans through the Funding Circle platform.
Trade Group Sues CFPB Over Small Business Loan Data Collection Rules
January 4, 2024
The RBFC has filed a lawsuit against the CFPB over its data collection rules that are scheduled to go into effect this year.
As readers may recall, the federal regulator created 888 pages of rules governing how small business lenders (including MCA companies) will be required to collect and submit data for federal analysis.
At first, it appeared that the CFPB had way overstepped its bounds when Congress, on a bi-partisan basis, passed a resolution to scrap the rules. President Biden, however, then took the unprecedented step of vetoing their resolution on his belief that the rules were necessary to “conduct oversight of abusive and predatory lenders.”
One week after the veto the RBFC filed its lawsuit.
Although the CFPB is required by law to collect small business loan data pursuant to Section 1071 of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the plaintiff took umbrage with the CFPB’s allegedly deliberate misinterpretation of the words “credit” and “loan” as they’re written in that statute. That’s because the CFPB unilaterally decided those terms also apply to MCAs/Sales-Based-Financing agreements. The RBFC contests that the CFPB has the legal authority to include products outside the scope of the federal statute and asks the Court to declare the rules invalid as they apply to sales-based financing.
Biden Vetoes Congressional Resolution to Scrap CFPB’s Small Business Lending Rules
December 19, 2023
Bipartisan or not, President Biden formally vetoed S.J.Res. 32 which would have scrapped the CFPB’s 888 pages of soon-to-be implemented small business lending rules and forced the agency to create new ones.
The CFPB is obligated by the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to collect data from small business finance companies (MCA included) so that it will be able to assess the market and measure potential disparities. It is a limited scope law that nevertheless resulted in 888 pages of rules explaining how to collect that data and send it to the federal government. They are slated to go into effect very soon.
Despite data collection being the intended purpose, Biden suggested in his official veto statement that the rules are actually intended to “conduct oversight of abusive and predatory lenders.”
“If enacted, this resolution would harm all those that stand to benefit from expanded transparency and accountability,” Biden said. “By hampering efforts to promote transparency and accountability in small business lending, Republicans are siding with big banks and corporations over the needs of small business owners.”
Unless litigation changes the timelines, many funders and lenders must start complying by October 1, 2024. This is a federal law, not a state requirement.
Congressional Resolution Aims to Undo CFPB’s Small Business Lending Rules
June 12, 2023
After 13 years of regulatory debate and 888-pages of official rules finally ready to go into effect, some members of Congress have decided that the whole thing is all wrong. At issue is a section of a 2010 federal law that requires the CFPB to collect data from companies engaged in small business financing. However, for more than a decade the statute became a political football, creating delays and sowing confusion over who it is that is supposed to be covered. Lawsuits filed against the CFPB finally prompted it to move forward with its mandate which culminated in an 888-page rulebook that was published in March.
On May 31, however, members of the House and Senate introduced a Joint Resolution to invalidate the rules.
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau relating to “Small Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B)” (88 Fed. Reg. 35150), and such rule shall have no force or effect.”
A hearing on the matter is scheduled to be heard on June 14 at 10am. As part of it, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra is expected to testify.
Update: Hearing is here:
It remains to be seen whether the Resolution will carry weight. There are 23 Republican co-sponsors of the bill and 0 Democrats.
New York Commercial Disclosure Regulations Approved
February 7, 2023With permission to be republished from Leasing News
Ken Greene is an attorney and Editor of Leasing News. To contact Ken, email: ken@kengreenelaw.com.
On February 1, 2023, the New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) adopted final regulations related to its new Commercial Finance Disclosure Law (“CFDL”) found in Article 8, Sections 801-811 of the New York Financial Services Law.
As a reminder, here are the major provisions of the CFDL:
- The law only applies to transactions which are less than $2.5 million;
- Banks and similar financial institutions are exempt;
- True (operating) leases are exempt;
- Commercial transactions secured by real property are exempt;
- Anyone who makes no more than 5 transactions in New York in a 12 month period is exempt;
- Certain vehicle dealers (for transactions which exceed $50k) are exempt;
- Disclosures must be made at the time of extending a specific offer; and
- Generally, the disclosures must include the amount of financing, APR, repayment amounts, term, finance charge, and description of collateral, if any.
Pursuant to the 53 pages of regulation, the CFDL:
- Applies only to transactions where the recipient is in New York;
- Exemptions extend to all majority owned subsidiaries of banks (because they are subject to consolidated oversight);
- Does not require disclosure of broker compensation in the disclosure forms, but still requires disclosure of broker fees in writing;
- Requires that APR be calculated in accordance with either the United States Rule or Appendix J of Reg Z;
- Allows for a digital signature by the recipient on the disclosure forms;
- Has font, rows and column requirements virtually identical to California law;
- Limits the duties of brokers to transmittal of disclosures and providing financer with evidence of transmission. There does not appear to be a document retention requirement like the one in California.
The New York regulations are quite similar to the California rules.
One important difference between the two is the $2.5 million threshold for New York versus the $500k threshold in California. Another major distinction between the two is the express inclusion of bank subsidiaries in the New York law, whereas the California regulations are unclear on this issue.
The compliance date for these regulations is six months after publication of the Notice of Adoption in the State Register. That appears to have happened already, so prepare for compliance on or before August 1, 2023.
This article is presented by the Law Office of Kenneth Charles Greene. All copyrightable text, the selection, arrangement, and presentation of all materials (including information in the public domain), and the overall design of this presentation are the property of the Law Office of Kenneth Charles Greene. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to download and reprint materials from this article for the purpose of viewing, reading, and retaining for reference. Any other copying, distribution, retransmission, or modification of information or materials from this article, whether in electronic or hard copy form, without the express prior written permission of Kenneth C. Greene, is strictly prohibited. The materials available from this article are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to these materials does not create an attorney-client relationship between the Law Office of Kenneth Charles Greene and the user or viewer. The opinions expressed herein are the opinions of the individual author.
The FTC Proposes to Ban Employment Non-Compete Clauses
February 6, 2023As also published in Leasing News
To welcome in the new year in its inimitable way, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) proposed new rules that would ban employers from imposing non-compete on their employees. If passed, the new rule would provide that it is an “unfair method of competition for an employer to enter into or attempt to enter into a non-compete clause with an employee, to maintain a worker with a non-compete clause, or, under certain circumstances, to represent to a worker that the worker is subject to a non-compete clause.”
Per the FTC, a non-compete clause is a “contractual term between an employer and a worker that typically blocks the worker from working for a competing employer, or starting a competing business, within a certain geographic area and period of time after the worker’s employment ends.” As such, these clauses have historically been considered appropriate subjects for scrutiny under the nation’s antitrust laws such as the Sherman Act.
The prospective change in federal law was prompted by what the FTC calls “natural experiments” by virtue of new legislation in several states that limit or ban non-competes. Non-competes are either entirely or largely unenforceable as against public policy in California, North Dakota, the District of Columbia, and Oklahoma. Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Washington and most recently, Colorado, have severe limitations on non-competes. The “experiments” in these states apparently prompted President Biden, in July of 2021, to issue his “Promoting Competition in the American Economy Order”, a broad Executive Order that purports to encourage innovation and competition in the American workplace. The Order asks the FTC to “curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility.” Here is what the Executive Order looks like:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/07/09/executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/
The FTC has sought public comments to the proposed rule. The comment period ends on March 6, 2023. Thereafter, the new law may take effect as soon as 180 days following the comment period. Instructions for sending comments are found in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/p201000noncompetenprm.pdf
One of the upsides of a non-compete is that it helps protect trade secrets and IP, but this can be achieved through a confidentiality or non-disclosure provision. It also keeps former employees from taking your business model and creating a competitive business, which may be difficult to achieve otherwise. However, do you really want to retain an employee who wants to leave simply because he signed an agreement that says he or she cannot compete with you?
The downside of non-competes is that, to some, they violate public policy by restricting the mobility of workers. They are also limited in scope, and expensive to enforce.
What does it mean to you? The general consensus is that the new law will be challenged in court. If it is not, and it becomes law, not only will you no longer be able to legally use non-competes with your employees, but you will have to rescind existing non-competes and inform your employees that the clauses are no longer in effect.
Stay tuned for updates.
This article is presented by the Law Office of Kenneth Charles Greene. All copyrightable text, the selection, arrangement, and presentation of all materials (including information in the public domain), and the overall design of this presentation are the property of the Law Office of Kenneth Charles Greene. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to download and reprint materials from this article for the purpose of viewing, reading, and retaining for reference. Any other copying, distribution, retransmission, or modification of information or materials from this article, whether in electronic or hard copy form, without the express prior written permission of Kenneth C. Greene, is strictly prohibited. The materials available from this article are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to these materials does not create an attorney-client relationship between the Law Office of Kenneth Charles Greene and the user or viewer. The opinions expressed herein are the opinions of the individual author.
