3ef62652aa
Saves the DEALIX_PHASE2_EXECUTION_WAVES.md 90-day plan and scaffolds every
artifact the coding agent can produce. Wave A-E execution is explicitly
blocked until the Week-12 Phase Gate (§3) returns Green.
Added:
§1 Verification Protocol (V001-V007)
- scripts/v001_secret_scan.sh — trufflehog + gitleaks full-history scan
- backend/tests/security/test_rls_fuzz.py — 10K cross-tenant fuzz
- docs/verification/V003_pentest_engagement.md — vendor RFP + scope
- docs/verification/V004_no_founder_demo_test.md — 3-tester protocol
- scripts/v005_truth_registry_audit.py — independent audit tool
- infra/load-tests/baseline.js — k6 perf baseline
- frontend/tests/a11y/baseline.spec.ts — Playwright+axe baseline
- docs/baselines/README.md + docs/verification/README.md
§2 Founder Decision Sprint (FD001-FD005)
- docs/internal/legal_entity_decision.md — MISA/DIFC/Delaware brief
- docs/internal/trademark_status.md — SAIP filing kit tracker
- docs/hiring/{design_engineer, backend_engineer, head_of_cs}.md
§3 Customer Validation (CV001-CV004)
- docs/customer_learnings/pilot_agreement_template.md
- docs/customer_learnings/pilot_template/success_criteria.md
- docs/customer_learnings/pilot_template/kickoff_checklist.md
- docs/customer_learnings/friction_log.md + feature_requests.yaml
- docs/customer_learnings/weekly_review_template.md
Truth registry updates
- docs/registry/TRUTH.yaml — new verification_protocol,
founder_decision_sprint, customer_validation sections
Gates (post-change):
architecture_brief.py 40/40
release_readiness_matrix 94/94 (added 30 new scaffold checks)
v005_truth_registry_audit 19/19 SUPPORTED
4.3 KiB
FD001 — Legal Entity Decision
Status: OPEN — founder decision required by Week 2 Author of this template: Coding agent (scaffolding only; no legal advice) Binding decision: Requires founder + counsel signature
Decision Required
Select the legal structure for Dealix. This decision is irreversible-ish (can be restructured, but costly). Make it with counsel after reading this brief.
Options
Option A — MISA KSA LLC (RECOMMENDED DEFAULT)
What: 100% foreign-owned LLC under Ministry of Investment (MISA) license. Direct Saudi operations.
Pros
- Aligns with "Saudi-first" positioning (customers, procurement, regulators)
- ZATCA e-invoicing built-in from day one
- Eligible for government tenders (subject to IKTVA, Saudization thresholds later)
- Bank account opening straightforward (SNB, Al Rajhi)
- Cleaner PDPL compliance posture
Cons
- Minimum capital: 500,000 SAR (in some MISA tracks) — consult counsel on current thresholds
- Saudization requirement scales with headcount (after 5+ employees)
- Corporate tax + Zakat filings (15% income tax non-GCC shareholders, 2.5% Zakat GCC)
- Slower setup than DIFC (4–8 weeks with expeditor)
Best for: Plan to serve KSA-primary customers. Willing to commit to KSA as HQ.
Option B — DIFC / ADGM (UAE)
What: Free-zone company in Dubai International Financial Centre or Abu Dhabi Global Market.
Pros
- Common-law jurisdiction (English language, familiar to VCs)
- Faster setup (2–4 weeks)
- 0% corporate tax up to AED 375K (current ADGM terms — verify)
- Easier repatriation of profits
- No Saudization
- Preferred by many MENA VCs
Cons
- Weaker positioning on "Saudi sovereignty" story
- Still need a Saudi branch or distributor to bill KSA customers properly
- ZATCA e-invoicing requires separate KSA presence
- Possibly lower credibility with KSA government buyers
Best for: Plan to raise UAE/international VC; KSA is 1 of N markets, not THE market.
Option C — Delaware C-Corp + KSA Subsidiary
What: Parent in Delaware (for US VC), operating subsidiary in KSA.
Pros
- US VCs typically only invest in Delaware C-Corps
- QSBS eligibility (US tax advantage for founders if residency qualifies)
- Clean IP holding structure
- 83(b) elections possible for early equity grants
Cons
- Two entities = two sets of books, two tax regimes, two counsel bills
- ~$80K–$150K annual compliance overhead minimum
- Delaware franchise tax, US federal tax filings even at zero revenue
- FIRRMA / CFIUS considerations for Saudi operators
- Complicates fundraising from Saudi funds (reverse-flip later is painful)
Best for: Planning Series A from Silicon Valley. Already have US investors committed.
Decision Framework
Answer 4 questions:
- Where is revenue? If >80% KSA → Option A. If >80% UAE/global → Option B. Mixed → Option C.
- Where is capital? Saudi/Gulf funds → A or B. US funds → C. Self-funded → A (cheapest).
- Where will the team live? Riyadh-primary → A. Dubai-primary → B. Remote/US → C.
- What's the exit story? Tadawul/Saudi strategic acquirer → A. Regional strategic → B. US IPO/M&A → C.
Recommended Default
Option A — MISA KSA LLC
Reason: The entire Phase 2 Blueprint positions Dealix as "Saudi-native infrastructure." A UAE or Delaware entity would undermine that positioning in customer and regulator conversations. The cost premium vs Option B is offset by procurement advantages in KSA enterprise.
Reversibility: Can re-domicile later via parent holdco if US fundraise materializes.
Counsel Engaged
Deadline: Week 2. Shortlist:
| Firm | Type | Indicative KSA Setup Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Al Tamimi & Company | Full-service, regional | 40–80K SAR |
| Clyde & Co | Full-service, international | 50–100K SAR |
| Hammad & Al-Mehdar | Local KSA boutique | 25–50K SAR |
| Baker McKenzie | Full-service, global | 80–150K SAR |
Send identical RFP to 3 firms; compare scope, KSA track record, turnaround.
Decision Record (FILL AFTER DECISION)
- Selected option: [ ] A [ ] B [ ] C
- Counsel engaged: ________________
- License/incorporation number: ________________
- Date: ________________
- Signed: Founder ________________
- Rationale (3 sentences): ________________