It's 100% pure speculation. I don't doubt that it'll happen at some point, but saying it'll happen *as early as* Oct 26th is a cop out statement since the only way he could be wrong is if it happens sooner than that.

There are so many ICOs out there, it's impossible to stay on top of everything. I use other sources as leads of what to focus on, then I do my own research from there to see if I agree and want to invest.

The problem with this is you can miss out on good opportunities that are under the radar since most sites focus on the ICOs that are already getting some attention.

+1 on CrushCrypto. They do a really nice job of analyzing ICO's, but it would be nice if they could cover more tokens.

I've invested in 9 so far, all relatively recently, but it's interesting to see the new phenomenon where coins are trading below their ICO value. I'm still bullish on what I've invested in, but it's frustrating when you see you could have picked something up cheaper just by waiting. That's the nature of the game, but it's crazy how quickly values can drop.

I'm continuing to pick up Ethereum whenever I can.

How can you show proof of concept without addressing such an important part of real estate ownership? Are you referring to just the tech? Even if the tech is perfect, this model doesn't work until you've got financing figured out.

Without some form of available financing, investors will never see a yield that compares to traditional real estate ownership.

Your exchange doesn't exist in a bubble. You can't match buyers and sellers if the investment opportunities you present aren't in line with the rest of the market.

It looks like my question about leverage may not have been noticed. Could you comment on this?

Not having access to attractive financing could be a big issue.

I'm assuming all properties will be unlevered. Is that right?

I know this is something out of the control of Atlant since you don't control the properties at any point, but is leverage even possible with tokenized ownership?

It should really have nothing to do with value of the company unless the token actually represents ownership. In most cases, tokens are an asset that can generate revenue, so (in my opinion) the proper way to value a token is to look at the potential revenue (which seems almost impossible to do for most companies right now) and value the token based on a risk-adjusted yield on cost.

Think of a token like owning a taxi medallion in NYC. You can't legally drive a taxi unless you have a medallion, so the price of one fluctuates based on how much money one can earn you and the risk/volatility of those earnings relative to other investment options.

Before Uber, owning a medallion pretty much guaranteed consistent income, so an owner might be happy with a 5% yield for the risk. Uber has changed the market dramatically, so now owners might require a 10% yield because of the added risk.

To be more specific, let's say pre-Uber a medallion owner could expect $50k per year in income. The value of that medallion would be be $1 million ($50k / 5%). Let's say after Uber, an owner can only expect $35k per year, with less certainty. The value would now be $437,500 ($35k / 8%).

Of course, estimating revenue is hard for altcoins because they are so new, but it should get easier in time.

I think the market will transition to this approach in time, but right now altcoins are mostly just trading on pure speculation.

One last point - Similar to tokens, part of what gives a medallion its value is the fact there's a limited supply. Even the risk that more could be added would have an impact on value, which is why understanding hard caps and knowing what happens to unsold tokens is important.

I guess time will tell...it'll be interesting either way. Good luck! 🙂

I think it's funny how you're claiming I'm the one who doesn't reach a logical conclusion.

Not having a lot of previous activity doesn't automatically mean someone is a troll. Everyone's first post has to be somewhere. I'm generally a lurker here, but the only reason I've been active in this thread is because there have been follow-ups directed at me. You don't have to agree with me, but I think it's hard to argue that I'm posting like a troll. If anything, your ICO is one that I've looked at very closely because I was extremely interested in the idea. I've put a lot of thought into this.

Also, saying that you've addressed my concerns about the business model because you've replied to all posts that have a question mark doesn't make any sense. The issues I raised were mostly in the form of comments, not questions. I outlined why I don't think decentralization would really work and you haven't made any counterpoints that convince me otherwise. Does not including a question mark really matter?

Regarding my comment on condo boards - your're right, it is an assumption. I make decisions based on fact when possible, but sometimes you have to make reasonable assumptions to come to a conclusion. I'm trying to think about this using real world scenarios and it seems pretty clear to me that condo owners and token owners would make decisions in a very different way. I thought this was clear based on the progression of my comments in this thread, but I'm happy to outline my thoughts in more detail.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as defensive here, but like I said, I've put a lot of thought into this because I was seriously considering participating. Making money is more important to me than "being right", so I'm happy to change my mind if someone can really show me why I'm wrong.

To be honest, I don't think you've clarified anything and I still think there are legitimate issues with the tokenization side of your business model. The fact that I'm not eligible to participate in your ICO doesn't mean that I'm not entitled to my opinion, so your comment makes it sound like you're just trying to shut me down (which I don't appreciate).

If you really think my concerns aren't valid, please let me know exactly how you see some of these complex situations playing out. I like the idea of decentralization, so I'd still consider buying your tokens post-ICO if you can ease my concerns.

...and if anyone else thinks my concerns are crazy, please let me know. I'll shut up if no one thinks my arguments make sense.

I don't see how this is relevant. Can you elaborate?

Yes, I think it would be very different.

Condo boards are made up of people who actually live in the property and it's not easy to sell your ownership on a whim. That completely changes how people will make decisions.

An example is where capital needs to be put in to the property. A property manager can't make this decision, so it has to go to token owners for a vote, right? For the sake of this example, let's assume that the property needs a new HVAC system. The existing one is still working, but it's on its last legs and should really be replaced. Let's also assume that a "regular" owner with a long-term view of the property would see this as an easy decision and replace the system.

Well, you've got a collective of strangers who have different interests, knowledge and resources. Some may have bought property tokens for a quick flip and others may have bought as more of a long-term hold. Others may have bought because the building is down the street from them and they just like the idea of it.

When you invest in a stock, you know that management is focused on shareholder value and there's a Board of Directors that provides oversight. With decentralized ownership, you're in a position where you know absolutely nothing about who's invested alongside you and what motivates them. So, when a decision needs to be made, you have to assume everyone is looking out for their own interests but since you don't know what motivates them, it's impossible to know what to expect or if people will vote rationally.

It's easy enough to trade in and out of individual properties, so I might decide that I'd rather not replace the HVAC system since it's in my interest to maintain higher cash flow in the short term and sell my tokens before it actually breaks down.  This is not in the best interest of the property or ownership in general, but it's in my best interest.

Now, maybe I'm the only one who thinks like this...or maybe 90% of the owners do. Even if I'm a "rational" real estate owner who knows that the right decision is to replace the system, the fact that I don't know how others will vote is a big problem. There's real uncertainty.

So, what happens when there's uncertainty? It gets reflected in the value of the asset. Just the fact that potential for issues like this to occur will depress token values relative to the actual property value. It happens with REITs as well...poor management or an inefficient structure can cause a company to trade below NAV.

This is a classic prisoner's dilemma, but it the actual decision outcome doesn't really matter because the fact that the situation exists is what causes serious problems in the first place. I won't even go into what could potentially happen if ownership decides not to replace the HVAC and it breaks down, then you've got to deal with more of an emergency and upset tenants.

I know this could sound like a crazy example, which is why I generalized at first, but I think it's absolutely possible. Maybe this isn't exactly how things would turn out, but I can pretty much guarantee that it's more likely that there's chaos instead of order when it's time to make decisions.

I've got no agenda here and I'm not trying to create FUD...I just don't see decentralized real estate ownership working.

Yes, I know my statements are generalized but I'm not here to outline 10 different examples. My issues also aren't limited to what I mentioned above. Anyone with experience in real estate can think through examples of their own and consider how decentralized ownership would work.

I can't really comment what the moderator you mentioned said since I didn't hear the session, but I wouldn't disagree that decentralized ownership is the holy grail of real estate if you can do it, but that's a big IF and I don't see it happening. Also, I wouldn't really expect him to say he doesn't think you could do it in a public forum, so his comments don't really mean much to me. If you told me that he was personally investing in your platform or tokenizing one of his assets, that would mean something.

I know this could be a never ending conversation as we obviously disagree on this, so I have no interest in a back and forth. I'm just giving my opinion, so anyone considering this should decide for themselves.

There are a few issues, but one of the main things is that real estate is like an operating business, which makes it almost impossible to decentralize in a practical way.

I know they will be hiring management companies, but you still need a knowledgeable decision making authority because things happen in business. I'm not saying that properties will will fall apart, but they won't be maximized, and real estate values are based on capitalizing income. So, by transitioning to a decentralized structure, you are likely to negatively impact the value of the real estate unless you can manage the property at least as well as the person you bought it from. Why would anyone ever want to buy a property token if the value of their investment is likely to go down from day one?

Of course, these are generalized statements, but from what I know about real estate it's too complex to run in a decentralized way.

I think implementing tokenization side of the business in a practical way is going to be a big challenge and they haven't figured it all out yet. Maybe they'll figure it out in time, but I see some critical flaws based on the whitepaper.

The P2P side of the business seems more doable.

I registered for the Kyber whitelist before I realized they won't accept US residents, so I won't be participating