Real Estate ICO Comparison Chart
Detailed Analysis of Business Models
Business Model1. Homeowner borrows cash against property
2. Local vendor provides appraisal (Centralized)
3. Local custodian holds property (Centralized)
4. Homeowner auctions tokens representing property on LAT platform (Centralized)
5. Homeowner can repurchase property from current token owner at newly appraised price (Centralized, potential conflict of interest)
Potential issues1 No clear reason for using tokenization or blockchain in the business model
2 Unclear certification or legal framework for custodians
3 Insurance and verification for artworks, other assets is not not explicit
4 Potential conflict of interest in appraisal during asset repurchasing
5 In case of default, subsequent management/sale of fractional collateral unclear
6 Unsubstantiated claims that AAPL shares can be currently traded on a nonoperational system
Business Model1. On own platform Brickblock creates a token for listed ETF, REF, CTF, CMFs
2. Assets are stored in a “digital trust fund”
3. Tokens of each asset on can be traded on the platform
Potential issues1. “Digital trust fund” custodian is centralized, unclear what happens in the event of default or misappropriation of assets
2. ETFs have a market size of $4 trillion, and substantially higher liquidity than $100 billion cryptocurrency assets. Such instruments would therefore actually reduce liquidity
3. Business model is that of a middleman between a broker and user, and the basis for the claimed cost savings is unclear. Also, the “digital trust fund” will likely have further costs
4. Presale raised funds in non ERC-20 tokens such as ETH, without proper KYC or personal cabinet it is unclear how buyers will be able to receive their Brickblock tokens.
5. Major brokerages Fidelity, Robinhood, etc. currently allow for free trading of ETFs
6. Webpage claims that the product is built on Lisk, Waves, NXT, Hyperledger, Ethereum — these platforms are incompatible, indicating that these claims may be problematic.
Business Model1. Real tokens will be sold for ETH, subsequent funds will be used to buy real estate
2. Real estate will be sold “when it goes higher” based on unknown “threshold equation” and converted to Real tokens
3. Back to step 1
Potential issues1. Real seems to be a Ponzi scheme given that there are a finite amount of tokens which are to be used to purchase an ever increasing pool of real estate
2. Unclear legal connection between the Real token and the underlying property
3. Claim that Real tokens are deflationary is unsubstantiated and therefore problematic
4. Real claims “will also ensure that our company will be successful, self sustainable and generate profits from year one in order to have stability as we grow”. This claim is not only unsubstantiated, but appears to possibly contradict multiple securities regulations connected with offerings
5. Unclear why property owners would accept Real as payment and how and at what exchange rate they would receive fiat currency in exchange.
6. Real collects a 10% nonnegotiable fee from all tokenization and income of each property, and targets 12–20% annual returns — 30% is inconsistent with any country’s cap rate
7. No team members have real estate experience, and they also claim a “value approach” that is inconsistent with the angel investing backgrounds of the founders
8. Real estate timing formula on pg. 19 of the Real white paper sells properties after unclear gain, and attempts to time uncertain markets
9. Diagram showing real estate outperforming S&P since 2000 would be completely reversed on a slightly different time frame
10. Claims that system is global, yet property contracts don’t seem to differentiate property register IDs in different jurisdictions, making this claim potentially problematic
Business Model1. Users who are brokers, landlords or sellers or their verified representatives may list properties on the Rex MLS system
2. Verified users are paid for their listings, while unverified ones pay to list
3. System of sponsorships, and ads charge users additional Rex
Potential issues1. Most MLS providers are not global or even national because they are able to charge fees for every location, which contradicts the proposed Rex business model
2. “Pool B consisting of 20% of Rex token supply, allocated to listing rewards” — it is unclear how this will be paid out if system runs out of tokens
3. Team seems to lack technical expertise. Only the founder is said to have “technical background”, but the bio offers only sparse details.
4. No clear advantages of storing the MLS database on the blockchain are demonstrated in the white paper
5. Unclear how such a small upstart without any initial data, would be able to displace large behemoths in the space who continue to charge for their data, by offering the data for free
Business Model1. System lists assets which are transferrable via digitally signed agreements
Potential issues1. There is no clear link between an asset and tokens or contracts signed, also not clear how said contract will work internationally
2. The proposed business model of benefits to token holders from the “prediction market” and the “exchange” of fiat currency into crypto is unclear.
Business Model1. Landlords place listings on the website/ios/android
2. Tenants place bids for listings and are able to pay with bank cards, fiat or REST tokens (Relest’s token)
Potential issues1. Whitepaper contains plethora of grammatical mistakes and inconsistencies making it difficult to read and understand.
2. It is unclear what tokenholders will receive
3. It is unclear why this project needs a blockchain
4. Business model as we understand it from the whitepaper and website does not appear to be compelling, and does not offer clear value to any of its users
5. The platform’s main stated benefit is the ability to pay with REST tokens, it is unclear how this is a benefit
6. System claims to send out SMS confirmation — unclear who would pay for it and how this would work without centralization.
7. Landlord has to specify times for auction periods — if they list each day on auction, and tenant wants to stay for 3 days would they have to win each auction? If so, what if they don’t win the second day?
8. System attempts to monetize features such as chat, calendar, and highlights, all features available for free in competing services
Business Model1. “Initially the Propy Registry will mirror official land registry records in which transfers of real estate are recorded.”
2. “Propy’s vision is that jurisdictions will adopt the Propy Registry as their official ledger of record such that the transfer of a property”
Potential issues1. In its current iteration, Propy is a blockchainless fiat solution, per the white paper. Propy is mirroring official property transfer mechanisms, and requiring extra work from the users to comply with their platform. Putting this functionality on Blockchain simply mirrors work that is done in traditional registers and by physical notaries, lawyers, etc.
2. System intends to reward participants and governments with its tokens and reserves 35% of PROs for this, and it appears that this approach may constitute direct payments to governments and/or officials which may not be legal in various jurisdictions. What happens when they run out of PROs allocated to this?
3. Business model would work if governments accept and implement Propy blockchain as their official blockchain — this goal is likely impossible, and even if achievable non-authoritarian governments will allow more than one company to work with its blockchain to perform transfer of ownership
4. No GitHub account as of August 28, 2017, yet on June 29. 2017 on BBitcointalk, Propy claimed its GitHub repo would be published in a week. Also, Propy’s appstore app does not seem to be either decentralized or based on smart contracts
5. The founder’s video on YouTube shows that she does not seem to understand whether Bitcoin or Ethereum networks have smart contracts
6. Substantial amount of tokens not available on the market creates an overhang
