Just a tip, highlight text in the original message and a quote option shows up, clicking this will open up a reply box with the quote embedded, this makes it easier for others to follow the Q&A
You would have the same opportunity with a stable coin, you can list it on exchanges and allow investors to opt in/out at any time, but you can guarantee price stability, linking it to the EUR would make sense in this case, in my opinion.
Are you not running a substantial risk in this case? Investors buy in on the tokens for a specific property, but that token is listed on an exchange, so an investor can sell off their investment, or attempt to sell it off. If there are no buyers, the investor will sell it at reduced value, which either renders the opportunity less attractive, or which reduces the value of the property as a whole.
I’m having a hard time seeing this part of your value proposition.
I just read through your whitepaper and it outlines that the tokens grow in value due to the added interest on a monthly basis (or some fixed time basis); let’s for a moment assume that the markets accept such a standardised value increase, which may be an incentive for a investor to hold the tokens.
However, I didn’t see a need for an investor to sell the tokens on due dates, is this in the “Deed of Pledge”? I.e. a lessee cannot own the property until all tokens have been bought back, what if an investor holds on to the last token (out of spite for example), how does the lessee gain control of the property?
Also, the whitepaper states that the lessee pays the foundation to buy back the tokens and that the foundation will hold the funds if there are no tokens available for (re)purchase; this kind of ties in with my earlier question: how does the foundation guarantee transfer of ownership when all redemption and interest are paid in full but the tokens cannot be repurchased? (think of a scenario where the investor passes away unexpectedly and nobody has access to his/her private keys to sell the tokens)
Page 18: issues, states: “if the lessee wants to terminate … increase in value is split over all tokens, so also the already by the lessee bought tokens profit form this” According to your earlier response the foundation is the one that holds the bought back tokens, not the lessee, so how does the lessee benefit form this?
Onwards to pricing, it is a really beautiful property by the way! The value of the property is EUR 1.500.000, with the ETH at 700 EUR / coin this would translate into 2,143 ETH required to purchase.
(page 28) The value of a token is 0.01 ETH and you are issuing 3,000,000 (3 million is how it currently appears), which equates to 30,000 ETH or 21,000,000 EUR … I’m assuming this is meant to state 300,000 tokens?
Mind you, it is hard to read so it could also be stating 3,000 tokens but that would only translate into 30 ETH?
Can you clarify these numbers?