Topic: [ANN] Real Estate Blockchain Crowdfunding Technology - page 50. (Read 139483 times)

Oh no, definitely not genuises - if you had a semi-legal beachfront hotel that you cannot get rid of, this would pop to your mind with very little thinking. ) A lot of ICOs did more or less  the same before.

Panorama is on point here. Very well explained. Thanks for doing that!

They are like evil geniuses if that's true. Hopefully there's an independent valuation or some other oversight to determine the price if it's not an arm's length transaction.

The whole event was apparently intended to unload to an SPV a hotel on Balearic islands that is otherwise illiquid. ) The promoters effectively re-sold the property to the crowd and kept it at the same time. )

I've been reading the last pages and there are some valid concerns raised.
I think it's time for the REAL team to step in and address these things or at least give us a thorough update.

It sounds like you were right how you interpreted the conversation. The reserves can be sold to new investors in the future, which would raise additional ETH.

Regarding the valuation, it's impossible to know what's a fair price until we get the following info:

* An updated budget
* More info on how the reserves work and how much is actually set aside for future investment (vs any non-investment expenses)
* Estimated timing on their first property purchase
* Much more detail on their real estate strategy and their previous experience implementing that strategy.
* it would be helpful if they could also confirm how much ETH and fiat they currently hold. I have a pretty good idea based on the ICO results they posted, but confirmation would be helpful.

Without having any of this info, I'd say the max price right now is about $0.20 if the budget is still $8 million and assuming they will acquire their first property very soon.

My guess is that they are working on reducing their budget. That would raise my estimate IF I thought they could still pull off their business plan based on the new budget, so there's a balancing act there.

It doesn't really take many people on the real estate side to acquire and manage just a few properties (in my opinion), but the tech side adds a lot of bloat that most real estate firms don't have to carry.

Of course, if they were to reduce the number of people they hire, you'd expect a commensurate reduction in the amount of REAL set aside for the team. Otherwise all the remaining people end up getting more.

Ahhhh...I think I must've misread something in the last few pages because I thought someone mentioned that some of the REAL tokens the team kept would be used above the ETH raised for real estate (push come to shove).  I didn't invest in the ICO and I'm just kinda starting to dig into the whitepaper so I was more so going off the convo I interpreted here.

Considering the current financial state of REAL and some of the profit projections they make on investment (I believe 10%), what would you say the tokens are worth in your mind at this time?  I mean without a budget change, if we were to project how long it would take to get ROI, it seems like we're talking a pretty long time.  I'm starting to think REAL may even touch .20-.30 cents now 

You're right in the sense that they have to adjust their budget. Otherwise the business falls apart since they won't have much money to actually buy real estate. However, it's not clear if they'll be able to actually execute their strategy with too small of a budget.

Regarding your last comment about needing the price of REALs to appreciate so they have more money to invest, you're looking at it the wrong way. It has zero impact on how much they can invest since they raised a fixed amount of ETH and that's what will be used. A higher price would help the team members personally (not investors) since that's how they received their 20%

That being said, they could sell the reserve tokens, so a higher price could help in that respect.

The budget is really the big question since the REAL token value is highly dependent on this. The higher the budget, the lower the value of REAL tokens. It's a balancing act since they didn't raise as much money as expected, but they still need money to run their business.

It was really a poorly structured ICO because they set it up to disadvantage early investors. That's the opposite of how it should have been run. This is aside from the fact that they didn't provide enough info on the real estate side of the business, which is really what token holders bought in to.

The ONLY things that should matter to token holders is the real estate investment strategy and how any non-investment money is being spent/allocated. They screwed up both, which I suspect is why they didn't raise enough money. There should have also been a minimum amount they need to raise or have everyone refunded. Because they didn't do that, they now have the issue of having to drastically reduce their budget, which is a HUGE problem.

At some point, a real estate company will put together an ICO  the right way, so that's what you want to keep an eye out for if you're interested in the space.

Here late...So it sounds like (one of) the big problem(s) with this project is that REAL team needs to adjust the core operating budget to become more proportionate with what was actually raised at ICO. 

They don't need all of the employees they have for 4 years straight, especially when that's soaking up the large majority of the budget.

I don't knock REAL for the budget because they were transparent about it, so there's enough info for any diligent investor to know what they're getting into here.  That doesn't condone it though, and to me it looks like, FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE REAL COMPANY, positions and/or salaries need to be shaved.  REAL should work within their means. 

It's more important to have capital to invest on real estate than to use the large majority of the budget on anything that doesn't directly return income. 

If REAL is counting on the token to grow in order to invest in real estate, that won't work if the returns to the token holders are laughable.

Assuming I didn't miss it, REAL should address the budget situation for the community in a upcoming blog report of some sort.

they are doing what they said one month ago already. they exchanged 3% of their ethers are hodling others and waiting for better price to sell them.

the market price is now not representative for the value of the token, because of very tiny revenue. its better not pushing any ico coin early on any exchanges, if you are not having a big community working with and on your product/token.

therefor pushing the token on bittrex is not so wise. first the product then the trading. bittrex is doing this strategy since ever and communicating that to any team, who want to push their token on big exchanges.

i would not worry about that. even if its delayed they are working on their business.

Yeah there is a miscommunication. I hope it'll be better soon and we'll see regular updates.

Well it can't be totally pointless bcs if it would be pointless you could have bought in right now and not before the ICO.
So basically it's not "pointless".

I have a question? Has dev. team announc anything at all , any information at all...? Are they participating in slack, telegram anywhere?

Haha, honestly the total money bounty hunters earned from this project is very small.
You can see many bounty hunters did not want to receive their salary when the devs decided reduce the total funds for bounty campaign.

I went through the whitepaper again and this is my understanding:

* 20% of tokens are for the team
* 51% of the tokens were sold to contributors during the ICO.
* 29% is being reserved for a future sale, although it looks like a small portion may be offered to "partners" (see page 32). So, together with the 51% above, around 80% should be available for investment LESS $8 million reserved for 5 years of operating expenses (this is the Core Budget that was referenced).

Typically, with institutional investments, you'd expect the following, but it shouldn't be surprising that REAL fees are higher since they are a smaller platform. That said, the essence of how it works should still be fair to investors.

Management fees: 1.5% - 2.0% of invested equity annually. Let's work backwards to see how much they can support. If $8 million is supposed to last 5 years, that's $1.6 million per year. Using the 2% of equity rule, that should support $80 million of investable capital (including the 29% that's being held in reserve). They have raised $11 million so far.

Incentive fees: Typically 20% over a return hurdle. Since they are targeting returns of 12% - 20%, you'd probably expect a 7% - 8% return hurdle (let's say 7%). This means that the team shouldn't take a portion of the profits until investors have earned 7%. After that point, investors should receive 80% and the team should receive 20%. Again, this is from an institutional perspective.

I've seen there be no hurdles, where the team starts earning a percentage of any profit. So once investors get their money back, there's an 80/20 split. However, the REAL team is taking 20% right off the bat, from day 1. Yes, there's a lockup period and they are being paid in REAL tokens, but they are still guaranteed this payment. This is extremely egregious in my opinion.

BonTon, REAL was the reason why I joined this forum. I'm not a bitpro, however I try to get the knowledge regarding crypto.
To make it short. From what I understood it's common to give 20% to developers. On top they decided to have 29% to their disposal. Just in case there was a need for that tokens.
If I get you right, what you mean by finanacing the properties is the maintanance costs eg. keeping management, keeping housekeepers and so on. I tried to get an answer whether that was included in their 20% goal, but I got no answer. So I guess 20% was.. undescribable. I tend to believe, that Melissa as beautiful as she is, was to short to understand it.
To answer your question straight: read the white paper. It's all there.

To be honest I am not fully aware of that. They simply keep the rest? I mean, they use it for operational costs and stuff. They need to finance the operations apart from buying property itself.

It's almost impossible to be sure. From what I've read their White Paper was well received as being very professional, in my opinion it lacked basic data.

My assumption is that before the ICO they already knew which properties they want to buy. That is both good and bad. To me more bad than good since it raises more questions regarding true intensions. However if they turn out to be 'honest' in what they do, and the money they have is enough to buy at least one of the resorts, than most important question is how will they approach the 8M Core Operating Budget. It's quite complicated, but if they had reached their initial CAP, it would take slighlty under two years to brake even. They managed to gather 10% or less of what they intended, so ... anything is possible. What I'm absolutely sure of is that $11M is way to little to make it work as planned.

I have just one question: will it be used as planned and gain profit as claimed or not? And I agree with others that token price are pointless for everyone except "easy money" hunters.