What's the difference between taking out a home equity loan from a bank and doing a similar thing with Bitcoin? For one thing I won't have huge interest payments and this will benefit all the shareholders? The shares represent ownership in the house and the house is collateral against the shares, if something goes wrong the share holders may reposes my house or some small part of it by calling in the shares value.
If that is what you actually want to do (imitate a home equity loan), I think it's an interesting idea (and possibly even a really good idea). That's not really how you represented the investment, though. I did not realize the house was supposed to be collateral. (After all, you said you were "selling" the house.) Your proposal was confusing.
I would be more comfortable as an investor if this were structured as follows. Each share represents a proportion of the house, with a guaranteed date for buyback (by you) and a certain fixed dividend payed out on some schedule (i.e., interest).
For one thing, this is simpler to understand and straightforward, and for another thing, it sheilds the investor from the whole "re-investing money in GLBSE" business. Yes, you can do that if you want as a means to try to generate the money to pay the dividend to your creditors (I say "try" because I'm rather bearish on much of the GLBSE).
Of course, doing it the other way exposes the investor to more GLBSE risk and sheilds you from it. That's also an option.
The shares themselves being pinned against the value of the house represent an investment opportunity however the shares value plus dividends represent a better investment and return for the money.
The shares being pinned to the value of the house only matters if you are unable to make good on the debt you are issuing, if I understand your proposal. Shouldn't you not plan on that happening and not use that as a selling point? I am sure nobody is going to be comforted by that train of thought.
Why is this conflation or illegal in any way, I should have the right to invest any funds I receive in any way the shareholder see fit and I along with all the other share holders are probably going to want to see dividends. What law would you site to prevent me from paying my shareholders this way?
My legality concerns were not from the "conflation" issue, but from your statement at the beginning of the original post (which is still there as of now) that a town in NH plans to take the house. You later state that there are no plans to seize the property, which is a contraditcion. Assuming there are indeed no plans to seize the property, I'm not sure I see anything legally questionable here.
Also, talking about losing assets to a divorce just made things more confusing. That does help explain the backstory, so it's good to know (and you have my condolences), but it just wasn't clear at first to me whether the house could be seized as part of those proceedings.
tl;dr: you may be onto something but you need to hire a PR firm or something.
It's your prerogative to not invest however thank you for the good wishes.
Tip o' the hat for not being aggressive in response to the criticism.