3 ms·

I am CEO of Mattereum. 1) it takes four months on average to transfer real estate in the UK. It’s about the same in most other counties. 2) with our system th

I am CEO of Mattereum. 1) it takes four months on average to transfer real estate in the UK. It’s about the same in most other counties. 2) with our system that is reduced to one KYCAMLCTF/source of funds check, and an atomic swap on Ethereum. Two days and most, and instant if you pre-clear the money. 3) getter a property legally ready for that transaction takes some time of course, but that work is mostly reused in subsequent transactions. 4) this is of most utility to large property companies not invisible house buyers. Developers and REITs for example. 5) no, you cannot do this with a database, a database can’t clear a $1.2m payment in real-time or create legally binding digital signatures on electronic versions of paper contracts, at least not without a vast amount of middleware. It’s a real blockchain use case. Right now there is no meaningful electronic trading venue for real estate. The closest you get is listed REIT stock on stock exchanges. Roughly three trillion of transactions a year for real estate. It’s a worthy market. Not, I think you’ll find, a solution looking for a problem. A very large market indeed which has so far not found an electronic trading system that suits its operational and commercial needs. As MICA in the EU and other similar legislation around the world clear out the pirate finance people the blockchain will simply normalise as a standard technology for doing transactions. If we also see central bank digital currency — it seems certain in at least some jurisdictions - that removes another set of uncertainties. The UK Law Commission recently published a 550 page consultation document on digital assets in the UK. As that rolls into legislation the grey area will evaporate and we would expect mass adoption for B2B use cases to begin. That’s certainly the government’s intention. Yes there are a lot of naive grifters in the blockchain space. There are also a lot of world class technologists and lawyers. There are people breaking the law, or breaking laws which should exist! And there are people creating the enabling legislation. Because you’ve been listening to propaganda not thinking for yourself, you have pre-judged the situation without understanding what the legislative agenda from the larger governments will enable. And I don’t mean USA here, that’s just a mess, but the world is bigger than just America.

ross_st 3y ago
1) Did you read the Smarter Contracts report I linked to for yourself? There's a full chapter on how the process of conveyancing will be significantly streamlined by digital ID, digital signatures, automation and interoperability between data stores. No blockchain required. 2) By KYCAMLCTF/source of funds, I'm assuming you're referring to what happens when someone buys ETH on an exchange? The problem is that only covers trading on the exchange. Once it leaves the exchange it leaves that regulatory environment, and it becomes impossible to prevent things like wash trading in NFT marketplaces. Are you really trying to tell me that exposing the property market to that is a good idea? 3) What you're actually saying here is that what Mattereum does isn't actually equivalent to conveyancing. In order to make doing this with NFTs work, you've created an inferior legal framework to actual property law, based solely around contract and arbitration law, that you expect people to use instead. The trade of the NFT is faster than conveyancing, not because it's doing the same thing more efficiently, but because it's not actually doing the same thing at all. 4) Large property companies will want actual conveyancing, not your substitute for it. They also don't want to trade property like NFTs. They'll be pleased about digital contract solutions that streamline the process of actual conveyancing. 5) A database can clear a $1.2m payment in real time. In the UK we have near-instant, free bank transfers with a limit of £1 million per transaction - to send more it can just be split into multiple transactions. Neither a database NOR a blockchain can create legally binding signatures on e-contracts without middleware like DocuSign or Adobe Sign. For electronic conveyancing, the answer is to... just use that middleware, it's fine. Transfer of an NFT does not count as a legally binding signature (isn't that the whole reason Mattereum exists)? "Right now there is no meaningful electronic trading venue for real estate." Maybe - here's an idea - property shouldn't actually be traded like NFTs are? Maybe property law isn't just useless red tape and it exists for a reason? Maybe high frequency trading of property on a pseudonymous marketplace is actually NOT a good idea? Speaking of Mattereum, I note the article on your website from April 16 2023 claiming that you have tokenised a "prime beach-front property on England’s south coast". Although the article uses a stock image of a building, the property is actually just a land parcel. Just curious, why was the NFT burned and recreated four months ago? It wasn't because the property sold. Why is it only now possible to buy the NFT by emailing Tokenised Properties to be added to a whitelist? Doesn't that rather defeat the purpose of what you're trying to do? "DISCLAIMER: The land is sold as is without any planning permission. Images are for reference only for possible uses. Buyers are to make their own investigations and due diligence." Hmm, an empty plot of land with no planning permission... not exactly a house, is it? "[...] the required searches, title deed and reference media for due diligence are displayed accurately and transparently so that the NFT purchaser can sell on the property without the next purchaser needing to go through the process all over again. What the NFT purchaser gets for their money is an interest in the property. If they wish to take full ownership of the property itself, they simply pay an extra pound, and full legal title is transferred to them, they can then do as they wish with the property and the NFT is burned." Wait, one moment it's a property, the next it's just an interest in the property? What is your NFT actually adding here? If they take full ownership of the property, say, to build something on the land and sell it on, they're actually going to have to start that whole process over again, right? I see absolutely no upside to tokenising property interests as NFTs and plenty of downsides, such as the potential for market manipulation, scams and thefts. Which is probably why the Smarter Contracts report focused instead on technological developments to fully digitise the traditional conveyancing process that already exists under property law. But you've hitched your wagon to public permissionless blockchain ledgers like Ethereum and marketplaces for trading NFTs, so you have a vested interested in convincing us that this is the proper technology for the use case. Yeah, there are a lot of naïve grifters in the blockchain space - and you're one of them.
- leashless 3y ago
  "I see absolutely no upside to tokenising property interests as NFTs and plenty of downsides" People have said things like this about every new technology -- both the successes and the failures. Will it succeed or fail? We shall see -- I think the former, you think the latter, that's fine: you have no skin in the game and are entitled to your opinion. But here's the bottom line: there's no electronic trading system for real estate right now, other than things like REIT equity on exchanges. So whoever cracks that wins big. Is that a reasonable risk for a commercial enterprise to take? Absolutely. Is the first one done the same as the five thousandth one? No, we'll learn, improve, refine. We'll build commercial infrastructure and commercial partnerships. But the prize is large enough to do some actual work on, because if we're right, we wind up winning big. If the legals are a little confusing, I suggest going over it with a lawyer, assuming you aren't one!
  - ross_st 3y ago
    "But here's the bottom line: there's no electronic trading system for real estate right now, other than things like REIT equity on exchanges." Yes, but the reason for this is not because it would be impossible to implement with existing technology. There's absolutely no reason that you couldn't set up a traditional database to do that. The reason for this is that there's actually a lack of demand for a system that would allow individual properties to be day traded like individual stocks. Seriously, who the fuck looks at day trading and thinks "wouldn't it be great if we could do this with houses?" And on top of that, proposes a system in which it would be totally pseudonymous? lol, lmao. I suggest that you seriously reassess your business model if you're counting on people using Mattereum for houses. I'm not a lawyer but I've read the Smarter Contracts report from LawtechUK - you know, the one Sir Vos was citing - and it lays out quite clearly how technology is going to streamline the process of conveyancing. This is what's actually needed, not trading property like NFTs.
    - leashless 3y ago
      "There's absolutely no reason that you couldn't set up a traditional database to do that." Everything is equivalent to a Turing machine. The question is costs. "clearly how technology is going to streamline the process of conveyancing. This is what's actually needed, not trading property like NFTs" These statements say the same thing: a perfectly efficient conveyancing process is seamless, so the property can change hands like an NFT. An atomic swap with cash in one direction and the title etc. in the other. At which point, we just use an NFT. Have a nice day.

ross_st 3y ago

1) Did you read the Smarter Contracts report I linked to for yourself? There's a full chapter on how the process of conveyancing will be significantly streamlined by digital ID, digital signatures, automation and interoperability between data stores. No blockchain required. 2) By KYCAMLCTF/source of funds, I'm assuming you're referring to what happens when someone buys ETH on an exchange? The problem is that only covers trading on the exchange. Once it leaves the exchange it leaves that regulatory environment, and it becomes impossible to prevent things like wash trading in NFT marketplaces. Are you really trying to tell me that exposing the property market to that is a good idea? 3) What you're actually saying here is that what Mattereum does isn't actually equivalent to conveyancing. In order to make doing this with NFTs work, you've created an inferior legal framework to actual property law, based solely around contract and arbitration law, that you expect people to use instead. The trade of the NFT is faster than conveyancing, not because it's doing the same thing more efficiently, but because it's not actually doing the same thing at all. 4) Large property companies will want actual conveyancing, not your substitute for it. They also don't want to trade property like NFTs. They'll be pleased about digital contract solutions that streamline the process of actual conveyancing. 5) A database can clear a $1.2m payment in real time. In the UK we have near-instant, free bank transfers with a limit of £1 million per transaction - to send more it can just be split into multiple transactions. Neither a database NOR a blockchain can create legally binding signatures on e-contracts without middleware like DocuSign or Adobe Sign. For electronic conveyancing, the answer is to... just use that middleware, it's fine. Transfer of an NFT does not count as a legally binding signature (isn't that the whole reason Mattereum exists)? "Right now there is no meaningful electronic trading venue for real estate." Maybe - here's an idea - property shouldn't actually be traded like NFTs are? Maybe property law isn't just useless red tape and it exists for a reason? Maybe high frequency trading of property on a pseudonymous marketplace is actually NOT a good idea? Speaking of Mattereum, I note the article on your website from April 16 2023 claiming that you have tokenised a "prime beach-front property on England’s south coast". Although the article uses a stock image of a building, the property is actually just a land parcel. Just curious, why was the NFT burned and recreated four months ago? It wasn't because the property sold. Why is it only now possible to buy the NFT by emailing Tokenised Properties to be added to a whitelist? Doesn't that rather defeat the purpose of what you're trying to do? "DISCLAIMER: The land is sold as is without any planning permission. Images are for reference only for possible uses. Buyers are to make their own investigations and due diligence." Hmm, an empty plot of land with no planning permission... not exactly a house, is it? "[...] the required searches, title deed and reference media for due diligence are displayed accurately and transparently so that the NFT purchaser can sell on the property without the next purchaser needing to go through the process all over again. What the NFT purchaser gets for their money is an interest in the property. If they wish to take full ownership of the property itself, they simply pay an extra pound, and full legal title is transferred to them, they can then do as they wish with the property and the NFT is burned." Wait, one moment it's a property, the next it's just an interest in the property? What is your NFT actually adding here? If they take full ownership of the property, say, to build something on the land and sell it on, they're actually going to have to start that whole process over again, right? I see absolutely no upside to tokenising property interests as NFTs and plenty of downsides, such as the potential for market manipulation, scams and thefts. Which is probably why the Smarter Contracts report focused instead on technological developments to fully digitise the traditional conveyancing process that already exists under property law. But you've hitched your wagon to public permissionless blockchain ledgers like Ethereum and marketplaces for trading NFTs, so you have a vested interested in convincing us that this is the proper technology for the use case. Yeah, there are a lot of naïve grifters in the blockchain space - and you're one of them.

leashless 3y ago
"I see absolutely no upside to tokenising property interests as NFTs and plenty of downsides" People have said things like this about every new technology -- both the successes and the failures. Will it succeed or fail? We shall see -- I think the former, you think the latter, that's fine: you have no skin in the game and are entitled to your opinion. But here's the bottom line: there's no electronic trading system for real estate right now, other than things like REIT equity on exchanges. So whoever cracks that wins big. Is that a reasonable risk for a commercial enterprise to take? Absolutely. Is the first one done the same as the five thousandth one? No, we'll learn, improve, refine. We'll build commercial infrastructure and commercial partnerships. But the prize is large enough to do some actual work on, because if we're right, we wind up winning big. If the legals are a little confusing, I suggest going over it with a lawyer, assuming you aren't one!
- ross_st 3y ago
  "But here's the bottom line: there's no electronic trading system for real estate right now, other than things like REIT equity on exchanges." Yes, but the reason for this is not because it would be impossible to implement with existing technology. There's absolutely no reason that you couldn't set up a traditional database to do that. The reason for this is that there's actually a lack of demand for a system that would allow individual properties to be day traded like individual stocks. Seriously, who the fuck looks at day trading and thinks "wouldn't it be great if we could do this with houses?" And on top of that, proposes a system in which it would be totally pseudonymous? lol, lmao. I suggest that you seriously reassess your business model if you're counting on people using Mattereum for houses. I'm not a lawyer but I've read the Smarter Contracts report from LawtechUK - you know, the one Sir Vos was citing - and it lays out quite clearly how technology is going to streamline the process of conveyancing. This is what's actually needed, not trading property like NFTs.
  - leashless 3y ago
    "There's absolutely no reason that you couldn't set up a traditional database to do that." Everything is equivalent to a Turing machine. The question is costs. "clearly how technology is going to streamline the process of conveyancing. This is what's actually needed, not trading property like NFTs" These statements say the same thing: a perfectly efficient conveyancing process is seamless, so the property can change hands like an NFT. An atomic swap with cash in one direction and the title etc. in the other. At which point, we just use an NFT. Have a nice day.