All Forum Posts by: Richard Volkov

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @Richard Volkov:

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @Richard Volkov:

Quote from @James Hamling:

This is the worst idea I've ever heard. 

So your going to pitch me that for my rental property I want to sell, that your just gonna take half the revenues and I get left with 100% of the headaches and work of it. Oh, AND I get to add some new additional handcuffs to the mix.

Zero sense, it makes absolutely zero sense. 

Hello James! Let's clarify this real quick,

I understand this model wouldn’t work for every property owner, especially those who are looking to sell outright and walk away from the property entirely, and the approach isn’t designed to replace a traditional property sale. Worth knowing, that it is less about adding “handcuffs” and more about offering a different option for owners who aren’t ready to sell but need capital - money for renovations, maintenance, or any other need. It’s meant for owners who want to keep ownership of their property but need a way to access liquidity without taking on more debt or selling the asset outright. Property owners remain responsible for operations and maintenance, only because they retain full ownership. The model opens a pool of possibilities for owners who are prepared to hold and manage the property long-term. It’s more about offering a different option for owners who need capital, and offering investors to access the world of real estate investing fast and smart, like never before.

 So it's a loan....

You just detailed a loan. 

So why wouldn't they just get a loan? And use the revenues to secure? Those already exist in mass. I get calls literally weekly begging me to take the $ on various lenders of these. 

So why wouldn't I just take one of those loans and have none of the handcuffs, and keep 100% of my revenues. 

Again, it makes no sense. 

Structurally, it’s different. Traditional loans are debt—you borrow money, take on a repayment schedule, and owe interest, regardless of how the property performs. What this model does is provide funding by sharing future income, without adding debt and, except for those about income gathering to the platform, without adding repayment obligations to the property owner. Investors only receive a share of the income you actually generate, you will not owe a fixed repayment block.

Difference here is that this model is for owners who either don’t want to take on more debt, can’t qualify for the financing they need, or have little time.

At best, this is word games. 

With a loan, a person takes on a Debt Obligation. 

Exactly what is to be repaid is known, exactly what the cost for the use of those borrowed monies is known. Your payments are known. 

With this, your saying you get that money and then you LOOSE that % of revenues. And as you say it's an UNKNOWN amount, because it's a %. 

So when your talking to a seller you brag that $ amount of the % can go to $0 so "ha, ha, ha, pulled a fast one on that person who "bought" the cash flow". 

And when talking to a buy you say "ha, ha, ha, look at the deal we got, we got that person to give us all this $ from there cashflow"

The whole thing wreaks to high hell. 

If your LOOSING half your cash flow, how is that any different than having a payment on a loan? 

Other than your payment is NOT fixed, the "charge" for it all is NOT known or set...... 

And again, there is no such thing as ANY of these sellers not having other options because if a person has a cashflow to sell, they CAN get a loan on that cashflow now, today. 

A common term for these is payroll loan, but there is other terms as well. It's a loan based on your revenues. Comes with a known rate, a known term, a known payment. 

I can not picture a single scenario where this is a "solution" for anyone other than the middle man. 

This model isn’t a loan because there’s no debt obligation. Income rights being given up is defined upfront, and the property owner decides how much income they’re willing to share in exchange for the funds they receive. Owners get liquidity without taking on debt, and investors earn returns tied to the property’s performance. And its not replacing loans, but its an alternative that makes funds cheaper and faster to get, all in platform's ecosystem with investors desperate for new properties, buying tokens like bread.

Quote from @Warren Powers:

The problem I have with this is that I see no advantage for a successful property owner to participate. Your target is an owner who is distressed at least to some degree. So you sell income rights to a property owned and operated by someone in financial distress. If their numbers don't work before you tokenize the income, how are they going to work after? If you could a way to tokenize good deals I might be on board but I don't want anything to do with the distressed income deals you will likely be able to source unless I had ownership rights and could fix the problems causing the distress.

That’s a real concern, however properties with failing numbers or poor management wouldn’t work for this model because the income rights being sold would hold little to no value for investors. In fact, the model isn’t designed to bail out distressed owners—it’s meant to provide liquidity to stable, cash-flowing properties where the owner doesn’t want to take on debt or sell outright.

For a successful property owner, the main advantage is flexibility. This model offers a to open a window to some of the property’s equity without sacrificing control or ownership. Instead of taking on debt with fixed payments, which may come with risks during market downturns or income fluctuations, an owner can use this structure to raise funds while still operating the property on their terms. It’s not for distressed assets or owners in financial trouble—it’s for properties where the fundamentals already work, and the owner is looking for a way to expand, reinvest, or access liquidity without the time spent for loans or getting a full sale made.

Quote from @Shafi Noss:

What is the legal mechanism?

The legal mechanism lays around creating a contractual agreement that separates income rights from ownership rights. The property owner retains full ownership of the property, including the title, control, and decision-making authority. What’s being tokenized and offered to investors are income rights—a legal claim to a percentage of the rental income and, if applicable, appreciation in property value. This is achieved through a smart contract-backed legal agreement that helps the arrangement.

Each token represents a fractional share of these income rights, not ownership of the property itself. This differentiation is critical because it avoids triggering property co-ownership laws, transfer taxes, or title issues. The agreement ensures that investors are given their proportional share of income generated by the property every month or a period outlined in the agreement while detouring them from liabilities like maintenance, taxes, or debt tied to the property. The property owner is obligated to honor this agreement, and failure to do so would be enforceable under the terms of the contract. The legal mechanism ensures both parties’ rights and responsibilities are clear, enforceable, and separate from ownership of the asset itself.

Quote from @James Hamling:

Quote from @Richard Volkov:

Quote from @James Hamling:

This is the worst idea I've ever heard. 

So your going to pitch me that for my rental property I want to sell, that your just gonna take half the revenues and I get left with 100% of the headaches and work of it. Oh, AND I get to add some new additional handcuffs to the mix.

Zero sense, it makes absolutely zero sense. 

Hello James! Let's clarify this real quick,

I understand this model wouldn’t work for every property owner, especially those who are looking to sell outright and walk away from the property entirely, and the approach isn’t designed to replace a traditional property sale. Worth knowing, that it is less about adding “handcuffs” and more about offering a different option for owners who aren’t ready to sell but need capital - money for renovations, maintenance, or any other need. It’s meant for owners who want to keep ownership of their property but need a way to access liquidity without taking on more debt or selling the asset outright. Property owners remain responsible for operations and maintenance, only because they retain full ownership. The model opens a pool of possibilities for owners who are prepared to hold and manage the property long-term. It’s more about offering a different option for owners who need capital, and offering investors to access the world of real estate investing fast and smart, like never before.

 So it's a loan....

You just detailed a loan. 

So why wouldn't they just get a loan? And use the revenues to secure? Those already exist in mass. I get calls literally weekly begging me to take the $ on various lenders of these. 

So why wouldn't I just take one of those loans and have none of the handcuffs, and keep 100% of my revenues. 

Again, it makes no sense. 

Structurally, it’s different. Traditional loans are debt—you borrow money, take on a repayment schedule, and owe interest, regardless of how the property performs. What this model does is provide funding by sharing future income, without adding debt and, except for those about income gathering to the platform, without adding repayment obligations to the property owner. Investors only receive a share of the income you actually generate, you will not owe a fixed repayment block.

Difference here is that this model is for owners who either don’t want to take on more debt, can’t qualify for the financing they need, or have little time.

Quote from @James Hamling:

This is the worst idea I've ever heard. 

So your going to pitch me that for my rental property I want to sell, that your just gonna take half the revenues and I get left with 100% of the headaches and work of it. Oh, AND I get to add some new additional handcuffs to the mix.

Zero sense, it makes absolutely zero sense. 

Hello James! Let's clarify this real quick,

I understand this model wouldn’t work for every property owner, especially those who are looking to sell outright and walk away from the property entirely, and the approach isn’t designed to replace a traditional property sale. Worth knowing, that it is less about adding “handcuffs” and more about offering a different option for owners who aren’t ready to sell but need capital - money for renovations, maintenance, or any other need. It’s meant for owners who want to keep ownership of their property but need a way to access liquidity without taking on more debt or selling the asset outright. Property owners remain responsible for operations and maintenance, only because they retain full ownership. The model opens a pool of possibilities for owners who are prepared to hold and manage the property long-term. It’s more about offering a different option for owners who need capital, and offering investors to access the world of real estate investing fast and smart, like never before.

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Steve Vaughan:

Can these 'tokens' easily beat a yield of 8%?

Anyone can buy a stable senior income fund like FLBL with the click of a mouse and no liquidity or complexity issues.  That's your competition.  

I suspect this would have some Securities issues that would have to be addressed as well.

 Hello Jay, welcome to this discussion. Thanks for responding.

The model's income right tokens may be subject to a number of SEC regulations. It’s worth noting that they can also provide some flexibility by avoiding direct ownership transfers. Investors aren’t acquiring fractional property ownership but are instead buying income rights, meaning the arrangement avoids triggering real estate co-ownership laws or property title issues. This is why I have an experienced legal counsel involved early in the process.

Quote from @Jaron Walling:

I bought my first house and got into REI for control, stability, and the opportunity to solve problems.

This sounds like the opposite of that. For those reasons.... I'm out. 

Hi Jaron!

This approach is definitely different from traditional approaches. It’s built for property owners who are focused on raising capital quickly while keeping long-term ownership. It’s more of a solution for owners who need liquidity but don’t want to sell their property outright, interacting with  advisers, agents, and other related people that are expensive and may be hard to connect with, or take on additional debt, including such debt like loans from banks and offline interactions, which require valuable time.
The model does in fact require owners to share a percentage of their rental income, but they still maintain full ownership of the property and decision-making authority.

Quote from @Steve Vaughan:

Can these 'tokens' easily beat a yield of 8%?

Anyone can buy a stable senior income fund like FLBL with the click of a mouse and no liquidity or complexity issues.  That's your competition.  

Hi Steve, thanks for responding!

That’s a great point, and let me break this down for clarity.

First, it’s important to note that property income tokens don’t directly aim to compete with fixed-income funds like FLBL. The main difference here is that property income tokens give investors access to real estate cash flow and appreciation, which isn’t something senior loan funds are designed to provide. Real estate offers the potential for both ongoing income (from rents) and long-term value growth, which can diversify an investor’s portfolio beyond traditional instruments. In addition, the platform idea follows principles to make the best user experience and reachability possible, so any user (investor or property owner) will be able to just go onto such platform and, without leaving from it, set up every aspect to start the cash flow process in not months, not weeks, not even days or hours, but minutes.

As for the yield, whether these tokens can beat an 8% return really depends on the property and how it’s performing. Some properties—especially those in high-demand rental markets or with room for value-add strategies—can exceed an 8% annual return when factoring in both cash flow and appreciation. Others might not hit that threshold, particularly if the property has higher operating costs or is in a slower market. Unlike a fixed-income fund, the returns here vary more depending on the specific property and market dynamics.

In short, property income tokens are more of an option for people looking to diversify into real estate cash flow with accessible investments, while still having the flexibility to trade their holdings. For someone wanting exposure to real estate income and appreciation in a way that’s more accessible than direct ownership, with a massive potential for a success that can be even greater in contrast with FLBL or similar, tokens could be worth considering.

Quote from @Karolina Powell:

@Richard Volkov, the oil and gas industry has something like this.  You can own the mineral rights underneath a property and you can sell the royalty or production from the minerals.  Two different ownership rights.  Often folks don't sell all of the royalty or production but a fractional amount of it.  The mineral rights are still real property rights while the royalty and production counts as personal property.  The big difference here is that mineral rights don't need much upkeep outside of some property taxes in some places, whereas the home would be different.

Thanks Karolina! Wow, very interesting!

Let me clarify:

You’re correct that there are some parallels. Just like mineral rights can be separated from surface rights and sold as royalties, this model tokenizes the income generated from a property without transferring ownership of the property itself. In both cases, the owner retains control of the asset (the property or the land) while selling a portion of the income generated by it. This separation creates a clear distinction between ownership and the right to revenue.

That said, one key difference is the upkeep required for income-generating properties like homes or rental buildings. To address this, the proposed model puts the responsibility for these operational tasks entirely on the property owner, with an option to get the tenant management and income distribution fully automatic by assigning the property to a proposed "income distribution and management" organization owned by the platform. Investors buying income rights are excluded from those obligations—they only receive their share of the rental income without needing to deal with property upkeep, just like royalty buyers don’t manage oil wells.

Another distinction lies in the classification of rights. In the oil and gas industry, mineral rights are still tied to real property, and royalties are considered personal property. In this model, the income rights being tokenized are also treated as financial instruments (akin to personal property), while the property ownership itself remains with the owner. This separation helps avoid complications around transferring property titles, co-ownership laws, or other legal burdens.

It is correct that the income rights model borrows some elements from mineral and royalty rights.
Properties require regular and digital management to remain profitable, which is why the income rights structure ensures property owners maintain control, tenant, and operational responsibilities, or give tenant and income distribution responsibilities to organization I've mentioned earlier. Investors benefit from passive income without taking on any of the operational risks or liabilities, but the model, which is actively developing and innovating, depends on the property owner’s ability to manage the property effectively. It’s an approach designed to work for both parties.

Perhaps you have anything else that we can both talk about?

Quote from @Drew Sygit:

@Richard Volkov how is it different than fractional ownership, which is already available for the last 5+ years?

Hi Drew, thank you for your response!

I believe everyone should have access to the opportunities that real estate provides. For too long, owning property—or even a share of it—has been reserved for those with significant money, time, or connections. It’s complicated, expensive, and, frankly, outdated. But real estate shouldn’t be out of reach.
I came up with this model because I believe in a better way: a way to let everyday people participate in the financial benefits of real estate without the hassle, legal headaches, or risks tied to ownership. I think real estate should work for you, not the other way around.

So how does the model work? Let me clarify the difference between traditional fractional ownership.
Instead of selling ownership, model tokenizes income rights. That means investors don’t have to deal with property taxes, maintenance, or legal liabilities. They get the desired passive income they signed up for and the potential value appreciation over time. The property owner keeps full control of their property while raising funds faster than ever—without middlemen or delays.

And what happens next?
Investors gain access to a flexible secondary market where they can sell their rights if they want to exit. Property owners can set up their property online in minutes, without agents, lawyers, or advisors slowing them down. The whole process works transparently, fairly, and securely—designed for the modern world.

Idea isn't just proposing to make real estate more efficient—it opens doors for people who’ve been locked out for too long.