It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Cryptocurrency, Crowdfunding, and Decentralization: How it Could Affect Apartment Living

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 06:55 PM
I have been writing a series of posts about cryptocurrency and decentralization, and although I have been doing research on the topic, a lot of the ideas I have come up with on my own - although they might also be out there as someone else's at the moment. I figure that society could naturally progress towards the state I am about to describe because it would be in everyone's best interest.

So last time, I talked a bit about how cryptocurrencies redistribute wealth in a reasonable way. So, you might ask, why is there suddenly so much money going around? How come my investment in a coin gives such high returns? Well, for one thing, there is the potential for there to be no ruling class taking most of the money for themselves. Or at least, a smaller, potentially less-influential, ruling class.

How might that work? Let's look at an apartment complex. Let's say that a crowdfunding campaign goes online to fund an apartment building. They can start with an initial coin offering, letting everyone who wants to invest in this apartment buy coins worth its down payment, or maybe the whole thing. Anyone can invest in this apartment building, even future residents, it would be possible for an apartment complex to be funded entirely by the residents or by the members of the community who both want to improve their community or invest in an opportunity to make extra money.

What happens once the apartment goes online? Residents who move in and pay rent could be given the option to buy coins first each month, or even given some coins for living in the complex. They could then be allowed to use their money to improve the living situation at their apartment complex, such as setting up a crowdfunding campaign to build a pool, or spend money on other ways that improve the value of the apartment building.

Since the investors would also be the occupants or members of the community, two things would happen - number one, the apartment complex would become more valuable than if it was being run by corporate investors because the people involved would have experience living there and running the place, and would know what needs to be done in order to maintain it, increase their standards of living, and ultimately raise the value of the coins that they all possess.

Right now, companies work for shareholders. Think of how many situations could be improved if the companies worked for the workers or the residents of the apartment complex or even residents of the community who have a vested interest in the facility? The janitor could even get part of his salary in the coins offered by the apartment complex, which would motivate him to work harder to keep the value of his coins higher.

Of course, what I am suggesting it is not too much to make a coin for all sorts of cultural entities - individual churches, whole religions, a school district, a school, an apartment complex, a grocery store -

All of these, opportunities for the layman to invest in the community, make money and have a direct impact on policy that affects them and their wallets. I think this sort of thing might end up happening naturally, but one never knows.

There could be some problems, for example, if the janitor was not paid very much of the coin. That could be solved if a percentage of his wage of his choice was paid with the coin. Where would this extra coin come from? It could be generated on top of the coin's starting cap, causing a bit of inflation in the number of coins, but be such a small amount that it didn't matter.

There could be more people holding on to their coins than people selling them, although this has a hidden upside. There could be rules that allow workers to get up to their salary in coins first in line, renters to purchase a limited amount of apartment stock each month being second in line, and then members of the community being third in line to buy coins.

If the percentage gains were enough, some people might be willing to keep their coins, but as they rise in value, sell a bit off every month to help with living expenses or even to invest in something new in the community.

In a situation like this, I'm expecting a series of exceptionally detailed online exchanges, maybe even at least one exchange per city to deal with all of the local coins.

Assuming that all of the connections are in place and that the coins could be exchanged for $US dollars (although the dollar would become obsolete if every company and organization had its own coin that could be exchanged for one another easily) then the value of the apartment building would probably rise and fall depending on different factors, including the success of competing for apartment buildings.

However, the management choices would be much more directly linked to the opinions of the residents and those in the immediate neighborhood, and thus more likely to succeed. They could even call upon experts to get information that they do not know the answers to, and vote on community leaders.

At any rate, in my eyes, this makes the endeavors more likely to succeed and go up in value over time. In addition, the crowdfunding allows residents to invest in opportunities that directly affect their lives - to not only work together to build a new facility but reap the benefits of its monetary gains instead of the corporate elite.

edit on 04pmThu, 04 Jan 2018 19:05:49 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 04pmThu, 04 Jan 2018 19:10:13 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 06:55 PM
What would happen if the value of the apartment complex was going down? This could happen if the crime rate increased if there was a bad administrator (who could be voted out), if the area of the town changed, if a competing apartment complex was constructed, etc.

This would mean that the janitor could choose not to get his money in the coin, the residents could choose not to invest in the coin and the people in the community could choose not to invest in it, but of course, some still would be because they might see a good opportunity to turn things around.

Luckily, with this new system of government, the problems can be tackled directly by the ones experiencing them. I think that is a big plus.

How to pay for expenses? Well, there would be rent money coming in, and you could have an automated system that pays for the upkeep and bills and gives the rest back to the renters as if they had bought coins. Buying the coins would increase the value of the coins, meaning that everyone involved would see a benefit from this. The renters would then be able to make decisions on what they want for their new apartment complex based on how much rent they want back vs. what kind of accommodations they would like.
edit on 04pmThu, 04 Jan 2018 19:26:57 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 07:13 PM
You didn't really explain how the Government gets their cut. I think that any plan that doesn't involve the Government will be legislated any idea into oblivion.

Also, I like the basic premise, but it may be too complicated for your average renter to understand. I have lived in some apartments where the people couldn't even tie their shoe laces.

edit on 2018/1/4 by Metallicus because: Spacing / Spelling

posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 08:08 PM
a reply to: Metallicus

Two good points - for one thing, this could allow for more private funding to directly go into the American infrastructure, reducing the need for taxes. And a lot of money would be invested, too - with corporations and banks collapsing, all of the money that would normally go to CEO's and the like who are able to horde it due to abuse of power would instead go directly to the people to invest where they please, especially if the corporations and banks were decentralized.

In theory, the Federal Government would still collect capital gains taxes (both long-term and short-term) and income tax, and then use this to fund its essential programs, just like normal.

In the extreme future, the need for rulers could be automated by direct democracy of sorts or by AI. There would essentially be no government to "take its cut."

As for being complicated, that is a problem, I agree. Hopefully, the system could be simplified enough - for example, a renter knows that part of his rent is used to buy coins and returned for him to save or spend - and he might also be smart enough to know that the value of those coins goes up depending on how the apartment complex is doing, or down if the apartment complex is not doing well.

From there, hopefully, there would be enough renters interested in the community or with interested in improving on their investments to organize and set up fundraisers and the like. They wouldn't even have to meet in person, for example, they could have a Discord server.

The idea could also prove to be too complicated to catch on regardless of the benefits, but I think that with the way culture and technology are evolving today, as time goes on, a system like this will develop naturally and become more intuitive.

The idea of the "ruling class" would be outdated, for the most part, so it would not get its gigantic cut like normal.
edit on 04pmThu, 04 Jan 2018 20:18:33 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 08:21 PM
a reply to: darkbake

What do rulers do? They charge too much for their services because they are in a position to abuse power for incredible financial gains. What happens when they are not needed anymore? Are people going to flock to them, even though they are way more expensive than using a decentralized system of government? Or are people going to change their loyalties? How powerful is a leader without any followers? Not very, because the leader uses their followers to get their power.

Let's say, for example, that it became apparent that cryptocurrency was going to be a better alternative to centralized banking because it is cheaper, and it is faster, and there is less overhead. If the cryptocurrency was not stopped and was integrated into the legal system effectively and regulated enough that it would not be too sketchy, it would be possible that people would start jumping ship from the dollar into cryptocurrencies. We could see paper money fall in value.

If enough apartment complexes started showing up with this system, it might be possible that people jump ship from traditional living accommodations to these new ones.

All that has to happen is the technology has to continue to be improved and troubleshot, and then if it works, it will speak for itself. Traditional establishments that don't catch on will begin to erode, and while people clinging to old beliefs will stonewall, but they won't be able to force others to do things against their will anymore - their decisions to cling to their old beliefs will have to be personal ones that apply to themselves, their family, and their religious organization and the like.
edit on 04pmThu, 04 Jan 2018 20:31:33 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:25 PM
a reply to: Metallicus

Let's say crime starts to go up around the apartment complex, the apartment complex could vote on whether or not to hire security guards based on ownership in the currency. Someone who has been living there a long time would get a decent say because they have been purchasing a digital stake in the apartment complex every month for years. They might even come to rival community investors.

Also, I want to point out that this is not a first-come-first-serve basis for investing in this kind of coin, first the workers and people who are going to be using the facility can invest, and then the residents of the city, and then the state, and then the federal government, and then the world. They can be put in line one after another in that order, with the people with the most local experience first in line. This would be in the initial coin offering. Also, individual investors directly involved would be able to buy at a cheap price, followed by those in the wider community, which adds value to the initial investor's coins, and then followed by the wider state-wide community, which adds value, and then to the federal investors (out-of-state), and finally, when Americans have invested, open up the investment opportunity to the world - which will pour in money and already give AMERICANS a return on their investment.

But this would work in other countries as well. In England, common folk would reap the benefits of wider and wider regions investing into their coin of choice during the initial offering sequence, with the value nearly guaranteed to go up each time. The countries least involved in the every-day life of the piece of infrastructure that is being invested in will get the least return on their initial investments.

A coin could also cut ties completely with certain countries that they do not want influencing policy on their apartment complex. For example, if China wanted to start buying stakes in American apartment complexes in order to influence American living policies, apartment complexes in America could outlaw Chinese investors.

This information would be available to the people wanting to invest in an apartment initial coin offering. They would be able to see the political leanings of the apartment, and it could lead to people choosing where they live based on how much they agree with the philosophy there.

posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 11:41 PM
I think the apartment managing business is a terribly mediocre industry and would be incredibly easy for an upstart like Uber and come in and take over the industry. I have considered doing it myself one day if the opportunity is still there. I really love the idea of a decentralized apartment complex run by the community as opposed to by corporate. I've always been one to actively engage my apartment managers, giving them ideas for events, improvements, and whatnot. But I realized very quickly the apartment managers' hands were tied and they had little to no say on how the apartments were run. And corporate isn't going to spend money on the ideas of one tenant who will probably move out in a year anyways.

It's a vicious cycle, isn't it? Maybe if the tenants had more of a say, they would stay longer. And then it would turn into an actual community instead of a constant cycle of new tenants coming in and leaving every year. And when people experience more of a sense of community, they are happier, have less mental illness, and increased productivity. And all of these positive effects will encourage tenants to stay in the same apartment complex and even devote their time and efforts to improving it.

Now here is the trillion dollar question. Is cryptocurrency really needed to do this? Do we really need to introduce an unregulated market just so anyone can hold shares in our apartment? My concern is in an unregulated market, as many crypto investors are finding out now, the inexperienced investors often get left holding the bag as the rich will always find a way to get richer.

top topics


log in