Vermont Proves ‘Blockchain-Friendly’, Hosts Real Estate Pilot Program

Propy, Inc., a Palo Alto-based global Blockchain real estate marketplace, announced the launch of a pilot program in South Burlington, Vermont to use Blockchain technology to record real estate documentation, the latest related development in the so-called “Blockchain-friendly” state.

The startup, headed by founder Natalia Karayaneva, uses Blockchain protocols to record real estate transactions on a ledger that governments can use to tie titles to properties securely and efficiently. Propy also works to match buyers with both seller and brokers and offers information on neighborhoods where the properties are located.

Vermont Proves ‘Blockchain-Friendly’, Hosts Real Estate Pilot Program

My home state has been in the news a few times this week. I'm always surprised to see things like this, partly because we have the 2nd smallest population in the US (with around 600,000 people, only Wyoming has a smaller population).

First, the Green Mountain State was in the news for legalizing cannabis ~ how fitting , and just now I came across this article discussing a Blockchain-based Real Estate company that's launching a pilot program in South Burlington. Ironically, I just moved to South Burlington from another town, and have become more and more interested in digital ledger technology / the blockchain in recent years.

Because of the unique business model this company is presenting, along with the fact that it is close to home (literally, in my hometown), I wanted to share here on ATS. It sounds like this company uses blockchain technology in order to carry out some of the administrative work involved in home-buying. Unlike some other businesses who have actually tried to create "real estate-backed cryptocurrencies", which I would stay the heck away from based on the frothy housing market.

Hopefully someone found this news to be interesting, even if you don't know what Vermont is or where to find it on a map

a reply to: FamCore

No bubble in Burlington. Just a tiny tiny supply.

This is the end of dealing with realtors I hope. Tired of fixing up houses and paying out to realtors who do minimal work.

a reply to: luthier

Yeah, that 6% is pretty hefty... but everyone's got to pay the bills somehow. Being a realtor is more admirable than being, say a sleezeball politician, but I do think the role of a realtor is becoming less and less relevant.

a reply to: FamCore

Lol, well that is true but only slightly. Kidding I have some friends who are realtors. Love Vermont. It's like a state of bleeding heart libertarians. Plenty of libs but nothing like down in MA. The low population probably helps. I Love Vermont. People are pretty healthy and love the outdoors. My kind of state.

Ps the must have picked Burlington as a pilot because there are about 5 properties for sale a month. I mean it's nuts.

a reply to: FamCore

I think it's a good idea as long as they include images of all past title searches from county records. So like a title company would do when you buy a house, the research the county records to see if there are outstanding liens on the property, etc.

What I am afraid of is that the new system would circumnavigate historic property title chains developed by county recorder offices, and that is the only thing we really have to prove title ownership legally right?

a reply to: SkeptiSchism

Here is a little in that subject

link

a reply to: luthier

Are you required to use a Realtor?

a reply to: CharlieHustle

I know with a private sale (at least in Vermont) it wouldn't be necessary - for example, if my brother were to sell me his house.

Also, one of my immediate family members is an attorney and he could also sell me a house and do some of the leg work eliminating the need for a realtor. I'm not sure about real estate laws but in these 2 circumstances I mentioned you would not need one.

a reply to: CharlieHustle

If I sell a house I am required to pay for the buyers realtor. If I buy a house it doesn't matter they are paying for my realtor.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: CharlieHustle

If I sell a house I am required to pay for the buyers realtor. If I buy a house it doesn't matter they are paying for my realtor.

I see. Seems like the buyer should be required to pay the Realtor, not you. Why do you have to pay? You're not enlisting their services.

a reply to: CharlieHustle

Good question,
I was looking at a property supposedly transferable via Etherium and was told to come back with a realtor before viewing the inside of the house. You would need a viable scheme for paying taxes although historically people just take loans against property they can't rent(after a year).