USA's First Decentralized Tiny Home Community. (a quick way to democratize property ownership)

Greetings everybody!
The Issue-
I would like to democratize property ownership in the USA and perhaps beyond. In America there are intentional tiny house communities that charge a monthly rent of 500+ USD per month for a dweller that has sacrificed home size and material possessions in order to live a more sustainable life via sustainability and environmentalism. Many of the developers of these communities turn into cash cows at the expense of folks that have sacrificed so much to have a more fulfilling life not to mention probate. If we do the math, a 25 acre property with 50 homes gross’s 300k usd per year. After ten years this has put 3 million USD into the pockets of the developers. This measurement is very conservative but I fully understand that there is risk with developing an intentional community and that the developer should get there investment back plus a fair value.

How do we fix this?
We tokenize property at a municipal level in a given community, and provide a value to the outside world. I propose we utilize Voltaire in a layer x solution for the tiny house community to decide what improvements should be made via a local on chain treasury. Perhaps the treasury is generated via a monthly payment into a “HOA” like treasury via a fungible token in which improvements are voted on via dwellers of said community.

The value to the outside world-
There are many ways to go about this, perhaps the intentional community wants to raise cattle and participate in Beef Chain. Maybe the community wants to keep PV panels nice and clean in order to sell power generated back into the grid. There are many options for this, the main thing here is that it is up the the community to decide what value they want to provide to the outside world in order to create a value incentive.

How do we make this happen?-
If I had the capital I would have already reached out to Charles and the team. I would like to engage with the community to see if this is something that the community is interested in and can decide on via a democratized vote via Voltaire.

Many questions are left to be answered but I am pushing this and would like feedback as to what your perfect sustainable intentional community would look like for the sake of property democratization.

I want to sincerely thank you for taking the time to read and providing your gifted feedback.

A little about me-
USCG vet ( I joined to save lives)
Self -built Tiny house on Wheels Dweller
Lover of the Cardano Mission.


1 Like


Wish you good luck with your project.

I have a couple of comments here. It is not an attack but more of some food for thought. Perhaps it could narrow down your project in some way and granted some of it is a little off-topic.

I am all for free-market solutions of voluntary people coming together to create their own commonalities and purchasing their own property to do so.

When you say you would like to democratize property in the US, that is a entirely different matter. If you are referring to confiscation or nationalization of property, or government funded property (having to steal resources from others) to make that a reality, that itself proves that your idea is not sustainable at all. If you are for nationalization of property, you are no better than a common thief.

Regarding the communities themselves, have you ever owned property for rental?

Owning property for rent is not free money. There are taxes (many) water and sewage, elect bills, insurance, accountant fees, bad tenants, evictions, being on call 24/7 for problems, fines, rent collection, trash, legal cost, rodents, maintaining the property, finding tenants, and over time properties fully decay (if not consistently replaced) which means a house or building is consistently completely replaced over time. The profit from owning a property is for arranging all of that in a successful manner and is a payment for that service provided to other people being able to rent.

Real yields (not nominel) in the top catagory of property is like 1/3% with 5/6% in supbar categories with added risk. That is what the vast majority of property ends up with (and that is your salery btw for being responsible for providing all the services I mentioned) somebody has to do that, no matter how you arrange property ownership somebody has to be paid for providing these services and responsibilities.

Which is why many choose to rent, rather than own a property and in many cases that is actually the cheapest option. Owning a portfolio of properties or a apartment build means you can build more for less + being able to have maintenance on retainers and rebates with service providers for scale service.

The profit is also needed for actually incentive building property, if there was no return on investment, there is no capital available for sustaining or building property. Remember people have to under consume (not buy shiet with their money for their own good) to invest into property and the only way someone would do that, was if that could mean they could consume more in the future. Many yields on rental property at the moment are between 3/5% realistically, which is not a lot. There are higher caps out there, but they are only high due to bad areas, but they do not take into account all the problems you have to face.

One of the reasons we have a high rent cost in the US compared to other places in the world is because cities are funded through property taxes and they have high individual expenses. Many people do not know this. In most nations the cities do not operate police, school, fire, etc etc. That is done on a federal level. Which means that the high rent cost is just a shuffling around of what would else have been much higher taxes on income - a huge portion of peoples rent are property taxes, the city/state I am in it is 20% of rent!

There is no free lunch, rent will always be there if you want to live in quality and desirable housing. The only way to make it cheaper, would be cutting down productions costs through new technology. In fact housing is pretty cheap outside big cities, it is just people choose not to want to live there cause they would rather be in the cities. Demand/supply increases the prices then. If you removed this component, all you do is create huge waiting lists. I come from a country where we do have some government property, and it is with 10/15 years waiting lists. This is not something you want all over the place, trust me.

Your idea of tokenizing it, is really already done, its called cash. Which is what we measure the value of things with, and make things sustainable.

You really already have this, if you are talking a community where the inhabits still own their property. Its called condo-associations. You each own your apartment, but pay a condo fee for general stuff and vote on what needs to be done.

Now if your idea with is creating a fully communist community that can already be done today, just get a group of people together and purchase some land and you are free to set up whatever rules you want among each other. Aswell as implementing your own token. I am totally down with that, just do not force me or anything else to participate as I am fine with a free system where we both get to do our thing. Examples of these communities exist, I know some personally who live that way, where all income is shared, and everything is done on a community level. Bigger communities like the Amish exist aswell.

Not many do so and not many do so, because Its usually not a great living and the only way to pull it off is to have a very cohesive community with people who think a particular way. Usually they are tied up together by religion but it wouldn’t have to be. I have never seen any voluntary communist communities though, perhaps ideology is not enough to bound them together. Which also speaks to why This cannot be done on a broad level though, since production and development of more complex things would grind to a complete halt.

The last point about sustainability and environmentalism - that is a entire other debate but to put it short. Everything there is on earth, stays on earth. Nothing is lost, and nothing is created. We are merely shuffling around usage of what is here. We cannot use up our water, steal, rocks, cement, wood, plastic, whatever. Which is why any subsequent environmental issues is completely solvable by developments in technology, everything here is moldable. There is no need for humans to live a modest life, or having a defeatist attitude of degress, instead we should strive to develop and overcome these hurdles instead of limiting ourselves. That is what we have always done, and it is what brought us here today far from living barbaric and horrible life in caves, and whatever came with it.

The universe is immense, all of its resources at our disposable we just need to rise to the task. In fact, the only invention we really need to make is true scaleble AI- The invention that unlocks all inventions - that will solve any problem we can imagine - it might also have created a new one though.

1 Like

I’m not sure I understand how this could be the starting point. Municipalities, or even communities, don’t usually own their real estate directly. In our reality real estate owners
already exist, and nearly all real estate is private, and “fragmented”…

Value incentive for what? Trading the token?

If you could explain how this system would work, I’ll be happy to give my 2c…

Thank you for your feed back. I would like to address a few things that you have mentioned for the sake of providing more clarity.

There will be zero confiscation or nationalization of land going on. Simply put the developer of the land would buy a big plot, then subdivide it into many parcels with easements and extra property that the community gets to use via an on chain vote. Once the developer gets their funding back then they walk away, They are paid for their time, risk, cost and a profit at the end of the day.

The only reason that I see fit when it comes to tokenization in this case is to reduce friction in the sale of raw property, and for the exchange of value to the outside world that the community creates.(think power ledger/ energy web) It could potentially open up ways that were not traditional before to pay the potential unnecessary cost of property transfer. This could cut out on PMI, realtors, attorneys, loan servicing fees, etc.

I would like to challenge you to see things from a different perspective. What incentive is there for me to want to live in a developed tiny house community? Why would I pay 500 a month for the rest of my life to essentially pull a self owned tiny house on to a spot that I have no chance of ever owning and no chance of passing to heirs. Why would I not want to find a community that I can actually own a piece of. If your answer to this is “You are free to do what ever you want” that is completely correct, I am also free to create a community that challenges the current model and allows the dwellers of said property to actually own it. If a local municipality hops on board with recognizing the tokenization of property then wrapping taxes into that tokenized system would not be a far stretch. If you think about it this would actually incentivize the local municipality because there would be more properties to collect taxes off of do to minimal tax ammounts.

I would also like to challenge you to research tiny house communities here in the USA. You will find that some are cash cows as there is actually minimal development on the land compared to a traditional housing development that usually gets sold to the dweller that ends up moving in and they therefore own that piece of property, at least according to the local courthouse.

If the community can create more value than the members of the community absorb, there is free lunch. Lets say there is a solar farm on a community that generates a lot of KWH’s worth of energy per day. Those KWH’s can then be sold back to the grid providing an income for the community as well as providing clean renewable power to the homes of the said community.

Thanks again for your feedback, I hope this provided some clarity!

1 Like

Alright well thats good! Hard to know these days.

Alright lets address that, for some people it definitely makes sense to own their own property, specially if they want to settle down there for life or very long periods.

But just for entertaining the idea, I want to break down some reasons down that even if that is the case sometimes renting is still better in that scenario. If you are paying 500 for land only, that probably means it is in a pretty desirable area.

Let us say the cap rate on that piece of land is 10% - in some cases this is actually true, because you do not carry the added risk that comes with renting you can personally realize that by owning. If the property is a 10%er yeah for most people it makes sense. After inflation that would come down to like 7%, But to put it in perspective, that would mean by owning the property you save 35/USD per month by owning it yourself. Over time this builds up of course, but here is where it gets more complicated. Let us say we are talking about a 5% cap rate property ( only 25$ usd/months savings without taking on debt) - at the price of 500/month we are talking about a 100K property.

That means you have to lock down 100K of your capital, if you are taking out a loan to do so that means you be locking down what would be 140/200K instead of building up a savings account - that is what you would be trading off. Now here is the counter-point, if you have access to opportunities where your capital can achieve a higher yield that the savings from owning you would be better of using that capital for these opportunities rather than tieing it up in a house/land.

On top of that there are other things to keep in mind, the leisure to have a landlord to deal with all the problems on the property, the less handy you are the more that makes sense. On top of the time you save from that as-well as not having your capital tied up in a property that can only be realized through a sale. It is a lot less liquid + you would have to sell your property to gain access to it (of course you can use a equity line)

I agree for most working people, that are not financially savy yes it does make sense for people to own if they intent to plant themselves there for life or 20-30 years + but the trade off is not just passing a property to your heirs, you could pass down lots of other assets of equal value. And often when people pass down property, the heirs just wants to sell to get the capital anyway.

Also I forgot to mention you take on price-risk by owning a property, which if you never want to sell is not an issue. However if you plan on selling in the future, or care about the capital of passing down to heirs that is suddenly something to consider. Most Properties in Japan after its Peak in 1970s went down for 40 years straight cutting prices by 60-80%. Had you rented during this period and saved/invested the excess you would have been far better off.

I am Sure there are some good excessive cash cows out there, however in most cases I believe they make less than you think they do. The thing is about cash-cows, good yields incentives builders to create similar projects to compete which then in turn drives that yield down across the board as long as that expansion is possible/allowed (which the biggest preventer of this) is local regulations the second being land is not available for it.

Alright, so who invests their money to build this solar-farms? Building a solar farm is very expensive, something I actually also have some experience in. Building a solar farm is not also without the risk, you could have bough bad solar panels, destroyed them due to bad maintenance, the yields on electricity might tank etc. The thing is, do I want my community to turn into a business? If I wanted to invest in a solar farm I would just do it on my own. The thing is, who knows if the people in the community have the experience to make the decisions of making a profitable solar farm business. If they make mistakes, the community has to pay for that - and the incentive/risk structure is socialized among the community. The people setting this up within the community have very little at risk since it is spread out among the overall community, if they make mistakes, the cost is much less for them individually. Which is why in the business world, one of the most important aspects in startups is a tendency to want the people running it to have huge personal investments in their projects so we know that they get destroyed if things go bad.

I am not saying it is a bad idea at all, there could certainly be benefits of setting up community projects like this, as a solar farm or other business. But it is good to keep in mind the complications. You will need millions of dollars to build a solar farm for a community of a even smaller sizes (and lots of solar companies have lots billions of dollars doing this, due to bad decisions) There is a reason you do not see solar everywhere, it is not a easy way to make money at all. The biggest contributor to this is that these solar panels are bought to yield over many decades, to return investment back to even break-even but these solar panels keep getting more and more efficient burning the companies who bought them earlier. If electricity falls significantly in price over this time-frame, you can end up a near total loss on your investment. Yes you save your own electricity bill (but you paid much more for the solar panels than what you would have done just buying the electricity from the grid) the solar panels have a limited life-span.

Electricity has been falling consistently in price since the creation of it - eventually I believe we will get to a point where it is near free of cost.

Making money not being a laborer is not easy - and I have a feeling many on the other side of the coin just seems to think that opening up businesses is somehow easy and a sure thing, it is just a matter of having the capital, which is not the case at all. For just one successful business, tons have hit the ground before it wiping out all capital invested (you just dont see them, cause they no longer exist)

So the only point is, just to keep mind that you are turning your housing community into a venture capitalist endeavor when doing so, when things go bad, community pays for it - and it being community decisions, you do not as a individual have control of what they go ahead and do - your only option would be being forced to move out if you do not like their decisions - since they are taking risks on your behalf.

There are actually some really good examples of this with poorly run condo-associations taking on enormous amounts of debt for bad projects wiping out all of the equity people had in their apartments. Which means their apartments are now worthless, they sell for 1$ in the market since you are buying a liability. So there are examples of this structure going very wrong - al though in many cases successes as well.

It definitely did, thanks for your reply! And I can definitely see some advantages/efficiencies when it comes to the ledger and/or passing ownership and perhaps even governance.

1 Like

Thanks again. I think we are talking about different numbers here. While you are approaching this from what I am assuming to be a commercial real estate mindset, I am approaching this from a what is best for the folks out there that want to own their on property in a community. Please correct me if I am wrong here. This is not traditional investment realestate based on prior “best business practices”.

On the topic of solar farms and utilities, Many tiny homes are self sufficient. They can provide their own power as well as water. No need for utilities to be run on the property (minus grid tie PV for the sake of passive income for the community). If they are not self sufficient then that is something the dweller needs to decide based on their needs. It takes one day to install $4k max worth of solar equip on a tiny house to become sustainable. I have personally been inside over 50 tiny homes and spoken to builders across the country. I have yet to see one that requires more than a 110v 15 amp breaker for service. They are extremely efficient and rarely burn more than 6kWh of power in a 24 hour period and that’s with AC running at 74 f and 95f out side… If the developer decided that he/she wanted to provide solar power for 20 tiny homes that average around 6kwh per day, that would only be 6,500 square feet of PV equip footprint. 6,500 sq ft is 0.149 acres. That is fairly small on a community that spans 20 acres when all community homes can be powered and a chance to sell back to the grid (passive income) if scaled out times x (these numbers do not cover the roughly 15% PV system efficiency loss). In terms of septic, some tiny home owners utilize a composting toilet depending on what jurisdiction they reside in. So that could cut development cost down greatly when it comes to development costs.

On your comment regarding money and labor, In the end the folks of the community don’t need to slave a 9 to 5 unless they want to. They will own there own land thus reducing the requirement for cash flow in and the community that they live in creates passive income in some form. They would have all the time in the world to do what ever that want, think travel and spending time with hobbies and folks they care about. A 24v/48v grid tie system is not hard to maintain. The community dwellers can do that much like I do now albeit at a much smaller scale because it’s just me I am providing power for.

At the end of the day the development is not that big of a deal when compared to traditional housing developments in the “big house” world. There are ways to provide incentives all the way around that makes it work for everyone all whilst giving ownership/ power to the dwellers of the community in a decentralized way. If you would like to further discuss I am more than happy to hop on a Zoom call. We could cover much more ground and could even record/ upload for the rest of the Cardano community to see.

For the record, I would do what Charles has done. Create a machine, educate others, then walk away. I would not live there unless the community absolutely wanted me too and even then, It would only be for limited time. I would take lessons learned then go start another one. There is a demand for land in the tiny house world but high lot rents are binding folks up esp. in times like this. After all, I can go get a larger one bedroom apartment local to some of these traditional communities for the price that some are charging for a pad of concrete and some overpriced hookups but that would require me to give up my self sufficiency.

Thanks again for your time and feedback!