Many of you are living in constant fear of gloom and doom. You missed out on AMZN, AAPL, TSLA, GOOG and META in the last 2 deades. Don’t be arrogant. Listen to the experts.
AI is real, it is here and it is BIG.
You keep arguing hype, except you I haven’t seen anyone hyping. If it is hyped, then there should have been a huge investments.. no significant investments, no losses…
You are extrapolating your personal thoughts as a hype cycle.
THE HYPE AROUND WEB3 IS WILD. Last year, investors pumped $23.7bn into startups associated with the idea, while Google search traffic for the term jumped by almost 10,000 percent. To some, this supposed ‘next version of the web’ promises not only a new era of online life, but nothing less than a new stage in the evolution of capitalism. “We’re witnessing the birth of a new economic system,” wrote Artfunder founder Salvatore Delle Palme in his December blog post ‘On The Promise Of Web3’. “Its features and tenets are just now being devised and refined in transparent ways by millions of people around the world. Everyone is welcome to participate.”
WIRED Consulting | Is Web3 Really the Future of the Internet? | WIRED
AI Hype vs. Blockchain Hype. Two tech revolutions. One changed… | by Petko Karamotchev | Medium
Is The Blockchain’s Potential For Social Impact Over-Hyped? - Fast Company
Do you really not remember any of this?
And, of course, if you decide to memory-hole the hype over Web3.0 and “blockchain blockchain blockchain,” there’s always the more recent example of the Metaverse. That was also expected to change the world, to the point where Zuck vaporized some $50-70 billion and renamed Facebook (the company) entirely because the Metaverse was the Future. Until it wasn’t, and they pivoted to AI.
6 Likes
No. Because you believe something that doesn’t make it true. Your obsession with Bitcoin is comical now.
1 Like
Bitcoin? None of this has anything to do with Bitcoin. Do you really misunderstand the discussion that badly, that you assume a conversation about blockchain - the technology - must be a conversation about Bitcoin?
3 Likes
The 6% fee has nothing to do with actually completing the transaction. It is because MLS has monopoly pricing power, although that’s changing. Even if the transactions were completed on the blockchain, you would still need MLS or something like it.
30 to 45 days is the due diligence period. If you want to pay cash and wave all contingencies, then you can get the deal done as fast as you can transfer the funds. That wouldn’t change if it were all on the blockchain.
4 Likes
My point was given the high cost structure and long delay currently in RE transactions, someone making Blockchain is expensive and slow is the reason it is not adopted is laughable.
You keep pivoting to Bitcoin and crying about how it was suppose to change the world and failed miserably.. go back and re-read your posts…
How Bitcoin entered this conversation and not leaving?? Thanks to you…
1 Like
I haven’t said anything about Bitcoin. Blockchain is not the same thing as Bitcoin.
I think I might have mistakenly assumed since you had at your fingertips information about Wal-Mart’s 2019 pilot program on using blockchain, that you understood the difference between blockchain as a technology and Bitcoin as a specific cryptocurrency asset. And that you would have realized from context that all of this discussion was about blockchain, and how the tech world felt that it was the next big thing - and not about Bitcoin.
Since that was apparently wrong, here’s the nutshell version. The Bitcoin blockchain can only be used for moving Bitcoin around, and dates back to 2008. About a decade later, there was a massive interest in the use of blockchain technology generally for applications outside of Bitcoin (or crypto generally). Blockchain technology (again, not Bitcoin) was expected to revolutionize the world, replacing conventional approaches to database management, transactions and contracts, corporate structure, the entire real estate industry, and many many other things.
The most consumer-facing aspect of this was NFT’s. Even if you weren’t cognizant of any of that other stuff, surely you remember NFT’s? Right? That was but one vector by which the blockchain-powered Web3.0 was going to remake the world. It would be only a slight exaggeration to say that everyone had their own blockchain effort going back then, from the NFT offerings of every major sports league, Wal-mart’s dabbling in inventory management, Amazon’s now-vestigial blockchain services, and even Facebook (always chasing the trend) deciding it would launch Libra, its own blockchain payments platform. Remember Libra? Probably not, if you don’t remember any of this other stuff.
Anyway - blockchain, not Bitcoin. Bitcoin also happens to run on blockchain, but the part that was supposed to change the world was all the other uses of blockchain as a technology.
3 Likes
To clarify - the fact that blockchain is expensive and slow is the reason it has not been adopted for payments, along with a bunch of other time-sensitive applications. Not real estate specifically. If your blockchain platform takes several minutes to process a transaction when it gets busy (like Bitcoin and Ethereum), you obviously can’t use it to checkout at your local Wal-mart or the Gap. Especially when credit cards can do that in seconds.
There are different reasons why all the efforts to use blockchain to tokenize real estate transactions failed.
4 Likes
I used Bitcoin where I wanted to say Blockchain… but stop lecturing. I have provided enough details about Wal-Mart Blockchain efforts, which you fail to understand or comprehend.
keep going back to your feeing and Blockchain. Blockchain as a technology is already wildly successful. Your inability to understand and acknowledge doesn’t change a thing.
No, it is not consumer facing, there is nothing consumer facing about it. ChatGPT is consumer facing, Google Search is consumer facing, not NFT’s.
You are straining yourself to create false narratives.
You keep making up your own facts.. if Wal-mart can use it to track groceries, and reduce their ability to locate an item from hours to seconds…
You are refusing to acknowledge the real problems that is legislation and RE industry is worried about tokenization as that will be the first step to disrupt their industry.
1 Like
…that still doesn’t reduce the amount of time it takes to clear a transaction on the Ethereum blockchain. Which is longer than credit cards on a good day, and takes several minutes if the platform is busy.
How Long Does an Ethereum Transaction Take?
Don’t confuse a proprietary internal blockchain platform like Wal-mart’s (which they don’t use to “track groceries,” but keep records on sourcing) with the much broader widespread platform you would need in order to run a payments system to displace conventional processors like credit cards. Consumers want a card in their wallet they can use at almost any store, which means that the network has to be big - and big blockchain platforms like Ethereum or Bitcoin are slow. Which is one reason that despite the fact that we’ve had nearly a decade of cryptocurrency developments, almost no one ever pays for anything at an IRL store with crypto.
Nope. The real problem is that blockchain is wholly unsuitable for replacing traditional title. There’s a lot of reasons, but a partial list is that real estate systems have to be:
- Reversible. Fat-finger transactions, scrivener’s errors, and clawbacks/rescissions are an indelible part of the real estate market. Conveyances have to be reversible when required.
- Involuntary, at times. The courts and government have to be able to require conveyance for real property under a lot of circumstances: liens, tax assessments, eminent domain, enforcing judgments, and the like.
- Inheritable and/or escheat. Real property has to always have an owner; if an owner dies, the property has to go to their heirs or to the state. Which means ownership can’t be determined just by who knows the keys.
- Capable of Joint Ownership. A fairly large number of properties are owned jointly.
- Divisible and Aggregable. Real estate isn’t a discrete single object - parcels are divided and aggregated and split and encumbered all the time.
- Disclosed. Because real property is taxed, subject to a number of use requirements, and occasionally needs to be accessed by government, the system always needs to know who the current owner is.
Blockchain tokens are terrible at all of the above functions, making them grossly inferior to convention public records tracking in lots of ways. There’s no way to force a token transfer, because the system is decentralized. There’s no way to provide for true joint ownership. While it’s fine if coins get burned because someone forgets their keys or dies without telling them to anyone, that cannot happen to a piece of real estate. Real estate gets carved up and put back together in all sorts of different ways, making it incredibly difficult to keep a link between the actual asset and the tokens. And real estate always has to have a disclosed owner of record.
There’s also no benefit to offset all those problems, because the thing that takes time in working through title examination isn’t figuring out what instruments are of record (which is the only question blockchain can answer), but reading through all those instruments to ensure that they don’t interfere with the ownership interest being insured. That part that blockchain would replace (preparing the list of deeds and easements and so forth) is actually very quick and straightforward today, relative to the speed of transactions. So there’s no benefit to tokenizing real estate assets through blockchain.
4 Likes
They track groceries, from sourcing to the store.. and it is not just $WMT, but their partner ecosystem can update…
So All of US had only 4 million transactions, that is not a big number by any means, if the transactions are even if slow and takes minutes, so what? You keep making up facts, and false narrative. Also, conveniently from RE moved to credit card transactions… 
None of the other issues you mentioned are real issues. But it is a waste of time discussing, since we both have our views and nothing is going to change.
Cheers,
1 Like
Before cavalierly accusing people of making up facts (especially when I provided links to the sources of the information I provided), you might want to be more attentive to your own claims.
There were about 56 billion credit card transactions in the U.S. last year, around 154 million per day. The existing system is capable of handling each of those transactions in a bare handful of seconds, and the checkout system of nearly every real store is organized around the assumption that a customer paying with a credit card will be cleared through with a payment time of just a few seconds. A store like Wal-Mart can’t function if it takes every customer several minutes from swipe to approval. Which, again, is why virtually no one uses crypto or blockchain to pay for things in real-life stores. Despite the fact that the technology for doing that is more than a decade old, no one’s taken it up as a consumer payments system. Because it’s too slow.
1 Like
WOW… I thought we were talking about RE now conveniently switching to credit card? That is not… Goodbye.
Again:
The system that blockchain is too slow for is payments.
The system that blockchain is unsuitable for other reasons is real estate.
I don’t know why you have trouble understanding that those are two separate explanations of why blockchain utterly failed in two separate areas that it was expected to revolutionize. Payments, it’s too slow. Real estate, it’s a terrible token substitute.
4 Likes
Actually, all of them were real issues. You have a strange set of blinders on when it comes to Blockchain. Almost religious. It’s almost humorous to see. Almost.
5 Likes
I can go point by point, but it is waste.
Why this conversation has morphed into Blockchain from AI?
First it was RE, then suddenly it switched to credit card…
The problem is when you cannot stick to the point we are discussing and keep moving the goalpost, it is useless to have any discussion. In such conversation, one person wants to be correct no matter what. Guess what, I don’t care to be right in this conversation. You are free to carry any views, that make zero difference to me.
Pretty simple. D20 was putting forth the idea that because the tech industry is really optimistic that AI is going to be an incredibly significant technology, that’s significant evidence that AI will in fact be an incredibly significant technology.
Blockchain is a counterexample. As are wearables, the Internet of Things, AR/VR, the Metaverse, 3D printing, and a host of other technologies that have been considered to be the next big revolutionary development from time to time but actually ended up being only modestly successful or mostly irrelevant.
Some technologies are revolutionary. Some technologies end up having little impact. Cost and utility to the user are significant factors. Right now, LLM level AI is insanely expensive to provide, and has some attributes that limit how useful it is. Which means that there is a real “AI Risk” that it ends up being more like some of those other technologies than the “change the world” tech that Sam Altman and others like to project.
4 Likes