Thanks so much for the feedback!
I’m Scarlet Chen, CEO of Robinland. As you mentioned, we’re in the process of the community greenlight poll about our MIP6 proposal here. We saw that you have some questions/concerns so would like to reach out proactively to see if there’s anything we might be able to answer.
Robinland channels liquidity from Defi lenders like Maker to fund real estate development projects for a better physical world. Our team consists of real estate industry veteran, crypto native coder, and lawyer familiar with the legal process underneath a security token offering (STO, only process the SEC approves of to issue on-chain crypto tokens that represents real world asset). We tokenize real estate debt projects via security token issuance, and pledge the tokens with Maker to access financing. The projects are all first lien projects w/ full recourse rights, from developers w/ A ratings in NYC.
Compared to other proposals (some already approved) on the forum, our advantage is: (1) there is no retail investor involved in any stage, which mitigates compliance risk for Maker (2) there is no utility token or NFT involved in our process, only security tokens, which ensures 100% compliance w/ current SEC rules about securitization (3) we have in-house lawyers familiar w/ the STO process, and our COO has structured Reg D and Reg A fund in her previous career, which are the same underlying process of how we onboard a debt project at Robinland.
As for track record: (1) our COO has been in the real estate industry for 7 years and (2) our lawyer has been in practice for 10 years on the same legal process (3) our real estate projects are supplied by Crowdfunz, a real estate PE w/ 5 years track record, 0 default rate, and 10-20 projects financed every year. This is all reflected in the proposal we put together - We talked to one of the senior members of the governance community, and he said ‘this is far more superior than anything I’ve seen on the forum; lots of concerns have been addressed ex ante, like providing Maker w/ a put option’.
We’ve spent a long time & lots of thoughts putting together the proposal, read most of the proposals on our forum of similar nature, talked to 5+ lawyers about our structure, and also one of the major members of the Maker governance to get feedback. We truly believe that we’re bringing a better alternative to both parties (supply of projects and supply of liquidity) in this ecosystem!
We noticed that a large fraction of the community has voted ‘abstain’, and one delegate voted ‘no’, which is why we’re proactively reaching out. We’re happy to respond to any feedback/criticism the community and/or you might have, as we believe we have the capacity to change our proposal in a way that accommodates Maker’s needs.
My apologies for the intrusion if any! And we’re here to answer any question you might have. Many thanks for your time and we really appreciate it!