/biz/ - Business & Finance

Really though we're doing this so we can name the acronym. I was thinking Credit Adjusted Maturity Equity, CAME

This would probably be best utilized in REITs, that way the REIT could guarantee equity returns. Come to think of it you could totally make a corridor for any sort of asset, no more fucking around with index's there would be a single risk premium swaps corridor you could buy into

>>16381722

I’m down. How about a basket of sREIT products spanning multiple geographic locations, another with different sectors and maybe one where you could break down the average cost per individual real estate holding. You could even do one that focuses on waterfront condo RE plays, mixed use etc. Lots you can do with this idea.

>>16381850
That is a good idea. We'd have to figure out some tool to slice and dice up specific holdings within an ETF or fund to get the specific composition we want. Some way to split up the payments so they can still match some of that growth while we pick and choose, otherwise we're just better off making an actual REIT.

>>16381928
Ideally what we would be doing is picking through specific funds and ETF's finding properties that they are A. Undervaluing and B. Are overperforming the fund, then we convince the Fund to sell us 35% of the property or whatever and we pay them a .5% premium on what they are valuing it at and we collect the spread on that return. This would dilute their volume but increase fundamentals and distributions for their holders. We would probably focus more on just poaching properties outperforming their portfolio. Also we'd have to convince funds that lower volume is good for them kek. Maybe figure out some way for our agreement to raise their credit.

What does this have to do with ChainLink?

Another idea: we could try to rework 3x leveraged etfs. Right now they suck because they always go to zero and are entirely out of whack with what their actual returns are supposed to be. Maybe we could write some sort of directional volatility leveraging equation and use that instead. Try to always keep the etf at a baseline price and just go long or short as volatility starts moving in either direction.

>>16382042

Leveraged ETF synths without slippage are coming already. The REIT idea may still be too embryonic to be in the works. Best we stick with something like this.

>>16382027

Everything you fucking mong. (JK fren I know you’re just trolling.)

>>16382159
Interesting I didn't know that.

Yeah your probably right. How do we go about convincing people to pay us to start producing these products is the question. The capital requirements are really high if I recall.

>>16382274

You don’t need capital. You can do it on a platform like synthetix. Oracles can feed MLS data and other real estate metrics into the REIT. That’s why this has everything to do with LINK.

>>16382366
Very good point. How does this make us big money though?

>>16382371

Well I’m personally buying as much Link and secondly as much SNX as I can reasonably afford.

>>16382371

You could also set up a data company that provides high quality data for various theorized transactions that will be coming in the future.

>>16382392
I am OP of this thread >>16382071, can you explain what Synthetix is? I see that you can trade assets without owning them, but I don't get the token holders are going to profit. There isn't even more than $1,000,000 of trading volume per 24 hours!

>>16382403

About to board a transatlantic flight but yes I’d be glad to once I’m back in the states provided the thread is still up.

>>16382421
have a good flight fren!

Can't let this die

>>16382562
Sure, have a bump since anon is flying and can’t bump

bump

you can even create synthetic options/CDO markets on predicted earnings.

Have people by options or CDO's on what they predict earnings to be.

e.g. you could have a CDO that pays 5% interest on the notional
insurance value per quarter, that APPL earnings will never be below $1 a share

Or if you want to invest big bucks in a small company that wont take it, you could sell a CDO on that company for like 100x whatever its worth, for x% interest

Then hook in a gov. website API containing data on the company, to check whether it goes insolvent or not. If it does, then you have to pay out the CDO value to the person who bought it

selling the right to buy real estate at a certain price.

>>16383616
this would never work... It requires actual adoption from real estate companies, or boomers selling their house. Realistically, do you think someone would list their house on an ethereum smart contract, and then have another person - who probably lives in another country, buy an option contract from them.

And even if it did happen, it would only be one or two people doing it. It would take decades to build an actual functioning market...

this is why OP suggested synthetic securities.

A thread was saved from this

.

Aren't there way too many regulations to ever viably financially engineer something like that as an outsider?
I was impressed by crpto and exchanges such as bitmex that allowed for more complicated contracts between individuals with relatively low fees. Could we not set up an 'exchange' of sorts that facilitates OTC transactions between individuals that avoids regulations, tax on transactions and pesky laws designed to 'protect' investors? I believe that the infrastructure needed already exists and that, although the knowledge needed to trade in such a market is high, there will still be plenty of customers around the world.
Unironically a good use case for LINK, too.

>>16383591
That's a really good idea actually. It would provide a benefit to the market smoothing out fundamentals in equity for investors I think, it would incentivize buy backs too.

>>16385097
Good, the chinese suck.

>>16385097
It is hard but only because you need 100MM I recall to get the lisences needed to create new financial products. Regulations won't be too big a problem, most everything we've come up with should be entirely compliant. The real issue will be finding anyone except retail who is willing to split volume into our products.

Bumping

>>16385280
Well, 100MM is out of reach for /biz/.
I was talking about an online exchange where one could set up such contracts as derivatives of synthetic securities with payouts in crypto or some alternative that allows us to skirt regulations while essentially providing the same service.
Of course this would attract only the worst sort of people: pajeets, degenerate gamblers and get-rich-quickers, but it could be a viable alternative.
In fact, I clearly recall at least one such exchange based on a cryptocurrency that tokenized all sorts of 'hard' assets, allowing speculators to buy what were essentially synthetic securities denominated in the token.
What are your thoughts on such an idea? Would it be possible to build such an exchange? And if we build it, will they come?

>>16386344
I think its good. Your right we would run into problems with regulations, but if we did it clean and kept it all above the books I'm sure they would just write legislation before too long.
I know very little about coding so we would need some /g/ bros to help out, but I think it is a solid idea. Being able to split risk in crypto especially is very important, so I do think we would have buyers. The exchange idea is really good too, allow people to create and sell their own synthetic securities customized for their risk and returns while we just middle man the contracts, I think it has merit too it and would be worthwhile.

>>16386393
I don't know, anon. I remain unconvinced of your proposal for traditional synthetic securities. If /biz/tards are smart enough to come up with something that doesn't yet exist in that market, then those with the means to create it have decided it's not worth it for some reason or another.
I do, however, believe there is scope for a more advanced exchange hosting financial vehicles/assets denominated in cryptocurrency, though I fear liquidity may be an issue. Perhaps we could, as you say, act as intermediators between two individuals engaged in OTC smart contracts, though we would need a strong value proposition or client information opacity to stop them from simply dealing directly with one another.

no die, no no

too much opportunity costs with locking money up in smart contracts

>but we'll just add more!

yeah then no point in using a smart contract to begin with

>>16387412
there needs to be a way to unbind the money and free it up for other uses while retaining the security and automatic calling-up-of-the-money at full contract value

>>16385097
when everything is decentralised you dont need regulations. you can do this all in smart contracts and have a website that's based in some shithole like tajikistan.

Then anyone who owns crypto can trade these synthetic products on your site.

This would be impossible to do without decentralisation, because everything would have to go through centralised clearing-houses that require you to go through all the bullshit permits/licenses etc.

>>16386744
I disagree, I think banks haven't created many of these because they still consider themselves some sort arbitar then what they really have become, liquidity machines.