1. It is a UK Gov legal requirement to have your registration number on your website, is there a reason you are lacking this fundamental requirement?
2. I don't understand your calculations. You say the company will distribute 50% of the rental income which you would expect to be a gross yield to be 8-12%, then you say the net profit will be 25-30% less than the gross yield... or 9% (12% x .75)... if you made the max. 12% and distributed 50%. that would be 6%?
3. What is a "bounty at the end of the 30 years"? Was that a typing error?
4. Who are your competitors? How will this change anything?
5. Is there any reason you are rushing it and not taking the time to show a more professional presentation?
I don't mean to be harsh but it seems this project is being done on a whim... you seem to change your direction with every opinion.
It's "almost" a good idea but it seems a little scammy the way it is all thrown together.
1) Please check the bottom of the website, the directors are all photographed, the address is shown and the company name and number are all showing.
2) 50% of net profits will be used to buy back kexcoin from the market and permanently destroy them. The other 50% net profits will be used to purchase more property to increase the size of the portfolio, profit and the following quarter / year buy back budget.
3) At the end of the 30 year project, the uplift in property price value will be distributed to Kexcoin holders and those that participated in the ICO. It is important to note at this point that the kexcoin currency will continue after this.
4) Our competitors are other landlords and service providers. It would change things in the sense that they are all beholden to bank and interest rates, we are not. It opens the door to a new way of funding property and has the potential to disrupt industries, such as the big banks that traditionally offer mortgages. Other competitors would include other real estate ICO's.
5) I'm sorry that you do not feel we have done this in a professional manner. Can you tell me exactly what it is that you believe we have done wrong? We did bring the release forward slightly in order to be first to market and to avoid the avalanche of ICO's that (at the time) were due out.
Why is it "almost" a good idea and what makes it "scammy"? We are effectively using all profits over the 30 years to the benefit of anyone that participates in the project? You can't get that anywhere else?