I think that lots of people would like to live in multiple places around the world. I know I would. That's why when people get rich and have the means, they often start to buy second homes. To that end, here's an interesting concept out of Japan called Not a Hotel.

Their model is fairly simply. What they do is build incredible design-forward vacation homes across Japan and then sell fractional shares, while at the same time offering full concierge and management services.

The typical fraction is for 30 days (1/12th), but if you'd like, you can buy up to the entire year. Ownership gives you access to the property for the amount of days you've purchased, or you can trade your days and stay at other homes within the Not a Hotel network.

On the nights you don't use, the company operates the home like a hotel and the owner gets the benefit of reduced management fees.

Most of their homes are already completely sold out. But 1/12th of this home in Kitakaruizawa is available for US$490,000. And on the other end of the spectrum, 1/36th of this Bjarke Ingels-designed home is available for US$2,460,000.

Here's a video of the home:

Fractional ownership is not a new model, but it is still relatively niche. I also think that the way Not a Hotel is going about it -- with their focus on over-the-top design and architecture -- is pretty unique.

I don't know for exactly how long, but for a very long time people have been trying to solve this real estate problem: "I have a desire to own a home, or multiple homes, around the world. However, I don't know how often I'd actually use it/them, and this desire is both expensive and a pain in the ass."

And so unless you have a lot of money and can make the pain in the ass part go away, there seems to exist an ongoing need to make fulfilling this desire both cheaper and easier. Perhaps the most common ways are through a timeshare property or through some kind of fractional ownership structure, where you own a share of a property.

Some companies are even "tokenizing" this second structure on blockchains. I have read about one company that is buying vacation homes and then issuing 365 corresponding tokens. Each token represents 1 day of occupancy (and actual title ownership apparently). In theory this sounds kind of neat, but you're also buying a second home with potentially 364 other strangers.

So here's another approach that I just learned about. The UK-based company, August, has devised a model that works like this:

• August starts with "homeowner curation." Meaning, they start by vetting homeowners to make sure that they're not weird or something.

• Once they have a suitable collection of homeowners, August sets up a new real estate entity that all of the homeowners must then fund equally.

• This entity, by way of August, goes out and buys 5 properties, and each homeowner receives an equal share of the ownership. (Typically, they target 16-21 groups per entity.)

• August renovates the 5 properties, gets them ready for occupancy, and then manages them on ongoing basis. This includes bookings.

• Finally, each homeowner gets an average of 8-10 weeks per year across all of their homes.

In terms of the homes themselves, their pied-à-terre collection includes homes in Paris, Rome, Cannes, Barcelona, and London. They are typically between 70-100 square meters with 2 bedrooms and 1-2 bathrooms. And the average price/value is supposedly around €1,250,000 (post-renovation?), with the entry price of a share starting at €340,000.

I'm not sure if this share figure is based on 21 homeowners, but if it is, then that's €7,140,000 of equity being raised in order to buy somewhere around €6,250,000 of real estate. Is the spread their margin for setting this all up? There's also an annual fee per owner (€8,600), which presumably covers operating costs and the ongoing management of the properties.

A model like this naturally provokes a lot of questions. What happens if somebody wants to sell? Does the next buyer need to be similarly vetted for overall weirdness? And how liquid is 1/21st of a 5-property apartment portfolio? I don't know these answers, but intuitively these shares have got to be less liquid than a 100% sale.

However, as a solution to the problem of "I have a desire to own homes across Europe but I'm not quite rich enough to make it truly carefree", this seems like a pretty clever solution.

One of the ways that you can turn a traditional real estate company into more of a web3 company is talk about how you're going to tokenize the ownership of real assets. But what does that even mean and how would it work?

Here is one example that I recently discovered (but of course there are countless others and I'm not suggesting that you should use their product). Bricknest is a startup that is focused on buying vacation apartments in popular tourist destinations. They then split the ownership into 365 non-fungible tokens that live on the Solana blockchain.

Each token is intended to correspond to a day. And so if you own 1 token, you own 1/365 of the asset and you get 1 day. You can choose to either use it yourself on this day, or rent it out and get the rental income sent directly to your crypto wallet. If you own all 365 tokens, then it would be similar to you just owning 100% of the asset.

The obvious question is how is this different from, say, fractional ownership, which can be similarly found in high-demand vacation spots? And the dumb answer is that, well, tokens exist on a blockchain and fractional ownership shares do not. So I guess the real question is whether or not tokens will make this ownership model any different.

There is a long history of trying to democratize the ownership of real estate. In fact, this was the general idea behind REITs when they were created in the 1960s. So again, we are back to the question of whether tokenization will be any different from what we already have.

But I think that most people are asking this same question of crypto/web3 in general -- why does all of this matter? And a big part of the problem is that crypto is generally hard to explain. One of the best explanations that I have come across is this one here by Albert Wenger.

Simply put, most internet companies today can be thought of as large privately controlled databases. Instagram, for example, is a database of all of our photos (among other things). But because it's Instagram's database, they get to decide what can be done with it. And naturally they are going to do what it takes to maintain their economic moat.

Blockchains are similarly databases. And right now they're not particularly good databases. However, the key differences are that (1) they are public, (2) they are not controlled by a single entity, and (3) anyone can read and/or write to them. And so they directly attack the thing that gives many companies today their economic advantage.

Does this mean that tokenized real estate is the future? Does it make a difference that rental contracts can be programmed into the blockchain so that distributions are automatic? It still feels too early to tell. But I do think that most people are underestimating how disruptive a seemingly small change like this might be.