Index
ToggleBlockchain business proposes “Tokenize” of social housing — new solution or big risk?
Reetechs Labs, a technology company specializing in blockchain, has just come up with a groundbreaking but also controversial idea in the social housing sector: Tokenize social housing ownership , allowing people to gradually buy parts or participate in a "lottery" to choose who will own the house.
The idea was presented at a recent public-private partnership project consultation workshop organized by the Private Economic Development Research Board (Board IV). Reetechs Labs proposed allowing the experimentation of the Tokenize model in the social housing sector — that is, converting the ownership or value of a house into digital Token on the blockchain platform. Each Token represents a small part of the house, and people can buy Token every month, accumulating until they have enough ownership.
A simple example: a social apartment is Chia into 100 Token, each Token corresponding to 1/100 of the value of the house. If the worker does not have enough Capital to buy the whole house, they can buy one Token per month, and after 100 months they will own it completely. In addition, Reetechs Labs also offers a “ Token lottery” method: 100 people buy 100 Token, then draw a lottery to choose one person to win the house — similar to the way India used lotteries to encourage people to buy official train tickets, instead of “illegal” tickets.
Take notes from blockchain technology experts
Speaking to VnExpress, Ms. Tran Thi Kieu Diem , CEO of Orochi Network (a blockchain technology company in Ho Chi Minh City specializing in security and cryptography), said that this proposal is creative but not simple. Ms. Diem reiterated that social housing is a social security policy, strictly regulated in terms of law - buying, selling, notarization, ownership rights are currently associated with "red books" and "pink books" - legal documents that blockchain cannot replace. If there is a Token dispute or a hacker attack, it will be difficult for the state to resolve it in the current way.
One of the major limitations is that when a house has too many Token owners, the decision to transfer will become complicated. In addition, the current law stipulates that social housing can only be resold after about 5 years, if there are many people owning Token, the process of choosing the transferee is also a difficult problem.
Investor perspective – financial and implementation challenges
Mr. Nguyen Hoang Nam , General Director of G-Home Joint Stock Company, specializing in developing social housing, believes that the Tokenize model is difficult to implement in practice. Mr. Nam emphasized: social housing buyers are currently entitled to preferential Capital with low interest rates and monthly installments - essentially the same as "buying gradually" but with legal support.
If all customers buy small Token , the investor's cash flow will be Chia too small, making it difficult to rotate Capital to build and complete the project. The "lottery" idea, according to Mr. Nam, is unnecessary - because social housing projects Capital have regulations on drawing lots when the number of applications exceeds the supply. Evidence: many previous projects have organized lots according to a transparent process to select buyers.
Potential, risks and recommendations from financial experts
Mr. Nguyen An Huy , senior financial advisor at FIDT, believes that blockchain has the advantage of being self-transparent and recording transaction history — thereby limiting fraud in the social housing sector. For investors, Tokenize is a way to mobilize social Capital , reducing the dependence on bank Capital .
However, Mr. Huy warned of many risks. Token are easily exchanged, so they are susceptible to speculation on the secondary market; if not well controlled, Token prices can be pushed up, making it difficult for low-income people to access housing. In particular, the “lottery” model gives rise to a sense of injustice: people can accumulate Token for many years but still not be selected — which is contrary to the welfare goal that is the main driving force of social housing policy.
Another problem is that workers and laborers — a group with little exposure to financial technology — are vulnerable to impersonation, fraud, or fraud. In addition, the progress of apartment construction often depends on the investor's Capital — if buyers only buy Token gradually, the investor does not have enough Capital to deploy construction on schedule.
From there, Mr. Huy proposed: if there is a pilot, the “lottery” model should be eliminated because it goes against the spirit of fairness. The Token accumulation model can be tested on a small scale, attaching Token to buyer identification records, prohibiting transfers on the secondary market and managing payments through the Social Policy Bank or designated credit institutions. At the same time, the management agency needs to build a testing framework (sandbox) to strictly control risks.
Real life stories – lessons from innovation
In some countries, the idea of asset Tokenize or asset Chia has been tested in the luxury real estate and commercial real estate sectors. However, applying it to social housing — a sensitive area associated with policy — is a huge challenge.
One example is a project in Europe where a luxury apartment building was Chia into Token so that low-income people could buy small portions and co-own them with other investors. But when it came to the common management, operation, and maintenance phase, the individual owners had to agree through a joint contract — otherwise, disputes could easily arise.
Back in Vietnam, if Reetechs Labs’ proposal is accepted for testing in a small social housing project in a provincial city, it could be a breakthrough — if strictly managed. But if it is deployed massively without a clear legal corridor, a high-risk scenario is inevitable.
