As so often, we will probably never know what really happened in the 2,000 or so homes bought by RealT, between the version of crooked landlords zealously exploiting their tenants and that of property managers who would rather keep the money for themselves before starting their own business.

But I believe the reality lies elsewhere.

On one side, the promise of tokenisation. Granted, RealT’s technical ecosystem works, a DAO⁵³ is in the pipeline (and has been for a while, mind you), and liquidity more or less works, including when it was provided (credit where it is due, unlike the managers of French SCPI funds) by RealT itself.

But all the transparency so widely credited to the blockchain has been lost. Not only because of that centralised wallet, which no longer lets you trace what is actually paid out on each property. But above all because there is not a single line of accounts, neither on spending nor on income, for any of the properties. Granted, property management is not the most fun or digitised of trades, but how is it still possible not to give the slightest budget detail, especially after a year of suspicion?

On the other side, the promise of investment. Unlike many, I do not believe money is the root of all problems, and I even think it can be the solution. Investing in Detroit, or in its French equivalent, which might be Saint-Étienne, a struggling former industrial city, is not a problem in itself. It is even a good thing.

Because, as I said a while ago (in French), there is a certain meritocracy in real estate. By buying properties in poor condition and renovating them, you mechanically gain value, and yield. Everybody wins.

• The owner, who gets richer;
• The bank, which lends;
• The tenant, who gets a better home;
• The state, which has its snout in every trough.

But only if the money is put to good use.

Even assuming the managers diverted money, even accepting that several properties were vandalised, even granting that some properties may have been neglected, how do you end up with hundreds of slums without anyone noticing anything in 6 years?

In the end, the conclusion is the same as in our two-part investigation into Laurent Villa and the carelessness of the platforms: being an intermediary is not just taking your cut between investors and a whole crowd of people you never check on.

That is no excuse for the investors who, as it happens, have not lost money in this case. Quite the reverse.

It is even less of an excuse when it affects the daily lives of thousands of people.

Because the economy is always real.

Shawn Reed could not be reached for comment.

This investigation was carried out with the invaluable help of Aaron Mondry, senior reporter at Outlier Media.