[2510 Grant] Zerem Finance - Real World Asset (RWA) lending aggregator focused on residential real estate acquisition

Grants & Incentives
41

Grant Update: Distribution Partnership and Milestone Update

Summary

We have secured a distribution partnership with a leading crypto platform in LATAM, with a user base of 5.5 million users, representing approximately 30% of active crypto users in the region according to public sources.
This integration provides immediate distribution and materially improves our go-to-market strategy.

Representatives from the Collective are aware of this partnership and of the scope adjustments described below.

As a result, this update impacts our milestones, metrics, and execution scope, requiring an update to an existing milestone within the grant.

Partnership Impact

Publishing the platform through this distribution channel allows us to:

  • Access a large base of KYC-verified users.
  • Reduce onboarding and compliance friction.
  • Accelerate adoption and real usage.
  • Scale the operation with lower acquisition costs.

Updated Product Scope

  • Phase 1: Car marketplace
    • P2P sellers
    • Car dealers
  • Future phases:
    • Real estate (apartments).
    • Credit products (to be deployed once market conditions allow). This only applies to the mini app, on the normal web version this should not be impacted but can impact some milestones. On the other hand still plan to offer yield but to the card dealers.

Impact on Milestones

Current Remaining Milestones

  • Multi-chain bridge
  • Seller portal
  • Product deployment and launch

Milestone Update

The next milestone will be updated to reflect the distribution integration and revised execution flow:

  1. Blockchain / Infrastructure
    The distribution platform supports RSK, with certain limitations. We are coordinating with ecosystem stakeholders to improve support.
    Funds can be received directly on Rootstock, and bridging can be handled internally if required.
  2. KYC and User Management
    User KYC is handled by the distribution platform, removing the need for a standalone KYC implementation for Mini App users, it still requires some data management capabilities.
    Development efforts are now focused on the Seller Portal, which will serve both individual sellers and car dealers.
  3. Deployment and Launch
    The launch will occur as soon as integration and deployment are finalized, without dependency on custom onboarding flows.
4 Likes
42

Wow, congratulations @Ezequiel, this is a major development! A distribution partnership reaching 5.5 million KYC-verified users in LATAM is a genuine inflection point for the project. The go-to-market leverage here is hard to overstate.

Can the partner platform be named at this point, given the partnership is allegedly secured, or there’s a reason to keep it undisclosed at this moment?

I’m assuming this serves as an initial announcement, with a more detailed update and formal milestone adjustment coming before the next disbursement request?

Nevertheless, a few questions in the interim, in the spirit of fostering discussion and hopefully helping you adjust course and milestones after this major development.

On RSK support and limitations:
You mention the distribution platform supports Rootstock “with certain limitations.” Can you elaborate on what those are? Token compatibility, wallet support, transaction flow constraints? This matters for understanding how central Rootstock is to the user experience versus being a backend option.

On bridging:
If funds can be received directly on Rootstock but bridging is “handled internally if required,” what does that look like in practice? Existing bridge infrastructure or something custom? And where does the multi-chain bridge milestone stand now given this new architecture?

On strategy and scope evolution:
The grant was originally positioned around residential real estate, now moved to future phases with cars as Phase 1. It would be helpful to hear the strategic rationale. Is the auto focus driven by partner demand, faster transaction cycles, regulatory simplicity, or a combination? What’s the anticipated path back to real estate?

This partnership is a strong signal of execution. Looking forward to the detailed update.

1 Like
43

@DAOstar_gov

Not yet. We have just signed the agreement and are currently coordinating integration efforts. We are working with multiple partners and can disclose the name privately upon request.

Yes.

The platform officially supports the Rootstock network and allows deposits of multiple tokens through Rootstock. It supports RIF, allows users to deposit RBTC (as BTC), and withdraw BTC as RBTC.
However, we could not find support for USDRIF or DOC. We are currently working on closing both the technical and business gaps related to these assets.

We need to reconcile the unit of account of the operation. For example, if a buyer wants to pay in RBTC but the seller wants to receive USDT or Argentine pesos, that flow should be supported.
However, if the buyer pays with DOC or USDRIF (assuming those assets are not supported by the platform), we will need to handle the conversion internally.

This is not a regulatory issue, but a market-driven decision. After discussions with multiple exchange operators in Argentina, they recommended starting with smaller ticket sizes.
This specific partner also recommended splitting the applications. At the moment, there is significant market uncertainty and low liquidity (when we originally applied for the grant, BTC was trading above 100k). Given this context, we need to start with smaller, more liquid use cases.

1 Like
44

@Ezequiel
Thank you for the quick and clarifying answers.
Everything understood.

I agree supporting stablecoins in the future is important, USDRIF, DoC, and rUSDT/USDT0.

1 Like
45

Thanks for sharing your update and also clarifying the market rationale. I understand the shift to lower ticket sizes makes sense given current BTC volatility and liquidity concerns.

That said, I have concerns about pivoting from real estate (an appreciating asset) to cars (which depreciate 15-20% annually). This creates a worse risk/reward for users - they’re taking liquidation risk on volatile BTC collateral to purchase a depreciating asset.

Since the seller portal won’t be developed until Milestone 3, would the team consider integrating appreciating lower-ticket assets instead? Options could include:

  • Luxury watches ($10K-30K) - established appreciation, highly liquid

  • Investment-grade wine ($5K-30K) - proven appreciation, vault storage

  • Fractional agricultural land ($10K-50K) - steady appreciation + lease income

  • Gold/precious metals - inflation hedge, highly liquid

These would maintain the original thesis (leveraging BTC for appreciating assets) while addressing the market need for smaller ticket sizes. What’s the team’s view on this approach?

1 Like
46

Hi Axia, thanks for the thoughtful feedback — it’s a valid point.

I wouldn’t describe this as a pivot but rather a strategic adjustment. We continuously evaluate different asset classes, but our main constraint is implementing them in a scalable and sustainable way with limited resources.

At this stage, our priority has been validating the full cycle: thesis, product, distribution, and business sustainability. Cars allow us to validate real transactions and distribution in the short term, while crypto continues to act primarily as a settlement and conversion layer.

We do agree that appreciating lower-ticket assets are interesting and aligned with the long-term thesis, and we discuss these options regularly.

We’re also updating the scope of Milestone 2 (I’ll share an update soon) to start addressing distribution earlier, including a seller portal.

Happy to discuss further if helpful.

2 Likes
47

Update & Milestone Change

As mentioned in a previous update, we are partnering with a leading crypto platform in Latin America (name provided upon request) to integrate our product as a Mini App. The platform has more than 5.5 million users, representing a significant distribution opportunity and allowing us to accelerate user acquisition compared to our original roadmap assumptions.

As part of this integration, we will begin rolling out our car marketplace, enabling users to buy and sell vehicles both peer-to-peer and through car dealerships. This phase focuses on onboarding real users and validating transaction flows in a production environment.

We are also coordinating with Rootstock Labs and Collective representatives to ensure alignment and maximize ecosystem impact, particularly around payments, bridging, and user onboarding.

Milestone Update

The previously planned milestone was:

Given the opportunity to integrate with a large distribution partner and accelerate adoption, we are updating this milestone to:

4.2 Milestone 2 – Mini App Integration with Leading LATAM Crypto Platform
Budget: $15,000 | Timeline: 4 weeks

The budget adjustment reflects the additional engineering work required for Mini App integration, onboarding flows, and compliance-related components.

This integration significantly expands Rootstock user reach and real transaction volume, aligning with the Collective’s objective of increasing real-world usage and onboarding new users to the ecosystem.

Outcomes

  • Mini App integrated into partner platform
  • On/Off-ramp services available to users
  • Bridge services integrated into transaction flows
  • Partial KYC services to support compliant onboarding
  • Initial marketplace rollout with real users and dealers generating measurable on-chain activity

Deliverables

  • Mini App (production-ready)
  • Seller Portal (for individual users and car dealers)
  • Escrow and transaction flow integrated with crypto payments
  • Integration of on/off-ramp and bridge providers
  • Dealer onboarding and listing workflows
  • Basic analytics and monitoring dashboard
  • Technical documentation of the integration and architecture
1 Like
48

Hi @Ezequiel! Thanks for the update and for sharing more context on the revised Milestone 2. We understand the rationale around leveraging the LATAM Mini App partnership to accelerate distribution and validate real transaction flows.

However, the scope and budget change still require more clarity before we can support a 50% increase.

First, the revised milestone effectively pulls forward a large portion of the end-to-end product into a single 4-week deliverable: in addition to Mini App integration, onboarding and partial KYC, on/off-ramp and bridge integration, a seller portal, etc. This reads less like an incremental milestone and more like a phase change. It is not clear which components are genuinely incremental due to the Mini App partnership versus items previously planned for later milestones, nor how this re-scoping reshapes what comes next. A clearer breakdown of what specifically drives the additional $5K, alongside an updated view of subsequent milestones (scope, focus, and budget), would help distinguish necessary acceleration from roadmap compression.

Second, while the update emphasizes “real users” and “measurable on-chain activity,” the success criteria remain largely qualitative. Given the increased ask, we would expect more concrete targets, for example indicative ranges for transaction counts, number of onboarded users or dealers, or minimum on-chain volume attributable to this integration. Without some quantitative framing, it is difficult to assess whether the expanded scope delivers proportional ecosystem impact.

Finally, echoing concerns raised earlier by @Axia and others, the continued focus on cars as the initial asset class still raises questions around long-term alignment with the original thesis, particularly given depreciation risk. Even if cars are used here primarily to validate distribution and transaction flows, it would help to clarify which parts of this milestone are deliberately asset-agnostic versus car-specific, and how easily the system can extend to other asset classes in later milestones without significant rework.

Overall, while the direction may be reasonable, we believe additional clarity is needed on cost allocation, measurable outcomes, and the implications for the remaining milestones before approving the revised Milestone 2.

2 Likes
49

You’re right that Milestone 2 needs clearer framing.

We are asking for more because, with the LATAM Mini App partnership, we can validate more upside earlier. To do that, we need to move forward some work that was originally planned for later. That is the reason for the +$5K.

The additional scope is focused on what is strictly necessary to run real transactions: Mini App integration, basic onboarding with partial KYC, one on/off-ramp and bridge flow, and a simple seller interface. We are not trying to ship a full marketplace in this milestone. Larger product and multi-asset work stays in later phases.

We agree that this milestone should have clearer success criteria. We can define simple validation targets, such as number of onboarded users, active sellers, completed on-chain transactions, and indicative volume. The goal here is validation of real flows, not growth.

Regarding cars: they are used only to validate distribution and transaction behavior, and we are aware of depreciation risk, which is precisely why car-specific logic and exposure are kept minimal. Core components (wallets, KYC, on/off-ramp, bridging, settlement) are asset-agnostic.

— Ezequiel

1 Like
50

Appreciate the discussion here and @Ezequiel’s responsiveness.

On @Axia’s suggestion about luxury appreciating assets like watches, fine wines, and art: I actually like this idea a lot. However, they add a whole layer of complexity including authentication, reputation systems, and counterfeit prevention. I also think ultimately this is a Product Management decision, to be made by the team using proper PM methodologies like market research and prioritization. I’d suggest the team add this to the roadmap, as a product hypothesis to be validated, after cars and real estate are validated.

On Milestone 2: I agree with my colleagues that the milestone deserves more objectivity and clearer success criteria. That said, the team is clearly working hard, takes this project seriously, and is conquering real upsides such as the major crypto platform partnership. The M2 expansion proposal exists because of a relevant fact: increased scope and upside potential from a 5.5M user distribution channel. Being thorough is important, but we don’t want to hinder capitalization on incoming upside.
Thus, after clarifications, we lean strongly toward supporting this proposal, including the Milestone 2 expansion.

One point I wanted to clarify: @Ezequiel mentioned credit products are delayed on the Mini App “once market conditions allow” but the web version “should not be impacted.” Can you explain this further?

Ps.: @Ezequiel I requested the crypto platform through DM.

1 Like
51

Hi Chrono

On luxury assets: we agree this could be an interesting category over time, and the platform is designed to eventually support many asset types. However, in this phase we are focusing on more familiar and standardized assets (such as cars and real estate) to simplify execution and validation. We will treat luxury assets as a future roadmap hypothesis.

On Milestone 2 success criteria: we will make these more objective. The main metrics we plan to track are number of KYC-verified users, active listings, and completed transactions.

On credit products: our approach is to first onboard users through regular purchase flows so they become familiar with the platform. Credit introduces additional complexity and liquidation risk, and not all users are prepared for that initially. For this reason, we prioritize standard transactions first and phase in credit features progressively.

Already provided info regarding the platform, if you need more info. Just let me know.

Thanks!

1 Like
52

Hi @Ezequiel

Thanks for all the answers. I’m aligned with @ChronoTrigger here. It’s important to keep best practices and have clarity around scope and criteria. But at the same time, a 5.5M user distribution opportunity is not something we should overcomplicate or slow down unnecessarily. The additional $5K feels reasonable to me. If the integration is real and already moving, accelerating the work to validate real transaction flows makes sense.

On the asset discussion, I see the move to cars as pragmatic rather than a thesis change. It’s a good way to test distribution and settlement under current conditions, while keeping the broader RWA direction.

Overall, I’m supportive. I’d genuinely like to see a project that started in the Collective hit real milestones and scale from here.

1 Like