Who is going to buy a house occupied with tenants and a negative $1k/month cash flow?
Only someone who would pay less than the same house without tenants, which might not be enough to cover the outstanding balance of the mortgage, which means a short sale, which means you need the lender to approve (which they won’t).
But sure, the GP is “crying”.
I guess you are the former?
What incentive is there to own a negative income asset unless you are lying and you actually are net positive. Unless of course you are the latter and you are claiming that someone should bail you out?
"I'm completely underwater on this asset but if I sell I lose money" yeah that's how that works it's called an investment you can win or lose.
It's hard for the average non-US person to opt-into the US financial system. Sure, they could hold dollars in banks, but local monetary policy can nix that privilege at anytime by imposing foreign exchange controls. It's happened before, in some of the largest economies in the world: China in 2015, India in 2013, Argentina in 2011.
The current way users solve this problem requires a lot of resources. That's why you usually only see rich people have Cayman accounts, Canadian real estate, and shell companies in Panama. Stablecoins on permissionless blockchains make this process 100x more accessible for the average person.
So yes, stablecoins currently let you circumvent regulation.
But regulation can be a prison where you can pay to be free.
So what happens when it costs nothing to get out of jail? What kind of strains do this place on economies that people escape, as well as the economies that people join?
I guess we'll have to wait and see.
As opposed to no regulation where you can't? I don't understand this sentiment at all.