Realm Metaverse Real Estate Inc.

Cascade · Distributions

Where each dollar goes

$875K

LP $200K · Fees $675K · GP $0

Standard scenario · $500K equity · 5y hold · 1.75× exitRun your own cascade →

Class structure · 2 classes· viewing as Class A Common Stock

How Realm Metaverse Real Estate Inc. divides the cap table

The cascade above is filtered to Class A Common Stock. Reset to blended view.

Class A Common Stock● active
common
“The Class A Shares have twenty votes per share, and the Class B Shares have one vote per share. All outstanding Class A Shares (8,188) are currently held by the Manager, which is in turn controlled by the Principals.”— PPM p. 10
Class B Common Stock
common
Min · $1K
“Holders of shares of Common Stock (whether Class A Shares or Class B Shares) are entitled to receive, ratably, those dividends, if any, that may be declared from time to time by the Company's board of directors out of legally available funds. Specifically, the holder of a Class B Share is entitled to the same dividend as a holder of a Class A Share.”— PPM p. 51

Deal diligence13 findings · worst high

Automated checks across the fund's extracted PPM. Every finding is shown with the evidence it's based on — proven numbers or a verbatim quote and page.

Waterfall structure

Structural checks run against Realm Metaverse Real Estate Inc.'s extracted waterfall. Each is a deterministic test — the numbers shown are proven from the PPM, not estimated.

Incentive Management Fee (25%) is taken above the waterfall

Medium

A performance- or transaction-linked fee paid above the waterfall reaches the GP before the LP's distribution priorities run, eroding the pool the pref + return-of-capital draw from. Routine asset-management fees above the line are normal; a disposition/promote-flavored fee there is a leak worth pricing.

“the Company will pay the Manager, annually, as to each fiscal year, an incentive management fee (the 'Incentive Fee') equal to twenty five percent (25%) of the amount, if any, by which (a) the Company's net asset value ('NAV'), as calculated as of the end of that fiscal year, exceeds (b) NAV, as calculated as of the start of that fiscal year.”

PPM p.3785% confidence

Document quality

Drafting defects found in the PPM prose — numeric inconsistencies, broken cross-references, unfilled placeholders, and defined-term problems. Each is shown with the offending quote and its page.

Numeric inconsistency — Class A / Class B authorized shares

High

Authorized share counts in the audited balance sheet (and Note 4) contradict the body of the circular: the balance sheet states Class A = 80,000 / Class B = 20,000, while the 'Securities Being Offered' section and Note 6 state Class A = 20,000 / Class B = 160,000.

“the Company's authorized capital stock consists of 20,000 Class A Shares and 160,000 Class B Shares ... Class A Common Stock, $0.00001 par value, 80,000 shares authorized ... Class B Common Stock, $0.00001 par value, 20,000 shares authorized”

PPM p.5095% confidence

Numeric inconsistency — Metajuku project size: 16,000 sq ft vs 256 sq m

Low

The Metajuku development is described as '16,000 square foot (256 square meter)', but the two figures are not equivalent (16,000 sq ft is approximately 1,486 sq m; 256 sq m is approximately 2,756 sq ft), so the parenthetical conversion is wrong.

“The development is representative of a 16,000 square foot (256 square meter) project built with a virtual open space at its center.”

PPM p.3585% confidence

Spelling / typo — 96 blocks of with

Info

Typo in the description of a Sandbox LAND parcel: 'with' is written where 'width' is meant ('96 blocks of depth, 96 blocks of with, and 128 blocks of height').

“with a size of 96 blocks of depth, 96 blocks of with, and 128 blocks of height”

PPM p.3490% confidence

Spelling / typo — the a third party service provider

Info

Broken phrasing with a doubled/stray article: 'with the a third party service provider' should read 'with a third party service provider'.

“with the a third party service provider converting the cash to USDC and directing the converted USDC back to the”

PPM p.285% confidence

Diligence gaps

Questions a standard diligence questionnaire would ask that the PPM leaves unanswered.

DDQ gap: Does the fund engage an independent auditor?

High

The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Governance). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: Does the fund have a GP clawback provision?

High

The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Economics). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: What is the LP/GP carried-interest split above the preferred return?

High

The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Economics). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: What is the preferred return (hurdle) rate offered to LPs?

High

The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Economics). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: Does the fund use a third-party fund administrator?

Medium

The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Governance). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: Is there a GP catch-up, and at what rate?

Medium

The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Economics). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: What distribution-waterfall structure does the fund use?

Medium

The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Structure). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.

90% confidence

DDQ gap: What is the GP's capital commitment (skin in the game)?

Medium

The offering documents don't answer a standard institutional DDQ question (Economics). An allocator will ask this directly — the GP should be ready with an answer.

90% confidence

DDQ readiness

How much of a standard institutional due-diligence questionnaire this fund's offering documents answer out of the box. Gaps are questions an allocator will ask directly.

38%

Coverage

5 answered0 partial8 gaps13 questions

Economics

What is the preferred return (hurdle) rate offered to LPs?Gap
What is the LP/GP carried-interest split above the preferred return?Gap
Is there a GP catch-up, and at what rate?Gap
Does the fund have a GP clawback provision?Gap
What is the GP's capital commitment (skin in the game)?Gap

Structure

What distribution-waterfall structure does the fund use?Gap
What is the fund's investment strategy / asset class?UnknownAnswered
What is the fund's vintage year?Vintage 2021.Answered
What is the target offering size?Target offering of $75,000,000.Answered
What is the minimum LP investment?Minimum investment of $1,000.Answered

Fees & Expenses

Is the fund's fee schedule disclosed (management fee, etc.)?6 fee line item(s) extracted from the offering documents.Answered

Governance

Does the fund engage an independent auditor?Gap
Does the fund use a third-party fund administrator?Gap

Generate IC memo →

Fee scheduletaken before LP distributions

Total load 29.00%

Fee

Trigger

Basis

Rate

Base Management Fee

Quarterly, ongoing

0.5% per fiscal quarter (2% annualized) of aggregate contributed capital of all Class A and Class B stockholders as of the last day of each quarter; paid in cash

2.00%

Incentive Management Fee

Annually, at fiscal year-end, when NAV exceeds prior-year NAV

25% of the annual increase in Net Asset Value (NAV); payable in Class B Shares valued at end-of-year NAV per share

25.00%

Selling Commission (Broker-Dealer)

Per closing, for state-required broker-dealer transactions

2% of gross proceeds from transactions facilitated by Dalmore Group, LLC; applies only for investors in Alabama, Florida, New Jersey, North Dakota, Texas and Washington; maximum $1,500,000

2.00%

Broker-Dealer Out-of-Pocket Expense Reimbursement

Closing of offering

Flat fee of $5,000 to cover out-of-pocket costs; paid to Dalmore Group, LLC

0.00%

Broker-Dealer Consulting Fee

FINRA No Objections Opinion and SEC qualification

Flat fee of $20,000; due when FINRA issues No Objections Opinion and SEC qualifies Offering Statement

0.00%

Offering Expenses

Offering period

Estimated $250,000 flat; includes legal, accounting, printing, due diligence, marketing, consulting, referral fees and other offering costs; approximately 0.3% of gross proceeds

0.00%

Service providers3 gaps

Provider network →

Legal Counsel

Gap

Not disclosed

No independent counsel named for investors. Common in small syndications where Manager and Fund share counsel — reduces independence. Verify during diligence.

Auditor

Gap

Not disclosed

Audit intent not stated in PPM. Ask the sponsor: will the fund be audited, by whom, and on what frequency?

Fund Administrator

Gap

Not disclosed

No third-party fund administrator referenced. Manager likely handles admin internally — common for <$10M raises but reduces independence.

Placement Agent

No placement agent engaged

No placement agent engaged. Direct placement by Manager — no placement fees eat your invested capital.

Community threads0 active

What allocators are saying. Diligence notes, open questions, attached scenarios.

⚛ RSS Start a thread →

No threads yet. Be the first →

Reviews

No reviews yet

Be the first allocator to leave a take.

Funds you might also likesame Unknown

Triangle 9 Real Estate, Inc.

Roots Real Estate Exchange I, LLC

Roots Real Estate Investment Community I, LLC

GROUNDFLOOR REAL ESTATE 1, LLC

Waterfalls Composite Score

7.5.

LP-favorability score · 5 weighted dimensions

Benchmark · Real Estate Equity

Diversified Real Estate

See where this fund sits across 189 indexed diversified real estate funds — median pref, hurdle, splits, GP commit.

Compare to bucket →

Score breakdown5 dimensions

Absolute LP Takeⓘunscored—

GP Timing Riskⓘ10

Pref Qualityⓘ5

Fee Dragⓘ0

Alignmentⓘ15

LP take × exit multiple

at 5y hold · 23% at 1.75×

LP take Fee drag· sim at $500k equity

Exit	LP IRR	LP MoC	LP Take	Fees
1.00×	0.0%	0.00×	0.0%	135.0%
1.50×	-31.6%	0.15×	10.0%	90.0%
1.75×	-16.7%	0.40×	22.9%	77.1%
2.00×	-8.3%	0.65×	32.5%	67.5%
2.50×	2.8%	1.15×	46.0%	54.0%
3.00×	10.5%	1.65×	55.0%	45.0%

Jump to an exit

1.0× downside 1.5× base 2.0× upside 3.0× home run

Realm Metaverse Real Estate Inc.

Class A Common Stock● active

Class B Common Stock

Waterfall structure

Incentive Management Fee (25%) is taken above the waterfall

Document quality

Numeric inconsistency — Class A / Class B authorized shares

Numeric inconsistency — Metajuku project size: 16,000 sq ft vs 256 sq m

Spelling / typo — 96 blocks of with

Spelling / typo — the a third party service provider

Diligence gaps

DDQ gap: Does the fund engage an independent auditor?

DDQ gap: Does the fund have a GP clawback provision?

DDQ gap: What is the LP/GP carried-interest split above the preferred return?

DDQ gap: What is the preferred return (hurdle) rate offered to LPs?

DDQ gap: Does the fund use a third-party fund administrator?

DDQ gap: Is there a GP catch-up, and at what rate?

DDQ gap: What distribution-waterfall structure does the fund use?

DDQ gap: What is the GP's capital commitment (skin in the game)?

DDQ readiness

Fee scheduletaken before LP distributions

Community threads0 active

Reviews