Answering some of your questions below. Thanks for the feedback!

How will Tin and Drop be traded? Exchanges or Uniswap solutions?

An asset originator would create the Tin and Drop token contracts for their particular asset class and would have to make their own efforts to list them on exchanges. There are legal considerations of course but that is out of scope for this thread.

How do you prevent scams? A fake real estate project could generate worthless Tin which would lead to worthless Drop which again might impact the Dai ecosystem. There is a QA story here that is missing.

This two token setup can’t prevent a complete exit scam. If the asset originator manages convince the community that an entire portfolio is worth something but it is not, then of course neither Tin or Drop will be worth something. The fraud risk that is somewhat protected though would be if the asset originator itself gets defrauded and some of the asset they are adding to the pool are worthless. In that case provided the loss is less than the % of investment in Tin, it would not affect Drop.

How do you scale this? How does the system differentiate, if at all, between Tin/Drop for German real estate and Tin/Drop for athlete funding and Tin/Drop for beauty pageant funding?

Yes, we imagine asset originators will deploy an instance of Tinlake for each asset class. Each instance of Tinlake will have it’s own two tokens. Similar to how each asset in Compound has it’s own c-Token. Each pool at deployment will have a minimum ratio of Tin to Drop set. This will enforce that any investor in Drop will be covered by some minimum amount of investment in Tin.

Can multiple entities make use of the Tin/Drop system or is this a proprietary solution for Tinlake use only?

The contracts are of course open source. How the money flows between these two tokens is pretty tied to the rest of the Tinlake contracts. So the easiest way to use it is to create your own deployment of the Tinlake contracts.

At what level is there an ethical screening for undesirable collateral?

There are two levels at which this can happen. Tinlake allows multiple borrowers to borrow money from that pool. How those borrowers get their loans added to Tinlake can be controlled by automated oracles determining the price of the NFT collateral or it could be a manual process by the asset originator. In either case, this is where the most important selection has to happen. The better the individual loans are curated the higher the value of the pool. There is a second level though, an asset originator could create an entire pool that as you call it would be “unethical”. We can’t stop an “unethical” asset originator to deploy and create their own pool. So in that case it would be the MKR holders that would have to vote against inclusion of their Drop token in MCD.

would it be possible to have multiple Tins matching to a single Drop? In this way you could offload tons of risk to the issuer while keeping Maker governance overhead to a minimum?

Are you talking about different assets with their own Tin tokens but only minting one Drop token against it? Technically this is possible with a little bit of overhead. I would be curious to know from the community if they are comfortable with a Drop token that has several different asset types blended in. I think at first, our goal will be to keep things simple I think.

Would centrifuge aim to have both Drop and Tin available in MCD for use as collateral, or only drop?

I think Drop is better suited for MCD as it is the more stable and easier to price asset. So we believe that’s the better candidate.

If you have any questions for the call, please do post them here and we can address them in the call. We’ll make a recording available publicly after the call, I’ll post the link here.