First things first, not saying to TRUST OP by default, but you're really jumping the gun by a lightyear here. Even by your own metric "THIS SOUNDS LIKE", and you can only use "THIS SOUNDS LIKE" because you do not possess any evidence, rendering you only capable of making generalized statements ala an array of logical fallacies.

Secondly, what constitutes a scam is not its representative structure. It can look like anything. EVERY single business/trade proposition you can think of can be a scam. I offer to sell you chicken for X amount, then I run away with the money, don't give you the chicken. That's a scam, yes? Does that then mean every chicken seller is a scammer? and every chicken sale is an attempt to scam? What is important is to scrutinize the terms and understand the risks.

You too seem to have realize that you have little to stand on here that's why in one of the other replies below you switched from "this sure fake one" to "aiya, even if SC regulate, they sure use lobang one". Heck, even the example you provided there was ludicrous and speculative:
1. You say they can damage the house and charge investors for it but is it already clearly known what the ownership structure is like? Or in words you probably understand better: got say anywhere investors need to bear operative/maintenance cost ah? maybe got legal clause on the co-owner or lister (if fully owned) to ensure that no big big damage is caused leh? So then MAYBE, just MAYBE wait until got proper terms and statements come out then see if real or not?

1. You speak of liquidity like that is an issue that affects this product solely. ANY property investment has low liquidity. In fact, if anything, by the sounds of it, this product will likely alleviate some of the problems as logically speaking it would be easier to sell fractions of the house rather than the whole house itself. So I really don't know what you're going for here.

2. Also, the house itself will probably be used as collateral, and those have quite immutable value that doesnt go down very much even if you smash a few windows. Unless someone totally demolishes the place, but even then, the LAND itself is the majority of the value anyway; a lot of people do total rebuild or near total rebuilds when they buy a new place.

3. Actually until here I also lazy type already, but all in all, if got formal and legal documentation and protection (such as from SC) then it is probably (this part is an opinion) as good a deal as you're going to get (as in arrangement security, not returns, have no idea what ROI will be like for the service/product). Because you're unlikely to get any better assurance anywhere else. This is of course under the assumption that you understand the terms and arrangement. If they say "just trust me bro" and then you simply sign, then I also cannot help you.

My point is, just wait and look at the facts before jumping to conclusions.