Blog
Why one record per home
Sakneen is built on a single premise: a home should have one digital record that the developer creates, the agent sells against, and the buyer keeps. Most of the friction in Egyptian real estate comes from those three parties maintaining separate, diverging copies of the same facts.
Three copies of one apartment
The developer holds a spreadsheet row. The brokerage holds a PDF from some point in the past. The buyer, after handover, holds a folder and a WhatsApp group. All three describe the same apartment, and within months they disagree about its price, its status and what was promised at delivery.
Every workaround the industry has built — the reconciliation call, the availability check before a quote, the reassembly of documents at resale — is the cost of that disagreement.
Why syncing copies is not the answer
The instinct is to synchronize: keep the three copies and reconcile them. It fails for the reason it always fails — synchronization is eventual, and sales happen in the interval. Two salespeople can each be reading a correct copy and still sell the same unit.
The alternative is to have one record and give the three parties different permissions on it. That is an architectural decision, and it is why Sakneen's products are stacks on one object rather than three integrated applications.
What it makes possible
An offer that cannot quote a stale price. A masterplan that cannot show a sold unit as available. A resale that transfers evidence rather than reconstructing it. None of these are features; they are consequences of there being one record.
Related
See it against your own inventory
Bring one project. We load its masterplan and unit list, and you see your own homes as digital records before you decide anything.