The real estate commission structure has remained largely intact while technology reshaped nearly every other major consumer transaction, and according to one industry veteran, that’s not an accident.
The typical residential commission in the United States sits at 5.7% as of early 2026, according to Manuel Pantiga, Co-Founder and CEO of Locqube. On a $500,000 home, that’s $28,500 leaving the seller’s pocket at closing. Multiply that across the national market, and the commission pool ranges from $90 billion to $125 billion annually, depending on where the housing cycle stands. Pantiga argues that the persistence of this structure is not a market outcome – it’s a protection strategy.
“The industry has continually looked to protect itself, to protect its interest, to protect the commission, to protect the model,” Pantiga says.
An Industry Protecting Itself
Pantiga, who has spent more than 20 years in real estate, says the moment that crystallized his thinking came at an industry event where participants were discussing threats and risks to the business. The consumer, he says, was conspicuously absent from that conversation.
That absence, in his view, is not incidental. The commission model creates a structural incentive for brokerages, agents, and trade organizations to maintain the status quo. When the annual pool of fees runs into the hundreds of billions, the industry has enormous resources to defend existing practices – through lobbying, through professional norms, and through the sheer weight of incumbency.
The consumer pushback has been building for years. Pantiga says he has sat with thousands of homeowners over his career, and a recurring question surfaces: why does the seller have to pay someone whose job is to negotiate against the seller’s interests?
This tension – between who pays and who benefits – sits at the heart of the commission debate. The listing agent represents the seller. The buyer’s agent represents the buyer. Yet historically, the seller has funded both sides of the transaction through a single commission split, a structure that Pantiga argues was never designed with the consumer in mind.
Rules Finally Change
The 2024 National Association of Realtors settlement introduced a rule change that Pantiga sees as structurally significant: the elimination of the requirement that listing brokers make a blanket offer of compensation to buyer’s agents. That field was removed entirely from MLS listings.
For companies attempting to build lower-cost models, this matters. Previously, sellers listing with a discount brokerage still faced pressure to offer buyer-agent compensation at prevailing rates, which undercut much of the savings. The settlement removed a mechanism that had kept the commission floor artificially high.
“That removed, for companies like ours that are looking to innovate, the need to have homeowners commit to an additional commission at the listing table,” Pantiga says.
Let the Market Decide
Pantiga frames the commission debate in explicitly market terms. He grew up in Cuba and says the contrast with a capitalist system shapes how he thinks about competition. His argument is straightforward: if consumers find value in a lower-cost model, the market will move toward it. The question is not whether agents deserve to be paid, but whether the current price reflects genuine market value or a maintained floor.
“The great thing about capitalism is that it’s the great equalizer,” Pantiga says. “If the people who pay us find value in what we’re giving – who’s pissed off? Agents. Who is not? Sellers, the sellers that we put 20, 30, 40,000 back in their pocket.”
The resistance from local brokers and recruiters, which Pantiga describes as significant, tends to center on the argument that agents set their own value. He responds that the market, not the agent, determines what consumers will pay. He isn’t telling agents what they’re worth – he’s offering consumers a choice.
That choice is the mechanism. If enough sellers opt for lower-cost models and report satisfactory outcomes, pressure on traditional commission rates will compound. If those models fail to deliver, the traditional structure will hold.
A Cheaper Way to Sell
The gap between what consumers pay and what a home sale actually requires has created room for alternative models to compete. Locqube, operating in New York and Connecticut, offers two selling paths: a full-service option at a 1.99% listing fee and a self-guided option for $900 that gives sellers access to MLS listing tools and AI-powered valuation – tools that were previously available only through a traditional agent relationship.
But the more revealing question is what sellers actually do with those tools. Pantiga notes that the feature drawing the most engagement is not the valuation or the equity calculator – it’s offer transparency. When a buyer submits an offer, sellers can see and interact with it directly on the platform. For many homeowners, that level of visibility into their own transaction is something they never had before.
The consumer case for lower-cost models is not purely about saving money. It’s about control. A seller managing a family estate from another state, for instance, can monitor showings, track competing listings, and evaluate offers in real time – without being physically present or dependent on an intermediary to relay information.
Whether models like this gain enough traction to move the national commission average remains uncertain. But the structural conditions – regulatory change, AI-driven cost reduction, and growing consumer awareness of alternatives – are more favorable now than in previous cycles of disruption.
About the Expert: Manuel Pantiga is the Co-Founder and CEO of Locqube, an AI-powered home-selling platform operating in New York and Connecticut. He had more than two decades of real estate experience before co-founding the company.
This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice. The views and opinions expressed herein reflect those of the individuals quoted and do not represent an endorsement of any company, product, or service mentioned. Readers should conduct their own due diligence and consult qualified professionals before making any investment decisions.
