Introduction
The concept of tokenizing real estate has long promised to unlock global access to one of the world’s largest and least liquid asset classes. By representing property rights on blockchain as digital tokens, it becomes theoretically possible to split buildings into small, tradable fractions that can be bought and sold as easily as shares.
In the early years, much of this discussion remained speculative. Legal barriers, regulatory uncertainty, and the conservative nature of real estate slowed real adoption. However, over the past three to four years, actual projects have emerged around the world. Today, we see several providers with live portfolios, platforms, and technical infrastructures that are actively being tested by investors and operators.
This blogpost takes a neutral look at six prominent players in the space. To ensure objectivity, they are anonymized here as Party A through Party F. Together they illustrate the variety of approaches, from retail marketplaces to institutional brokerages and infrastructure enablers. By comparing their cases, we can start to see the patterns that will shape the future of tokenized real estate. We have explicitly chosen to anonymize names of the respective companies presented to prevent familiarity with or preferences for certain parties from distracting from the content and thus positively or negatively impacting the transfer of insights. FIBREE strives for maximum neutrality in this case, not only with regard to the various players described, but also with regard to undescribed parties, hundreds of which could also serve as excellent examples for a blog post on this topic in their own right.
This blogpost is part of the FIBREE global blogpost series as a runner up to the online webinar on October 16th in which FIBRREE presents the 2025-results of their annual product database survey: ‘The State of blockchain in Real Estate’ (Click here to register for this free online event).
Six Different Archetypes
Although they all operate in the same general space, these providers have very different business models and market positions.
- Party A represents the retail-first approach, selling direct fractional ownership in residential properties, usually down to small ticket sizes.
- Party B is another retail-focused player, but with a more Web3-native community model, positioning property tokens almost like crypto assets that can be traded on-chain.
- Party C takes the role of an infrastructure enabler, offering white-label tokenization technology to local operators and connecting tokens to existing property registries.
- Party D also acts as infrastructure SaaS, but with a strong emphasis on turnkey compliance and secondary trading integrations.
- Party E resembles a real estate brokerage, using security token offerings under existing exemptions to target institutional and professional investors in commercial real estate.
- Party F blends elements of marketplace and tokenization services, aiming to build curated portfolios of Real Estate and luxury assets primarily for institutional clients.
These archetypes show that tokenization is not one uniform business model but a family of experiments around a common technological theme.
| Provider | Business Model | Target Market | Token Offering Format | Asset Transparency | Liquidity Options | Distinctive Aspect |
| Party A | Retail direct ownership | Global retail | ERC-20 property tokens per asset | High granularity (docs, rent rolls) | Limited internal liquidity | Focused on residential portfolios |
| Party B | Web3 retail marketplace | Crypto-native retail | Utility-like tokens on L1 blockchain | Limited disclosure | Exchange-style liquidity push | Strong community orientation |
| Party C | Infrastructure / SaaS | Institutional + retail (via clients) | White-label security tokens | High – linked to registries & legal compliance | Secondary markets via partners | Ecosystem of local marketplace operators |
| Party D | Infrastructure SaaS | Institutional + retail (via clients) | Security tokens on compliant chains | Flexible, client-driven | Secondary trading integrations | Turnkey SaaS model |
| Party E | Institutional brokerage | Professional CRE investors | Reg D/Reg S security tokens | Strong disclosure | Private placements, limited liquidity | Commercial real estate syndication |
| Party F | Marketplace + Token | Institutional focus | Security tokens via partnerships | Medium – investor packs | Secondary trading envisioned | Targeting Real Estate & luxury assets |
Deep-Dive: Archetype Insights
Party A – Retail Granularity
This model shows that detailed transparency can win investor trust. However, challenges include regulatory scrutiny and limited secondary trading, meaning assets may remain illiquid despite being fractionalized.
Party B – Community Experiment
By approaching property tokens like crypto assets, Party B energizes a young Web3 audience. Yet the lack of documentation and compliance could prove a long-term barrier to institutional acceptance.
Party C – Compliance Infrastructure
By anchoring tokens in registries, Party C shows how blockchain records can carry legal weight. This requires slower scaling but builds a foundation for institutional trust.
Party D – SaaS Flexibility
With a turnkey solution, Party D makes it easy for smaller operators to issue their own security tokens. The trade-off: less control over the investor base and reliance on client quality.
Party E – Institutional Syndication
Party E demonstrates that traditional commercial real estate can be tokenized under existing securities exemptions. Liquidity is less a goal than efficient capital raising.
Party F – Lifestyle Positioning
Party F targets a niche of luxury and lifestyle assets. By framing tokenization as a gateway to exclusive deals, it appeals to wealthier investors but remains limited in scale.
Key Learnings from Recent Use Cases
1. Regulatory Anchoring
A recurring theme across the projects is the importance of legal enforceability. Party C, for example, has demonstrated that integration with national land registries can be achieved and provides significant trust advantages. Party D has focused on building compliance layers into its SaaS platform, ensuring issuers can remain within securities regulation. In contrast, Party A and Party B have achieved rapid retail adoption without always securing strong regulatory alignment, creating long-term questions about investor protection.
2. Transparency Trade-offs
Party A stands out for its granularity of disclosure, often publishing full rent rolls, property documents, and regular distribution reports. This appeals to small-ticket investors who need visibility. Party B, however, offers limited details, focusing instead on the excitement of Web3 communities. Party E and Party F cater to institutions, providing more formalized investor memoranda but less day-to-day detail. Party C and Party D leave much of the disclosure to their B2B clients, ensuring flexibility.
3. Liquidity: The Elusive Promise
While liquidity is often highlighted as the core benefit of tokenization, the reality is more modest. Party B is the most aggressive in seeking exchange-like liquidity, but volumes remain low. Party A provides internal swap functionality but with limited uptake. Party C and Party D integrate compliant secondary modules, yet trading activity is thin. Party E remains focused on private placements, with liquidity as an afterthought. This suggests that tokenization enables transferability but does not by itself generate active markets.
4. Scaling Pathways
Parties A and B try to scale by acquiring retail investors directly, but this involves high marketing and compliance costs. Party E and Party F scale through large institutional deals but depend heavily on pipeline. Parties C and D use a B2B2C model, onboarding operators who already control real estate portfolios. This provides indirect retail reach without costly direct acquisition.
Emerging Industry Patterns
Across all six parties, four larger patterns emerge:
- Target Markets are Diverging. Retail-oriented projects focus on accessibility and small tickets; institutional projects focus on compliance and scale.
- Transparency is Uneven. Some projects disclose every detail, others provide only marketing-level information. This impacts investor trust.
- Liquidity is Still Aspirational. While tokenization enables digital transferability, actual secondary trading remains small across the board.
- Business Models Reflect Ecosystem Position. Infrastructure players (Party C, Party D) are positioned as enablers; retail platforms (Party A, Party B) are vulnerable to sentiment; institutional brokers (Party E, Party F) depend on pipelines.
What the Market Can Learn
From these cases, four strategic lessons stand out:
- Tokenization alone is not enough. Legal, compliance, and investor protection frameworks are as critical as the technology itself. Without anchoring in registries or regulated frameworks, tokens risk being mere parallel records.
- Distribution matters. Transparency and trust remain key to sustainable adoption. Retail-first approaches need strong marketing and low-friction onboarding, while institutional players must leverage existing networks. B2B2C models enable growth without high retail acquisition costs.
- Ecosystem roles are differentiating. Not every player needs to be a marketplace; infrastructure models may prove more sustainable long-term.
- Tokenization ≠ Liquidity. Creating a token is only the first step; robust secondary markets are still missing in most implementations. But it is anticipated upon, and the global landscape is evolving fast on this matter.
Real estate tokenization is now in its second wave. We no longer discuss potential but analyze actual deployments. The six archetypes reviewed here demonstrate a wide diversity of strategies — from retail democratization to institutional syndication to infrastructure enablement.
No single model has yet proven dominant. Instead, we see a plurality of pathways, each experimenting with how best to align blockchain technology with the realities of property law, regulation, and investor demand.
Looking ahead, the winners will likely be those who combine legal enforceability, investor trust, and scalable distribution.
Conclusion
The current landscape of real estate tokenization shows diverse strategic directions:
- Some aim for retail democratization of property ownership.
- Others target institutional trust and private placements.
- A third group builds infrastructure for others to operate.
No single model has emerged as dominant, but taken together, the six approaches demonstrate the plurality of pathways toward a more digital, accessible, and compliant real estate investment market.
The next period will test which archetypes can scale sustainably.
What is already clear: tokenization is here to stay, but its winning models will be shaped as much by regulation and trust as by technology.