What Most Real Estate Tokenization Projects Still Need to Solve

That became obvious during a recent Blocksquare X Space hosted alongside Oceanpoint, where some of the most recognized builders in the real world asset sector gathered for a surprisingly honest discussion about the actual state of tokenized real estate.

The panel included:

• Denis Petrovcic, CEO of Blocksquare
• Kevin Goos, CEO of Propbase
• Michael Bar-Zeev, Co-founder of Shift
• Claus Skaaning, CEO of DigiShares
• Jens Bezuidenhout, CEO of Landhive
• Moderated by Mark Mariampillai, CEO of Tokuti

And unlike many crypto conversations, this one wasn’t focused on price action, hype cycles, or speculative narratives.

Instead, the discussion centered on one uncomfortable but necessary question:

What still needs to be solved before real estate tokenization actually becomes mainstream?

The answers revealed an industry that has progressed much further technically than most outsiders realize, but one that still faces major challenges around trust, distribution, liquidity, legal enforceability, and investor behavior.

The Industry Has Moved Beyond the “Can This Work?” Stage

At the beginning of the X Space, moderator Mark Mariampillai immediately framed the conversation differently than most tokenization discussions.

That sentence matters.

Because five years ago, most conversations around tokenized real estate sounded theoretical. Projects were still trying to prove blockchain had any meaningful use case in property markets.

Today, that debate is largely over. Real assets have already been tokenized. Platforms are operational. Properties are on-chain. Investors are participating.

According to Denis Petrovcic, Blocksquare alone has tokenized roughly $200 million worth of real estate assets and deployed marketplaces for more than 20 businesses globally.

Kevin Goos explained that Propbase already has multiple live tokenized real estate products in Southeast Asia and was preparing to launch its seventh asset offering.

This is no longer theory. The infrastructure exists. Which means the conversation is naturally shifting toward the harder problems.

“We Solved Most of the Problems… Except Distribution”

One of the strongest insights came from Claus Skaaning, CEO of DigiShares.

That statement cuts through years of marketing noise.

Because most tokenization projects spent enormous effort solving technical problems:

• smart contracts

• compliance systems

• issuance frameworks

• custody

• wallet integrations

• legal wrappers

• marketplace infrastructure

But infrastructure alone does not create adoption. And it definitely doesn’t solve investor acquisition.

Skaaning argued that issuers still are not sufficiently connected to major investor distribution channels, wealth managers, broker-dealers, and institutional capital pipelines.

That’s a much harder challenge than building blockchain rails. Technology scales quickly. Trust networks don’t.

Liquidity Is Still More Narrative Than Reality

For years, liquidity became one of tokenization’s biggest selling points.

The promise sounded revolutionary:

Take illiquid real estate and make it trade instantly like crypto.

But the panel pushed back heavily on that narrative.

When asked directly whether liquidity is currently “more of a narrative than a reality,” Claus Skaaning answered bluntly:

“Yes, it is.”

That honesty matters. Because real estate itself is not naturally a high-frequency trading asset. People buy property differently than they buy meme coins.

Kevin Goos from Propbase added a more nuanced perspective:

That may ultimately become the real value proposition of tokenized real estate.

Not infinite liquidity. But improved liquidity. Faster exits. Lower friction. Partial ownership transfers. Secondary access.

That’s still a major improvement over traditional property markets where capital can remain locked up for years.

The panel also acknowledged that most secondary trading infrastructure for tokenized securities remains extremely limited today.

And importantly, several panelists suggested that future liquidity may not come from specialized tokenization exchanges alone.

It may eventually come from larger global exchanges integrating real world assets directly into broader digital markets.

The Bigger Problem Is Trust

As the discussion evolved, one issue repeatedly surfaced above all others:

Investor trust. Not trust in blockchain. Trust in the actual underlying asset.

Denis Petrovcic emphasized that tokenized real estate still suffers from inconsistent transparency, valuation systems, and pricing standards.

That creates a huge challenge. How does an investor in Singapore confidently evaluate a property in London?

How does someone compare yields between Dubai, Switzerland, Southeast Asia, or the UK?

How do retail investors verify pricing accuracy?

Petrovcic argued that the market still lacks robust valuation oracles and standardized pricing systems capable of creating broad investor confidence.

Without trusted data infrastructure, retail adoption remains difficult. And Jens Bezuidenhout from Landhive expanded on that point even further.

That statement might be one of the most important insights from the entire conversation.

Because tokenization creates access.

But access alone does not create confidence.

Investors still need to trust:

• the asset
• the legal structure
• the valuation
• the cash flow
• the developer
• the jurisdiction
• the enforceability

As Jens explained:

That’s the real shift happening in the market right now. The industry is slowly moving away from speculative narratives and back toward fundamentals.

The Industry Is Entering Its “Fundamentals Era”

One of the clearest themes throughout the X Space was that investors are becoming more sophisticated. During previous crypto cycles, investors often chased unrealistic yields and speculative opportunities. Now they’re asking harder questions.

Jens Bezuidenhout described this shift clearly:

That’s a fundamentally different investor mindset.

And real estate is uniquely positioned to benefit from that change because unlike many crypto-native assets, property produces real-world cash flow.

Rental income.

Occupancy.

Operating performance.

Collateral value.

Tangible utility.

The panel repeatedly emphasized that stabilized income-producing assets are much easier for investors to understand than speculative developments.

At the same time, the discussion acknowledged that speculative development itself is not necessarily bad.

Kevin Goos pointed out that pre-construction real estate has always attracted investors, particularly in regions like Dubai and Southeast Asia.

But there’s a critical distinction between:

• properly vetted development opportunities

and

• poorly structured speculative hype disguised as investment products

That difference may ultimately define which tokenization projects survive long term.

Michael Bar-Zeev and the Bigger Blockchain Question

One of the most forward-looking parts of the discussion came from Michael Bar-Zeev, Co-founder of Shift.

While many projects focus on tokenizing existing financial structures, Michael challenged whether the industry is truly transforming finance or simply recreating traditional systems with blockchain layers attached.

In his view, many projects today are still operating in an early transitional phase.

SPVs. Custodians. Wrappers. Legal intermediaries. Traditional ownership structures. Blockchain often sits on top of the old system instead of replacing it.

Michael argued that the real breakthrough happens when ownership infrastructure itself becomes blockchain-native.

That’s a completely different vision for where the industry could eventually go.

Instead of tokenizing wrappers around real estate, entire land registries and ownership systems themselves could move on-chain.

Michael pointed to developments in the UAE, where blockchain integration into property title systems is already being explored.

That distinction matters enormously.

Because there’s a big difference between:

• digitizing traditional finance

and

• rebuilding financial infrastructure from the ground up

And right now, the industry may still be somewhere in the middle.

Why Legal Enforceability May Decide the Winners

Another major topic throughout the discussion was enforceability.

This may sound less exciting than liquidity narratives or blockchain innovation, but it’s probably far more important.

Denis Petrovcic explained that Blocksquare focused heavily on building legal frameworks where token holders have enforceable economic rights tied directly to underlying assets.

Why?

Because when investments fail, investors need legal clarity.

They need to understand:

• what rights they actually hold
• how defaults are handled
• what claims exist against the asset
• how disputes are resolved

Petrovcic made one particularly powerful point:

That’s the kind of thinking institutional investors care about.

Not hype. Not token branding. Not speculative marketing. Survivability. Enforceability. Legal certainty.

Real Estate Tokenization May Finally Be Growing Up

Toward the end of the conversation, Claus Skaaning delivered a comment that captured the mood of the entire discussion.

That line felt significant.

Because for years, real world assets existed in the background while speculative crypto narratives dominated headlines.

Now the market is changing. Investors are becoming more disciplined. Governments are experimenting with blockchain infrastructure. Institutions are paying attention. And the industry conversation itself is becoming more mature.

Less hype. More substance. Less speculation. More fundamentals.

The winners in the next phase of tokenization likely won’t be the loudest projects.

They’ll be the companies that solve the difficult problems nobody can market their way around:

• trust

• enforceability

• distribution

• transparency

• valuation

• sustainable liquidity

Because ultimately, tokenization is not just about putting assets on-chain.

It’s about creating ownership systems investors actually believe in.