Why Tokenization Failed the First Time
3 min read98 views
In 2021 and 2022, there was a wave of companies announcing that they were going to transform how commercial real estate ownership gets recorded and transferred. Some of them raised significant money. Most of them are gone now, or quietly pivoted into something else.
I watched this from inside the build. Hutfin had been working on its verification framework since 2019, before the wave crested, and we kept building through the period when everyone else was announcing new platforms. I have some observations about why the first wave failed that I don't think get said clearly enough.
The Technology Wasn't the Problem
This is the part that gets misread. The failure of most platforms from that era wasn't a technology failure. The infrastructure worked. The records were created. The transfers were processed.
The failure was a market failure. Specifically, it was a failure to understand that the commercial real estate market doesn't move because the technology is interesting. It moves because the economics are better than the alternative.
Most of those early projects were built by people who understood the technology and learned real estate secondhand. The pitch was "we're digitizing real estate ownership," as if the digitization itself was the value proposition. Brokers and buyers looked at that pitch and asked a reasonable question: compared to what? A wire transfer and a title company closes a deal in 30 days. Why would I add a new technology layer to a process that already works?
They weren't wrong to ask. The answer most of those companies gave wasn't convincing.
What the Hype Cycle Did to the Sector
The associative damage from the 2021 to 2022 speculation cycle is real and it's still being worked through. Platforms that were building legitimate property verification infrastructure got lumped in with speculative projects that had nothing to do with actual real estate workflows. When the cycle collapsed, it took credibility across the board.
We made a deliberate decision at Hutfin to lead with the CRE marketplace and position the verification layer as infrastructure, not the headline. READOT, our proprietary framework for property ownership records, is what makes the verification possible. But brokers don't need to know what READOT is to list a property. They need to know that verified ownership records make their listing more credible to buyers.
That's a different pitch than "we're digitizing your asset." One is technology theater. The other is a workflow improvement.
What Survives the First Wave
The projects that are still operating are the ones that solved a real problem in the workflow, not the ones that were most excited about the technology. Verified ownership records solve the title-search problem. Fractional ownership infrastructure solves the access problem. Verified escrow solves the trust problem in cross-border transactions.
Those are durable problems. The technology that addresses them durably is worth building. The technology that addresses them speculatively, building toward a future where the market magically adopts new infrastructure because the infrastructure exists, doesn't survive contact with the actual market.
We've been operational since before most of the 2021 platforms launched. We're still here because we were building for brokers and buyers, not for the technology cycle.
See the Hutfin platform at https://hutfin.com
Part 3 of this series: The 4-5% Premium Nobody Talks About https://hutfin.com/press/the-4-5-premium-nobody-talks-about
Part 2 of this series: What a Title Search Actually Costs https://hutfin.com/press/what-a-title-search-actually-costs
Part 1 of this series: The Listing That Never Reached the Market https://hutfin.substack.com/p/the-listing-that-never-reached-the-market
The Transparency Gap continues. Part 5: What Verified Records Actually Mean for a Broker. Series by Arun Ghosh, Founder & CEO, Hutfin Global Technologies Inc.