Real-estate tokenization: what changes for the owner

Start with a hypothetical. On a Tuesday night, a doctor in Salvador puts R$ 5,000 into tokens of a beach resort, straight from her phone. At Sunday lunch she tells the family she now owns a piece of the hotel. At the registry office, the property record has not changed by a single line.

The Brazilian Civil Code explains why. Under Article 1,245, title to real property changes hands only when the deed is registered at the Real Estate Registry; until then, the seller remains the owner. And Law 14,478, of 21 December 2022, defined virtual assets while expressly leaving digital representations of securities outside the definition. Together, those two rules mark out what real estate tokenization can do in Brazil.

The token moves. The title stays put. Between the two sits a contract, and that is where the value of the investment lives. So anyone structuring a high-end asset decides first which right the token stands for. That choice determines the regulator, the fundraising ceiling, who may invest and how much liquidity really exists.

A token is not a deed: ownership still lives at the registry

The same code, as a rule, requires a public deed to transfer property worth more than thirty minimum wages, and none of these formalities disappears because a transaction was written to a distributed ledger. The architecture that works keeps the layers apart. The property goes into a special purpose company, with the title in that company's name. What circulates digitally are rights over the company: quotas, a share of profits, a slice of rental revenue.

The consequence shows up in governance. Whoever runs the company runs the asset, and the token holder depends on the corporate documents to exercise what he paid for. That is why the articles, the distribution rules and the exit scenarios matter more than the choice of network. Technology says who holds the right. The contract says what that right is.

If the return comes from someone else's work, the CVM regulates it

Brazil's capital markets statute, from 1976, contains in Article 2, item IX, the clause that settles classification. When offered to the public, any collective investment contract whose returns come from the efforts of the promoter or of third parties is a security. A token that pays out part of the rent on an asset managed by someone else fits that description without strain.

The CVM's Guidance Opinion 40, of 11 October 2022, sorts tokens into three families: payment, utility and asset-referenced. Real estate tokens usually land in the third, which may or may not be a security, depending on the economic substance of the rights handed to the holder. Being issued on a distributed ledger, the opinion states, is irrelevant to that classification.

Tokenization as such needs no prior approval or registration with the CVM. Once securities are issued for public distribution, however, issuer and offering fall under the applicable rules. Digitizing a right is free. Offering it to the public is a regulated activity.

118

Crowdfunding rules draw the frame of the offering

For mid-sized developments, the most studied route is CVM Resolution 88, of 2022. It exempts from registration offerings by small companies made through an electronic investment crowdfunding platform. The consolidated text, amended in 2022 and 2025, sets the frame:

• issuer gross annual revenue of up to R$ 40 million, or up to R$ 80 million for the group under common control;
• up to R$ 15 million raised per issuer in the calendar year, with a raising period of up to 180 days;
• up to R$ 20,000 a year per retail investor, or 10% of the larger of gross income and investments for those above R$ 200,000; no cap for qualified investors;
• a prior audit by a CVM-registered auditor if the target amount, or the prior year's gross revenue, exceeds R$ 10 million.

The rule also bars using the proceeds to buy minority stakes in other companies or to extend credit to other businesses. And it requires book-entry or holder-registry control, which can live on a distributed ledger as long as it is reliable.

These figures are product decisions. A R$ 50 million asset that wants to tokenize half its value in one go does not fit this regime, because R$ 25 million exceeds the annual cap. A project that leans on retail money has to count how many tickets of up to R$ 20,000 the offering can hold. The simulator that accompanies this article does that division.

Secondary liquidity is built, not promised

The most repeated argument for tokenization is liquidity. The CVM rule shows how far it goes. The platform may broker resales between investors if the issuer consents by contract, but it may not run a centralized system with price formation, nor use terms such as "exchange" or "secondary market". And it must tell investors that no regulated secondary market exists for those securities.

Outside the world of securities, Brazil's Central Bank presented in November 2025 its rules for virtual asset service providers, in force since 2 February 2026. Anyone brokering or holding crypto assets for clients now needs authorization and anti-money laundering controls. Because the 2022 law does not reach securities and leaves the CVM's powers untouched, it is the nature of the token that tells you where it can trade.

A serious project describes liquidity as it is: trading windows, resale lock-ups and the real chance that an investor holds the token until the exit set out in the contract. Promising more than that creates a disclosure risk that no technology fixes.

Economic rights and use rights run on separate tracks

In high-end developments, the curation of who uses the place is part of the price. Whoever buys a revenue-referenced token buys an economic flow. He does not buy access to the club, the private beach or the common areas, which follow the admission rules, the condominium charter and the use agreements.

To split use, Brazilian law already has its own instrument. Article 1,358-C of the Civil Code, added in 2018, defines multi-ownership: each owner holds a fraction of time and enjoys the whole property, exclusively, in alternating periods. Blending it with an investment token confuses two regimes and two audiences. Keeping them apart lets a project raise capital without diluting the curation that justifies its value.

Keys, data and the source of funds need their own governance

The CVM opinion asks the offering to explain who controls the private key, how protocol governance works, whether the network is public or private and how data will be handled. Losing the key can mean losing access to the right. A bug in the smart contract can pay out the wrong amounts without anyone making a manual mistake.

Brazil's General Data Protection Law adds a tension. Article 18 lets data subjects correct inaccurate data and have consent-based data deleted, subject to legal exceptions. Since an immutable ledger sits badly with that, the prudent architecture keeps identity off-chain. The Central Bank itself, in the note updating the Drex pilot, recorded that the privacy solutions tested had not shown the maturity to guarantee every legal data protection requirement.

Law 9,613, of 1998, completes the picture. It requires those who buy and sell property and, since 2022, virtual asset service providers to identify clients and keep records. In practice, that calls for identity checks before subscription, monitoring of transfers and a rule in the smart contract that blocks wallets that have not been cleared.

Worked example: a R$ 9 million offering on an income-producing asset

The figures below are InnovaSphere hypotheses, neither market data nor a return forecast. A company that owns an income-producing asset valued at R$ 50 million, with gross revenue below R$ 10 million a year, issues tokens equal to 18% of its economic rights through the crowdfunding route. Because the offering is primary, the R$ 9 million stays in the company's cash and funds an upgrade of the asset; to stay conservative, the table attributes no extra return to it. Figures are annual, before tax and without compounding, and the full cost of the structure falls on the holders.

The table shows three effects. The first is eligibility: R$ 9 million sits below the annual cap and below the prior-audit threshold, and the investor base respects the individual limits. The second is scale. With 18% tokenized, the holder's yield drops from 7% to 3.7%; at 30%, it rises to 5.0%, because the fixed cost gets diluted. That larger version, though, uses up the entire annual cap and requires an audit before it starts.

The third is stress. If the asset's income falls from 7% to 5%, the distribution slumps to 1.7%. At 3.3%, the cost of the structure eats everything. Demand does not cover fixed costs. Income does.

To tokenize is to digitize a right. The value of the project lies in the quality of that right and in the cost of keeping it alive.

When it does not pay off

There are three situations in which tokenization tends to consume value rather than create it.

• A small fraction carrying a high fixed cost. Audit, registrar and platform cost roughly the same for R$ 5 million as for R$ 15 million. If income does not absorb that cost comfortably, conventional financing or an Investida among a few qualified investors tends to be more efficient.
• An asset without its own income, or with irregular title. A pending title, liens or uncertain revenue pass to hundreds of investors, and the cost of fixing them multiplies.
• A liquidity promise the regime cannot keep. If the plan depends on exits at any time without a regulated secondary market, frustration is built in. Design a contractual exit or change the instrument.

Checklist before tokenizing an asset

1. Define which right the token represents (quota, revenue or profit share) and record it in the company's documents.
2. Confirm that the title is in the vehicle's name and free of liens that could impair income.
3. Classify the token under the CVM opinion's taxonomy and choose the offering regime.
4. Calculate the average ticket and investor count against the limits of R$ 20,000 per person and R$ 15 million a year.
5. Require an independent smart contract audit and a written policy on key custody and recovery.
6. Keep personal data off-chain and document how correction and deletion requests will be handled.
7. Put onboarding, source-of-funds controls and suspicious-transaction reporting in place before the first subscription.

Two group companies work alongside these structures. InnConta, which brings everything outside a company's core into a single account, follows the vehicle's recurring contracts and costs. Valida Auditoria carries out independent technical validation of assumptions and documents; the audit of the financial statements belongs to a CVM-registered auditor.

Frequently asked questions

Does buying a real estate token make me an owner of the property?

No. Title passes only through registration at the Real Estate Registry. The token represents rights over the company that holds the property, or over its revenue.

Is every real estate token a security?

Not necessarily. It depends on the economic substance of the rights. If it promises returns generated by the work of others and is offered to the public, it comes close to the collective investment contract of the 1976 statute.

How much can a retail investor put into crowdfunding offerings?

Up to R$ 20,000 a year across all offerings under this regime. With gross income or investments above R$ 200,000, up to 10% of the larger of the two. Qualified investors have no limit.

Does the token guarantee I can sell whenever I want?

No. Liquidity depends on the authorized venue and on the contract. In crowdfunding offerings, the platform states that there is no regulated secondary market, although it may broker resales with the issuer's consent.

Does recording on a blockchain solve anti-money laundering?

No. It helps with tracing, but client identification, source-of-funds controls and suspicious-transaction reporting remain mandatory, both in real estate and at virtual asset service providers.

Legal basis

• Civil Code (Law 10,406/2002): Articles 108, 1,227, 1,245 and 1,358-C.
• Law 6,385/1976: Article 2, item IX.
• Law 14,478/2022: Articles 1 and 3.
• CVM Resolution 88/2022, consolidated text.
• CVM Guidance Opinion 40/2022.
• Law 13,709/2018 (LGPD): Articles 16 and 18.
• Law 9,613/1998: Articles 9 and 10.
• Central Bank Resolution 382 (Drex pilot).