Living on the block: how equitable is tokenized equity?
Open accessAbstract
Recently blockchain has become a tool for spatial coordination and appropriation. Globally, the tokenization of land and housing has led to new forms of datafication and increased financialization. In the case of land non-fungible tokens), security token offerings, and blockchain-based real estate investment trusts, blockchains act as exclusionary digital platforms, with new socio-technical assemblages emerging as complex predatory formations of speculation that are intentionally obfuscatory and difficult to regulate. With the security token offering, crowdfunding and venture capital are combined with cryptocurrency to create a “tokenized venture capital fund” tied to tangible assets, such as ownership rights in housing, real estate, or land. Distributed ledgers are proposed to be used as the digital technology underlying new forms of land/property documentation, ownership, and inhabitation – from conducting and recording land surveys and title creation to transference of land/property rights. This paper addresses the question: how equitable is tokenized equity – does it prioritize the right to the city for all or to all but a very few? This paper looks toward the means of contestation against extractive crypto-settlements, speculation, and housing financialization, critically comparing a range of proposed distributed ledger technology projects that claim to inject equity in the system, pose alternative housing economies, or leverage distributed ledgers for land rights and data sovereignty. I question the utility and limits of datafication and explore how engaging with digital technology – with or without distributed ledgers – can raise awareness and enact alternative forms of housing and land stewardship, from cooperativism to Community Land Trusts and to counter-hegemonic commoning practices.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The tokenization model raises concerns about the scope of collective choice because only those who own tokens can cast votes to determine implementation of structural, operational, or strategic changes.
“Yet, the tokenization model raises concerns about the scope of this collective choice arrangement, as only those who own tokens can cast votes to determine the implementation of a speci fi c structural, operational, or strategic change (Crandall, 2023).”
From Decentralizing governance: exploring the dynamics and challenges of digital commons and DAOs (2025) · cites this paper as Crandall, 2023
Cites
As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom through Radical Resistance
SIMPSON, L. B. (2017) · doi:10.5749/j.ctt1pwt77c · Cited by 2,010 · see citing works
Indigenous Data Governance: Strategies from United States Native Nations
Carroll, S. R., Rodriguez-Lonebear, D., & Martinez, A. (2019) · Data Science Journal · doi:10.5334/dsj-2019-031 · Cited by 264 · see citing works
Crandall, J. (2019) · Design and Culture · doi:10.1080/17547075.2019.1673989 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Self-citationBuilding a data revolution in Indian country
Rodriguez-Lonebear, D. (2016) · Indigenous Data Sovereignty · doi:10.22459/caepr38.11.2016.14 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Decentralizing governance: exploring the dynamics and challenges of digital commons and DAOs
Esposito, M., Tse, T., & Goh, D. (2025) · Frontiers in Blockchain · doi:10.3389/fbloc.2025.1538227 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
- Authors
- Crandall, J.
- Affiliations
- Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Crandall, Jillian
- ORCID
- Crandall, Jillian
- Venue
- Big Data & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2023-07
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 2053-9517 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4388133283
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5
- FWCI
- 4.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Big Data & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban Planning and Governance
- Keywords
- blockchain, non-fungible tokens, security token offerings, real estate investment trusts, financialization of housing, datafication, right to the city, distributed ledger technology, land rights, data sovereignty, community land trusts, commoning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review