Cited by 22Housing, Finance, and NeoliberalismBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityUrban Planning and Governance

Living on the block: how equitable is tokenized equity?

Open access
Crandall, Jillian·2023·Big Data & Society

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1177/20539517231208455

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Crandall, J.
Affiliations
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Crandall, Jillian
Venue
Big Data & Society
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
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