Asset tokenization represents one of the most disruptive innovations in digital law and the contemporary financial market. Driven by blockchain technology, this practice allows assets—such as real estate or property rights—to be transformed into digital units of value called tokens. However, when applied to the Brazilian real estate market, this innovation requires extra caution: it is a highly regulated sector with profound social, economic, and legal implications.
Certainly, tokenization is innovation. But innovation cannot be tied to practices that compromise trust in a market as consolidated as real estate. As Professor Dr. Sérgio Jacomino aptly summarizes, it is necessary to avoid the "fetish of technology"—the illusion that every digital novelty is, in itself, an advance. Not all technology is evolution.
The stamp, for example, was an innovation in its time, as it conferred authenticity and document security. The same principle should guide the adoption of new technologies: ensuring clarity, legal security, and protection for the citizen.
In the case of tokens, principles such as immutability, visibility, accessibility, and transparency are fundamental. However, in Brazil, real estate ownership is not established through blockchain, but rather through registration in the property's title deed.
Any attempt to create parallel, decentralized, and unofficial systems—such as those proposed by some platforms—generates confusion, not clarity. Worse still, it can constitute a crime against the consumer, by inducing the buyer to believe they possess a real right that, legally, does not exist.
In this regard, in August 2025, the Federal Council of Real Estate Brokers (COFECI) published Resolution No. 1,551/25, seeking to regulate digital real estate transactions and establish its own tokenization system. This initiative, while well-intentioned, exceeded legal limits. COFECI, as a professional regulatory body, does not have the authority to legislate on public registries or securities—matters that fall under the jurisdiction of notaries, the National Council of Justice (CNJ), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM), respectively.
The Resolution was challenged in court by the National Operator of the Electronic Real Estate Registry System (ONR), which pointed out several irregularities, such as the absence of measures to prevent money laundering and the possibility of registration with any name and CPF (Brazilian taxpayer ID), without verifiable links. The proposed model, by allowing the splitting of properties without registration backing, opens loopholes for asset concealment and tax evasion — practices that contradict the National Strategy to Combat Money Laundering (ENCLA).
The Judiciary, aware of these risks, suspended the effects of the Resolution, recognizing COFECI's lack of competence to address the issue. The decision reinforces that real estate innovation requires time to mature and should occur with the protagonism of the land registry, which already offers a structured, reliable system with broad national reach, demonstrating that the imperative of legal certainty should prevail.
Therefore, asset tokenization, especially in the real estate sector, needs to encompass three dimensions: real estate, registration, and digital. It's not just a bilateral relationship between buyer and seller, but a multilateral one involving the State, the Judiciary, the financial system, and society. Real estate has social implications: it's linked to municipal public policies, liens, asset freezes, and credit guarantees. It guarantees rights and imposes duties. Therefore, any innovation must preserve the uniqueness of the property registration, the traceability of transactions, and the enforceability of rights.
The proposal to tokenize real estate without proper official registration not only violates the Civil Code and the Public Registry Law, but also threatens the legal security of the entire ecosystem. Transparency and visibility—so highly praised in blockchain technology—will only have value if they are integrated into the Brazilian registration system, and not supersede it. Therefore, what we have seen being offered in Brazil so far are merely models based on a promise, which is accompanied by high risks associated with deregulation.
Tokenization can indeed be a lever to democratize real estate investment, allow for greater liquidity, and attract capital. But for this to happen, it needs to be anchored in solid legal foundations. The challenge is not technological—it's institutional. And the answer lies in building a model that respects the legal framework, combats illicit practices, and preserves trust in the system.
Brazil has the potential to lead real estate tokenization in a safe and efficient way. But this requires clear regulation, built with the participation of all sector actors: notaries, the CVM (Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission), ONR (National Registry Organization), the Judiciary, the market, and civil society. Innovation must be regulated, not improvised. It must broaden access, not generate insecurity. It must facilitate, not confuse. All of this contributes to paving the way for responsible and sustainable innovation.
Any initiative contrary to this brings great harm to Brazil and the Brazilian people. After all, innovation without security is merely legal trickery.
Patricia Peck holds a PhD. A lawyer, she graduated and received her doctorate from USP (University of São Paulo), specializing in Digital Law with 25 years of experience. She is a full member of the National Cybersecurity Committee (CNCiber) and the Data Protection Commission of the National Council of Justice (CNJ). She is the CEO and founding partner of Peck Advogados. She is the President of the Peck Institute for Digital Citizenship (IPCD), Head of Public Policy at the Norberto Bobbio Institute (INB), a guest professor at ESPM, and the author of 55 works on Law and Technology.
