The paper makes the argument. This page answers the next question: who is on each side of the transaction, where the money moves, what the platform earns, and what it deliberately does not do. It is written for someone who has read the paper and wants the operating detail underneath it.
This work began in 2018 as BlockPark Technologies, building real estate infrastructure on Hyperledger Fabric for enterprise clients. The platform was renamed BTCglobal in 2026. The name changed for reach; the problem never did.
What came out of those years is not a whitepaper. It is working software. The property operating layer ran live on a real eight unit apartment building, with occupants linking their own bank accounts and paying rent online through Plaid and Dwolla, and with the full rent roll, operating statements, work orders and governance history kept in one place. It was shut down because running it was expensive, not because it failed.
That distinction matters more than anything else on this page. Most projects in this category have a document and a roadmap. The gap here is a specific, bounded engineering job on the onchain layer, not a research question about whether the thing can be built.
Conventional real estate sets these parties against each other. The owner wants a higher price, the buyer a lower one, the landlord more rent, the tenant less. The reason this system holds together is that all four are paid in the same carrier, so an action that helps one does not have to come out of another.
Release part of a property and keep the rest, rather than facing the all or nothing choice the asset currently forces. A homeowner can release half, stay on as the occupant of their own home at a lower monthly cost than their mortgage payment, and put the proceeds to work across other properties.
The lump sum is what excludes people, and the lump sum exists only because the asset cannot be bought in pieces. Buyers hold fractions of many properties rather than all of one, can exit into a live order book instead of a six month sale process, and receive pro rata rewards from the net revenue of each property they hold.
Occupants who pay by the first accrue three percent of that month's rent in PROP. A late payment forfeits that share to the property's own wallet, so the building is funded either way. Accrued PROP can be applied against future rent or converted toward ownership.
One percent of gross rent accrues to a wallet belonging to the property, alongside any forfeited occupant rewards. The property's own holders govern how that balance is deployed through an onchain vote, in the same way any owner sets spending limits for a property manager.
Roughly 86 million US homeowner households and 45 million renter households sit on one side or the other of this diagram before any international market is considered. The point of the four party framing is not the size of the market. It is that no party's gain is funded by another party's loss, which is what makes the loop stable rather than extractive.
The mechanism works on any property. The evidence does not. A rental arrives with a signed lease and a payment history that predates us, so the rent is a fact a buyer can check and it was set by the market rather than by the seller. An owner-occupied home arrives with none of that: the rent starts the day the deal closes, and the person who will pay it is the person who picks the number. One externally set variable against two seller-set ones.
So the first market is income-producing property, residential and commercial. Owner-occupied is where the two trillion actually sits, and it is reached second, once the operating record has accumulated enough observed behaviour to underwrite a self-set rent against something other than the seller's own estimate. Running rentals first is what produces that data.
Every fractional real estate platform to date has been built for people who already have capital. The renter has been treated as an input to the model rather than a participant in it. That is the gap this system is pointed at, and it is the mechanism the paper commits to as a falsifiable prediction.
An occupant pays $2,000 a month and pays on time. Three percent of that accrues in PROP, so roughly $60 a month, or about $720 over a year.
After a year they can do one of two things with the balance. They can apply it against rent, which is a dollar equivalent reduction in what they owe. Or they can convert it toward property tokens on the marketplace, at which point they hold a position in an income producing asset and receive pro rata rewards from that property's net revenue alongside every other holder.
Neither path required a down payment, a mortgage, or a credit decision. The capital came from a payment they were making anyway.
What the occupant receives depends entirely on the clearing yield of the property they buy into and on how that property performs. It is not a fixed rate, it is not promised, and it is not a substitute for saving. The claim being made here is narrow: that a payment which currently produces nothing for the person making it can be made to produce something.
The building benefits from the same mechanism, which is why it is not charity. An occupant with an accruing balance has a direct financial reason to pay by the first, and arrears are the single largest controllable drag on the net revenue of a rental property. The prediction stated in the paper is that on time payment rates rise measurably where this is in place. Any rental operator can test that without us, and if it is false we want to know.
These are constantly conflated by people reading quickly, and the distinction is the whole legal and economic architecture. They are different instruments doing different jobs.
An ERC-3643 security token representing a membership interest in the entity that holds one specific property. It carries legal co-ownership, pro rata rewards from that property's net revenue, a governance vote on that property's decisions, and access to the operating data behind it. Governance is one wallet, one vote, so a large holder cannot outvote the building.
It is issued as a security, deliberately, under Regulation A Tier 2. That is covered further down.
An ERC-20 with a permanently fixed supply of one billion. It never inflates and it is never burned. It is the carrier that moves value between the four parties: occupant accrual, property wallets, buyer discounts for active stakers, and the reward stream from net revenue.
PROP is not an ownership claim on BTCglobal, and it is not a share of the company. Twenty percent of net platform profit is used to purchase PROP on the open market for the ecosystem credit pool, which is a use of company revenue rather than a transfer of company equity.
| Property token | PROP | |
|---|---|---|
| Standard | ERC-3643, one master contract, one partition per property | ERC-20 |
| Supply | Set per property by the size of the raise | 1,000,000,000, fixed permanently |
| What it is | A membership interest in the entity holding one specific property | The carrier that moves value between the four parties |
| Rewards | Pro rata from that property's net revenue only, never pooled across properties | Ecosystem credits for active stakers, sourced from company revenue |
| Governance | One wallet one vote, binding on the LLC operating agreement | None today. An advisory council is pending counsel review |
| Legal posture | Issued as a security under Regulation A Tier 2, open to the general public | Not an ownership claim on BTCglobal and not a share of the company |
Rewards at the property level and ecosystem credits at the platform level are separate systems with separate sources. Property rewards come from the net revenue of that property and reach only that property's holders. Ecosystem credits come from BTCglobal's own company revenue and reach active stakers. Neither one subsidises the other, and the accounting is kept apart deliberately so that a weak property cannot be papered over with platform money.
This is the part a capital partner turns to first, so it is stated plainly. Platform revenue is entirely separate from what holders receive at the property level. The two never draw on the same pool.
| Stream | Rate | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Marketplace fee | 2% | Charged on transactions in the secondary market. Unlike a brokerage commission earned once every seven to ten years when a whole building changes hands, this is earned each time a position moves, and it is borne by the seller in the ordinary way of a closing cost. |
| Property management | 4% / 2% | Four percent of rent collected on properties BTCglobal sources and operates. Two percent for institutional portfolios that bring their existing assets onto the platform and want the operating layer rather than the origination. |
| Minting | ~1% | Charged once when a property is onboarded and its partition is issued. Scales with onboarding velocity rather than with market activity. |
| Financing | Spread | The senior and subordinate tranche structure described in the paper. BTCglobal earns the spread between the cost of the facility and the clearing yields the two tranches are satisfied at. This is the largest of the four at scale and the one the paper treats in detail. |
Illustrative scale, not a projection: across 100 properties carrying $10M of annual rent, management fees alone produce $400,000 a year, and 50,000 secondary transactions at a $1,000 average produce $1,000,000 at the 2% rate. Whether that transaction count is realistic is a function of liquidity, which is precisely the variable this whole system is built to change and precisely the variable that has never been observed for real estate. We would rather state the sensitivity than pretend to a forecast.
A venue is only trustworthy if the operator's own interests are fenced off from it in writing. These are commitments in the exchange rulebook, not aspirations, and several of them cost us revenue on purpose.
Between five and twenty percent of net platform profit is allocated to systematic Bitcoin accumulation, scaled to profitability, on a dollar cost averaging basis. It is held on the BTCglobal corporate balance sheet and is entirely separate from the property entities and from the PROP economy. No property's rewards depend on it and no holder's position is exposed to it.
The reasoning is narrow. A company whose revenue is denominated in rent is long a nominal income stream, and a treasury held entirely in cash is short the same inflation that makes the rent rise. Bitcoin is the reserve position taken against that, on the company's own account, at the company's own risk.
It is not a product feature, it is not marketed to holders as a reason to participate, and it is not a claim that anyone else should do the same.
Transaction costs low enough that a ten dollar position is not consumed by fees, an EVM environment with mature tooling, the institutional posture that comes with Coinbase's involvement, and existing liquidity infrastructure. For an asset class whose entire premise is a low entry price, the cost per transaction is not a detail, it is the product.
One master ERC-3643 contract qualified under Regulation A Tier 2, with each property added as a partition by disclosure supplement. Tier 2 raises up to $75M in any twelve months, is open to the general public, preempts state registration, and carries ongoing reporting. A structure whose legal status is an argument cannot be institutionally adopted, however good the argument is.
This is a change of position from earlier versions of this project, which argued that the tokens were non securities on the strength of genuine DAO governance. That argument is still sound and the governance is still real and still binding. It was set aside because being right is worth less than being unambiguous when the counterparty is an institution with a compliance department.
Twenty five years in real estate and lending. Licensed broker, California and Arizona residential and nationwide commercial, NMLS 286633, broker licence 01873353. Active loan origination. Founder of Shooploop Inc. Operated the BDR Cascadia portfolio at 90 percent rent collection and 95 percent occupancy. Co-founder of BlockPark Technologies from 2018.
The origination side of this business is not a projection. It is the work he already does.
Co-founder and CPTO at BlockPark Technologies, where he built real estate blockchain infrastructure on Hyperledger Fabric for enterprise clients. Fifteen years building SaaS and AI platforms across four CTO and CPO roles. Lecturer at MIT Executive Education on AI security and policy. Leads contract architecture and platform infrastructure.
The team is deliberately small and the onchain rebuild is deliberately outsourced to an audited specialist rather than written in house. That is stated on the homepage alongside everything else that does not yet exist.