Dubai vs Saudi Arabia: Tokenizing Real Estate Through Official Registries

This month of February 2026, Saudi Arabia just completed their first transfer of an on-chain Real Estate asset in the context of a tokenization pilot (source TradeArabia). As the world of RWA celebrates this first-of-a-kind achievement of a G20 economy putting their Real Estate registry on-chain, it is a good time for an updated snapshot of what is happening in the gulf. Especially in UAE and Saudi Arabia.

Dubai and Saudi Arabia are two of the most advanced jurisdictions experimenting with government-led real estate tokenization.

In both cases, tokenization is not driven by private crypto platforms but by public authorities integrating blockchain directly into official land registry systems.

This article breaks down how each country approaches real estate tokenization from a legal, operational, and technological standpoint, where they align, where they differ, and what this signals for the future of property ownership.

What is the legal framework for real estate tokenization in Dubai and Saudi Arabia?

In both Dubai and Saudi Arabia, real estate tokenization is legally possible because it is anchored in state-recognized land registries, not because tokens are treated as standalone crypto assets.

In Dubai, the legal framework is built around the Dubai Land Department, which remains the ultimate authority over property ownership. Tokenized real estate is issued under a regulated sandbox and supervised in coordination with the Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA). Tokens represent fractional ownership rights directly linked to title deeds, not shares in a company or SPV.

Saudi Arabia takes a more centralized and national approach. The Real Estate General Authority oversees a framework where tokenization is embedded directly into the national real estate registry. Here, tokens represent registered ownership interests recorded at the state level. The registry itself is the legal source of truth, and blockchain acts as an execution and record-keeping layer.

In both countries, tokenized real estate is fully enforceable under local property law, but access and distribution remain tightly regulated.

In both jurisdictions, legal ownership is ultimately proven by the registry, but Dubai externalizes this through a dedicated Property Token Ownership Certificate, while Saudi Arabia keeps ownership proof embedded directly within the national registry.

What is the current status of development for real estate tokenization in Dubai and Saudi Arabia?

As of February 2026, Dubai is ahead in live market execution, while Saudi Arabia is ahead in infrastructure depth.

Dubai has already processed multiple tokenized property offerings under pilot conditions, with real assets sold to hundreds of investors, and a first tokenized property sold out in May 2025. Issuer access remains curated and limited to approved developers and platforms, but the issuance process is live and operational. Investor access is currently restricted to UAE residents, with foreign investor participation planned for later phases. Secondary trading is not yet live, and liquidity remains limited to primary issuance events.

Saudi Arabia, by contrast, remains in an advanced pilot phase. Tokenization has been successfully demonstrated at the registry level, but issuer access is still limited to selected institutional or government-backed entities. Investor access is highly restricted, primarily involving sandbox participants and licensed entities.

No open secondary market exists yet for any of the two jurisdictions, but the architecture explicitly anticipates one. Saudi Arabia is prioritizing correctness, legal certainty, and scalability over speed of market rollout.

Sources: dubailand.gov.ae, Global Government Fintech, Kayrouz & Associates, TradeArabia

What technologies are used for real estate tokenization in Dubai and Saudi Arabia?

Dubai and Saudi Arabia have made very different technological choices that reflect their governance philosophies. Dubai relies on a public blockchain, Ripple, integrating tokenized title deeds with existing market infrastructure. Blockchain is used primarily for ownership representation and transfer, while payments and settlement remain largely fiat-based. Custody is handled through licensed partners, ensuring compliance with local regulations.

Saudi Arabia has opted for a hybrid, registry-native architecture. Blockchain is integrated directly into the national registry system, likely using a permissioned or semi-permissioned setup. Payments today are fiat-based, but the system is being designed to support stablecoins and automated settlement in the future. Custody is effectively state-controlled, with the registry itself acting as the authoritative record of ownership rather than relying on external custodians.

Why are Dubai and Saudi Arabia tokenizing real estate?

Both countries are tokenizing real estate to solve structural market problems, not to promote crypto adoption. Real estate is illiquid, capital-intensive, and slow to transact. Tokenization allows fractional ownership, broader capital participation, and more efficient distribution of assets while preserving regulatory control.

Dubai’s motivation is primarily market-driven. Tokenization supports its strategy of positioning itself as a global real estate and investment hub, attracting new categories of investors and increasing transaction velocity. Saudi Arabia’s motivation is sensibly the same. Tokenization is part of a broader national agenda to modernize property markets, unlock large-scale financing, and ensure that ownership data, compliance, and capital flows remain under sovereign oversight.

In both cases, tokenization is viewed as a distribution upgrade, not a deregulation tool.

Conclusion

Dubai and Saudi Arabia are demonstrating two credible, government-led paths to real estate tokenization. Dubai favors speed, experimentation, and market validation within a controlled regulatory perimeter. Saudi Arabia favors deep integration, sovereign control, and long-term scalability at the national level. Neither model is permissionless, fully liquid, or DeFi-native, by design. Instead, they point toward a future where tokenized real estate becomes public infrastructure, embedded directly into how states define, record, and govern property ownership.

‍