If Real Estate Tokens Are Backed by Assets, Why Did OM Crash?

This is a critical question—and the answer reveals a deeper flaw in how most tokenized assets are structured today.

While real estate tokenization is supposed to reflect the value of tangible assets, most tokens, including OM, do not have a direct, enforceable link to a specific property. Instead:

OM was a utility/governance token for the Mantra ecosystem—not a fractional share in a single, income-producing asset.

There was no price anchor—no redemption rights, no dividends, no payout tied to actual rent or property appreciation.

It was traded on speculative crypto exchanges, where token price was driven by trader sentiment, not real estate fundamentals.

Most holders had no legal claim to real property—just exposure to the platform’s success or failure.

In short, while OM was part of a real estate tokenization platform, it behaved like a cryptocurrency because it wasn’t designed to behave like real estate.

For a token to truly reflect property value, it must:

Be legally tied to the underlying asset (e.g., via SPV shares or tokenized equity).

Offer actual income or utility (like rent-based payouts).

Be traded in investor-driven markets—not speculative exchanges.

Maintain price stability through mechanisms like NAV  (Net Asset Value) anchoring or redemption rights.

DISCOVER MORE...