Provider at a glance
- Category
- Tokenised Real Estate
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- redswan.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 48 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in October 2026.
RedSwan CRE
Tokenised commercial real estate
Tokenised Real Estate
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 6 tokenised real estate in the published ranking
48
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is RedSwan CRE right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- What the token conveys6/10 here; the category best is 9
- Exit reality2/10 here; Figure Connect scores 3
- Open to you5/10 here; Reental scores 8
- Fees disclosed3/10 here; Blocksquare scores 4
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best tokenised real estate platform shows where it lands for you.
What will RedSwan CRE cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your balance
- $10k
How safe is RedSwan CRE?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to RedSwan CRE
Compare all 4- 2Reental3 points above · stronger on open to you (8 against 5)51
- 3Figure ConnectLevel on score · stronger on exit reality (3 against 2)48
- 5Blocksquare2 points below · stronger on fees disclosed (4 against 3)46
For your setup
Find out if RedSwan CRE fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where RedSwan CRE lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best tokenised real estate platformNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why RedSwan CRE ranks #4
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (13.2 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
326+6.146.09#3/6Loading evidence…
262+1.662.55#4/6Loading evidence…
225+3.524.510#3/6Loading evidence…
203+1.923.57#4/6Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind Figure Connect, #3
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 46–50 and ranks #3–#4
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of RedSwan CRE’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
What the token legally conveys 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Figure Connect+150#4 → #3
Exit reality 2 → 3 on its ladder · passes Figure Connect+150#4 → #3
Who can participate 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes Figure Connect+150#4 → #3
Fee-stack disclosure 3 → 4 on its ladder · passes Figure Connect+149#4 → #3
What the token legally conveys 6 → 4 on its ladder · Blocksquare passes it−244#4 → #5
Exit reality 2 → 0 on its ladder · Blocksquare passes it−245#4 → #5
Who can participate 5 → 3 on its ladder · Blocksquare passes it−246#4 → #5
Smallest climb: what the token legally conveys 6 → 7 passes Figure Connect, #3.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- What the token legally conveys — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Exit reality — 2/10 against a category best of 5/10
- Who can participate — 5/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Fee-stack disclosure — 3/10 against a category best of 7/10
Record watch-outs
- The issuer itself states there is NO active secondary market — assume you hold to the fund’s own exit
- NO investor fee schedule published: fees are generally disclosed in per-deal offering material, available only after onboarding (accreditation for US investors, KYC under Reg S)
- Non-accredited US persons excluded outright
- RedSwan Markets’ Form CRS answers “Yes” on legal or disciplinary history, and says its financial professionals may receive retainer fees, warrants or stock from issuers
- No verifiable distribution track record was located
Competitive position
Where RedSwan CRE leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 614.0 of 20 · pool best
Published criteria#3 / 69.9 of 30 · best 18.7
Friction#3 / 62.7 of 10 · best 7.3
Trust record#2 / 63.2 of 8 · best 4.8
Measured data#1 / 68.3 of 18 · constant here
Where RedSwan CRE leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trailsNo criterion in the bottom third of its pool.
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Figure Connect#3 of 6 · score 48 · same score
RedSwan CRE leads on
- Who can participate5 vs 1
Figure Connect leads on
- Exit reality3 vs 2
Largest single reason Figure Connect is ahead: trust record (+4.2 display points).Scenario cost: Figure Connect has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Blocksquare#5 of 6 · score 46 · 2.0 points behind
RedSwan CRE leads on
- What the token legally conveys6 vs 5
- Who can participate5 vs 4
Blocksquare leads on
- Fee-stack disclosure4 vs 3
Largest single reason RedSwan CRE is ahead: published criteria (+2.1 display points).Scenario cost: Blocksquare has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Reental#2 of 6 · score 51 · 3.0 points ahead
RedSwan CRE leads on
- What the token legally conveys6 vs 2
Reental leads on
- Who can participate8 vs 5
Largest single reason Reental is ahead: friction (+6.8 display points).Scenario cost: Reental has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
83 vs 48 · gap 35.0Why Lofty ranks above RedSwan CRE
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale; a row-above bound on one of the rows keeps the reproduced gap (34.8) from matching the displayed one exactly, which is stated rather than hidden.
DimensionThisLoftyGap share
Availability · 23% weight14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight9.918.7−22.9, worse
Friction · 12% weight2.77.3−12.0, worse
Trust record · 9% weight3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisLoftyPoints
What the token legally conveys · w3269−3.07, worse
Exit reality · w2625−2.50, worse
Who can participate · w22510−3.52, worse
Fee-stack disclosure · w2037−2.56, worse
Net4883−35.0≈
Your scenario
RedSwan CRE is not priced for this scenario
The annual management fee on your balance. Excludes performance fees, spreads and any redemption charge. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Your balance · your input$10k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 22 October 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 6 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
6 of 6 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 22 October 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #3 to #4 across one-point re-runs
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 22 October 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
What the token legally conveysstrength 6 · weight 32Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Exit realitystrength 2 · weight 26Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Who can participatestrength 5 · weight 22Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Fee-stack disclosurestrength 3 · weight 20Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Insolvency failure (RedSwan CRE 6/10): the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by What the token legally conveys · 32%
- Regulatory failure (RedSwan CRE 5/10): no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.Scored by Who can participate · 22%
- Exit failure (RedSwan CRE 2/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Exit reality · 26%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Custody failure, Information failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Fee-stack disclosure (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- No investor fee schedule is published on RedSwan's public pages read 22 October 2026 (redswan.io, rebuilt as a script-rendered site whose old FAQ and resources URLs now return 404, and redswanmarkets.com). RedSwan Markets' Form CRS (files.brokercheck.finra.org/crs_322259.pdf, dated 11 June 2024) says "The fee will be generally be disclosed in the offering material" and that the fee is based on the specific transaction, not on the value of your investments; its financial professionals "earn commissions" and may also earn retainer fees, warrants or common stock from the issuing company; and "We have no minimum investment requirements." redswan.io lists "Capital structure and fees" among the data-room documents, which "are available to verified accredited investors following account creation and KYC". Acquisition, asset-management, disposition and promote terms therefore sit in per-deal offering documents seen only after onboarding. No single rate is defensible.RedSwan Markets Form CRS (fees disclosed in offering material) ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDRedSwan Markets Form CRS (fees disclosed in offering material) ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Polygon, Hedera, Stellar
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Property investors
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Reg D 506 for US accredited investors; Reg S for non-US; no active secondary market per the issuer.
- Availability note
- RedSwan's site terms (redswan.io, section "1. Accredited investor verification", read 22 October 2026): "Securities offered through the website are available exclusively to verified accredited investors under Rule 501 of Regulation D or non U.S. persons under Regulation S." Its sign-up acknowledgement adds that offerings are "private placements limited to verified accredited investors under SEC Regulation D Rule 506(c), or to eligible non U.S. persons under Regulation S". No country list is published.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with RedSwan CRE: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
11 methodology entries
- 22 October 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 48, #4 of 6. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.7Forty-one more products are offered only where their own quoted terms serve- fixed 141 country exclusions on 31 rows, each the name of a country the row's own quoted terms exclude: for example Mercuryo Hungary, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Chile, Colombia and Morocco; Gemini Custody the United Kingdom, Australia and the EU after its wind-down; Backed xStocks the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, Nigeria, the Philippines and Venezuela.
- changed Thirteen rows list the only countries their terms serve: Coins.ph the Philippines, Spritz bill pay, Brex, Unchained, WisdomTree, Franklin BENJI and AnchorWatch the United States (with its territories for AnchorWatch), PRYPCO Mint the UAE, N26 crypto seven EU countries, Gemini Tokenized Stocks the EU, XNET the US, Canada and the UK, Coldbit Steel and MetaMask Card the countries they list.
- changed Published (no-country) orders do not move. Country results change: in India six categories each lose one row (bill pay, cards, off-ramps, P2P, seed backup, tokenised real estate), and bill pay there has no row confirmed available, so it shows the published order marked as such; country pages list 23 fewer rows (24,357 to 24,334). The grounding test now matches full country names in any case, which shows seven earlier exclusions were quoted all along: the named debt of unquoted exclusions falls from 40 to 33 pairs.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt tokenised_realestate:redswan_cre:2026.10.18:a0d75d028d86
Are you RedSwan CRE? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.