Taking a leap into the ledger: why developing countries can beat the West when it comes to blockchain ownership

Asset tokenization – the process of putting real-world assets such as company stock, real estate and legal documents on the blockchain – is quietly but consistently gaining momentum. The promise is great: faster transfers, fewer intermediaries and broader global access.

But as technology races forward, governments are still struggling to keep pace. In many developing countries, ownership is still tied to paper, leaving administrators with systems that are slow, fragile and ripe for disruption.

Corey Billington, CEO of asset tokenization company Blubird, believes it is these limitations that could see emerging markets be the first to leap into a blockchain-based future. In an interview with crypto.newshe explains why countries still tied to manual record keeping may be uniquely positioned to adopt a more efficient, digital approach – and what that shift could deliver.

Crypto.news: We’ve seen a big push lately toward tokenization of assets: IPOs, stocks, real assets moving on-chain. From your perspective, where are we at with stocks specifically right now, and what’s driving this momentum?

Corey Billington: So, specifically in on-chain equities, we’re kind of at a crossroads. You have a handful of countries that currently have supporting infrastructure: legal frameworks, classification systems; things like that. And then you have the developing countries – and also a large number of first world countries – where that foundation is still lacking.

Developing countries need this most, especially if they want to grow faster and become first world countries themselves. But what they often miss is the legal infrastructure: how to handle tokenized assets, update registries, and reconcile on-chain events with off-chain governance.

And that’s the real problem. There is a big difference between what the software can do and what the legal systems actually support. You have tokenization engines like Blubird, and others too, and we’re all doing a great job on a technical level. But the separation comes when the legal frameworks that these tokens are supposed to represent are not keeping up, such as share registers that are not automatically updated when something changes in the chain.

Crypto.News: So the registries don’t sync with the on-chain events?

Billington: Precisely. For example, if we are talking specifically about equity, that could mean that the share register is not updated when on-chain transactions take place. At the state or national level, many countries do not recognize in-chain transfers unless their own data reflects the change. And this issue is not just limited to equity. The same goes for real estate or resources, although resources are treated slightly differently in some places.

To give you a real example, what we are doing now with one government is addressing this by tokenizing the land title registry itself. We don’t start with houses or properties. We start at the root: the registry layer. And this is not only pushed by the government, but also by some large companies who see how much this is needed.

You might also like: Land registries must switch to blockchain technology | Opinion

Crypto.News: Can you say which country?

Billington: All I can say right now is that it is in the Caribbean. It is a developing country. The problems they see are enormous: forgery of documents, squatter issues, disputes over ownership. Proving who owns what in court is difficult if the paperwork cannot be trusted.

So we solve that by putting the registry on the chain. That becomes the source of truth. But it’s not just about the register itself. Once you go down this path, you’ll need a full digital infrastructure to support it.

You need a national wallet system for citizens, because if ownership is in the chain, they need wallets. Rental agreements will also live in those pockets. You’re talking about using managed wallet solutions from players like Utillia or Fireblocks; solutions that have permissions and security and are already used by banks.

So you’re not just tokenizing land. You are laying the foundation for a fully digital economy. And once that foundation is in place, everything else becomes easier: leases, contracts, warehouse billing. You now have a national ecosystem that supports this.

This country we work with is still very paper-based. Seriously, they run many critical systems on physical documents. But they’re getting richer and they know they can’t afford to stay on paper. So they skip the old “digital” phase and go straight to full digitalization on a DLT structure.

Crypto.News: Like switching from landlines to mobile?

Billington: Precisely. They skip steps. And interestingly, first world countries could do this too, but they don’t. Their systems are broken too, but they are comfortable. There is no real drive for reform. I think they’re waiting. They want smaller countries to test it out, work out the bugs and implement it later – once it is proven and replicable. Something plug and play, like opening Microsoft Word, it looks and works the same every time. That’s what they’re waiting for.

Crypto.News: You mentioned that some large companies are actually pushing for these reforms at the registry level. What motivates them? What do they see as the advantage?

Billington: They face the same problems: fraudulent documents, unreliable title systems, legal ambiguity. And they realize there is no benefit in copying first world models that are already outdated. Why rebuild the same broken system?

What we see is that these companies look ahead: ten, twenty, thirty years ahead. They don’t want to invest money in infrastructure that will be outdated in five or ten years. When they invest, they want to help create something future-proof.

Many of these companies have agreements with governments; part of their ‘license to operate’ consists of investing in local infrastructure that benefits citizens. And in this case, that means helping build a modern digital foundation. For example, one of these companies has already spent $3 billion and has set aside an even larger amount for similar development projects in that region.

A national on-chain ownership registry requires digital wallets, a digital ID and infrastructure to manage it all securely. And once you have that, you can start layering leases, employment agreements, billing, and even credit systems.

You don’t just build a registry. You are building a DLT-native national infrastructure. And from there everything comes together: faster processes, lower costs, more transparency.

You might also like: Record-breaking crypto hacks push investors toward secure wallets: report

CN: Right – and what are the concrete benefits for governments, industries and citizens?

CB: Speed ​​and cost first and foremost. Audits are performed quickly because data trails are transparent and verifiable. You don’t need manual legal verification at every step: the data is there, cryptographically locked, and the contract logic has already been executed.

And also the costs: no intermediaries are needed. You don’t need as many intermediaries to validate, notarize, or process transactions. That alone saves time and money.

CN: Can you give a real-life example?

CB: Sure, suppose you want to buy a house. You’ll normally need a notary to validate your ID, perhaps a lawyer, and a lot of document checks. But if you have a government-issued wallet linked to your digital ID, you can simply sign the transaction. That signature proves who you are.

Your wallet becomes like a digital passport or social security number. It cannot be counterfeited, it is unique to you and it instantly proves your identity. You don’t have to go to a notary or spend hours collecting paperwork. That entire layer disappears.

And it’s not just notaries. For example, accounting firms will still exist, but their role will change. If the data is immutable, verifiable, and traceable along the chain, they don’t have to manually search the records. Trust has been built.

So it’s not just that things are moving faster; it is also the case that entire categories of friction are beginning to disappear.

CN: How do you approach the issue of privacy and security in these systems? I assume not everything on the chain is publicly visible?

CB: Right, so you have to find a balance. The basic chain is public, but you can use tools like ZK Pass or other privacy layers for sensitive matters. The public can see that a transaction has taken place, but they won’t necessarily see the details; they are in the metadata. And even then, some metadata may be public, some private, depending on who has access to it.

For example, for something like medical data, you need two keys to unlock it: one from the individual, one from the healthcare provider. The same goes for financial data. Access is gated and access requires permission or approval from both sides.

CB: There will always be smart contract risk. It’s inevitable, whether it’s bugs, exploits, or even the bigger things: quantum computing in the future. But in our use case it is more manageable. You do not have to deal with complex financial logic such as strike or credit protocols. These are simple, concluded contracts: registry updates, ID verifications, ownership transfers.

Where the real risk still lives is in social engineering. That has always been the soft underbelly of technical systems. But here everything runs on multi-sig or multi-key systems. Even if someone compromises one key, that’s not enough. You need multiple approvals to do anything meaningful.

So I wouldn’t compare this to Web2, where a single insider can just walk away with a database. It’s much more difficult. Not immune, but much safer.

CN: That makes sense. One last question: what trends do you think are important but not talked about enough?

CB: Governments are much more open to this kind of thing than most people realize. A lot happens behind closed doors. They’re not just dipping their toes in, they’re seriously exploring how to clean up corruption, reduce fraud and improve transparency. Those are the drivers.

Some of these countries actively fight corruption. They’ve been cracking down on gangs, they’re cleaning up politics, but they still face deep systemic problems like forged documents, under-the-table deals, hidden registries. DLT removes the hiding places.

And then there are the costs. A blockchain-based registry is not only better, it is also cheaper. And that is important for governments, especially those that want to modernize quickly.

So transparency, anti-corruption and cost savings. That’s what really moves this forward.

You might also like: There is no foul play in Javier Milei’s Libra crypto promo, anti-corruption agency says