The Chromaway testbed, in collaboration with the Swedish Land Registry, is often cited for using blockchain in land registry systems. However, according to their report this project is not ongoing, debunking the misconception that the "Swedish land registry uses blockchain." The project team developed a prototype application and showcased it in 2019. The project aimed to demonstrate an online application for stakeholders in real estate transactions with mortgages, including sellers, buyers, their agents, and banks. Its purpose was to facilitate data collection and interaction during various stages of a real estate transaction and mortgage, like offer postings and credit approvals, with all data visible in real-time to participants. However, the application itself added another layer of intermediation. Chormia ledger was used to post hashes of the user data in the app. Technologically, the Chromia platform was not a block-chain (as per rigorous academic criteria), but a permissioned (centralized) distributed ledger. Moreover, the state land registry never implemented blockchain, the role of the registry system was to provide to this app information about land titles through their API.

Bitfury's project in the Republic of Georgia represents a significant instance of blockchain technology application within a state land registry. Documented in vari-ous sources [2], [3], [4] and detailed on Bitfury's website , the project anchors (hash-es) state registry records in a permissioned distributed ledger using the Exonum Dis-tributed Ledger Technology (DLT) framework, with periodic anchoring (hashing) of snapshots of that ledger in the Bitcoin network. Although promoted as a protective measure for the state registry, this approach has been subject to academic and expert criticism [32]. The primary concern is that the hash sums in the ledger do not safe-guard the actual data in the registry. The primary utility of hashing is to enable verifi-cation of record authenticity (the same comment applies to the Swedish project as well). They are incapable of preventing or rectifying damage from potential attacks, thus challenging the purported notion of registry data protection. Moreover, the pro-ject's dependence on a single or a few nodes of private permissioned ledger offers less robust protection than a public blockchain network, which benefits from a vast, in-dependent network of nodes. This setup raises concerns about the centralization of hash sums, rendering them susceptible to alterations by system administrators or unauthorized access. Despite these criticisms, it remains the only blockchain project with a land registry that continues to operate.

Consensys developed a prototype design for title tokenization within the 'Digital Street' initiative for the UK Land Registry in 2020. Although they used the term 'Title Token' without referencing Konashevych's research, their token acted as a digital twin, meaning the centralized registry remained the exclusive source of truth over title records. The researchers did not address the main question regarding this digital twin. If it does not represent the title (because the old registry still holds exclusive rights), then what is the legal status of the title token? This oversight is a common mistake across various concepts. Records must always be exclusive because they inevitably lead to legal collisions, such as the problem of 'double spending.' In their design, where the old registry system coexisted with the new blockchain system, a bridge protocol should have been developed to transfer the title record to the blockchain, ensuring only one holds the legitimate title record. 

Additionally, their video demonstrates the securitization of the title token, allowing a user to issue several security tokens for market circulation. This is another typical error. By having a valid title token, which is easily fractionalized, they failed to address a deeper question: why would anyone need such a security token at all? In fact, tokenizing property rights as title tokens (not security tokens) renders the concept of securities as an economic construct obsolete. While there will be forms of securities related to title tokens, they will be significantly more complex and sophisticated, applied only in situations where they make sense.