How much can you raise by tokenizing your asset? Valuation, LTV and realistic raise size.

It helps to see the three factors as a chain, because a weak link caps the whole thing. The first factor is value: what an independent, defensible valuation can support, which is almost never what you paid or what the asset cost to build. The second is the slice: how much of that value you are willing to sell as equity, or borrow against as debt. The third is demand: the money investors will actually commit within the route you are allowed to use. You can be generous on the slice and still raise nothing if the demand is not there.

That is why the honest number is smaller and more specific than the pitch decks suggest. Tokenizing does not turn a 10 million euro asset into a 10 million euro raise, any more than a mortgage turns a house into cash at its full price. It gives you a clean, divisible instrument and access to a wider pool of investors, and then the same three factors that discipline any financing discipline yours. The rest of this guide takes each factor in turn, with figures labelled illustrative throughout, so you can sketch a realistic range before anyone quotes you a real one.

Everything starts with value, and value for an income-producing real asset comes from its cash flow, not its build cost or its purchase price. A let warehouse is worth its net operating income divided by a market capitalisation rate, so a building throwing off 700,000 euro of net income at a 7 percent cap rate is worth on the order of 10 million euro, whatever it cost to build. A battery, a solar plant, or a similar energy asset is valued on its contracted cash flows, a lease, a power purchase agreement, a tolling arrangement, or a trading spread, discounted at a rate that reflects how certain those flows are. These are illustrative mechanics, not a valuation of your asset.

Investors underwrite a valuation, so the number that matters is the one an independent and defensible assessment produces, not the one you would like. That is a feature, not a frustration. A valuation you can stand behind is what lets an investor size their commitment with confidence, and a raise built on a soft or self-serving number tends to fall apart in diligence exactly when you can least afford it. Get the valuation right first, in a form a third party would sign, and the rest of the sizing follows from it.

One more thing tends to surprise operators: the number investors fund against is the net figure after real-world costs, not the headline gross yield you might quote at a conference. Operating costs, maintenance, management, downtime, and fees all sit between the gross number and what an investor actually receives, and that gap moves the valuation. How gross becomes net, and why the cascade matters so much for what you can raise, is walked through in the honest yield cascade guide. Value the asset on its real, net, defensible cash flow, and you have the first and most important input to your raise.

Once you have a value, the shape of the token decides how that value becomes a raise, and there are two basic shapes. An equity-like token sells a fraction of ownership at the agreed valuation. Here the arithmetic is simple: your raise is the valuation multiplied by the fraction you sell. Sell 30 percent of a 10 million euro asset and you raise on the order of 3 million euro, and your investors own 30 percent of the upside and the downside. You keep control of how much you part with, and the number scales directly with that decision.

A debt-like token works the other way. Instead of selling ownership, you borrow against the asset up to a conservative loan-to-value, and you pay a coupon. The raise is the value multiplied by that loan-to-value, but the real discipline is the debt service coverage ratio, the DSCR: the asset's cash flow has to cover the coupon comfortably, with a ratio well above 1. If the cash flow only just covers the coupon, the raise is too big and a serious investor will size it down until there is a cushion. So a debt-like number is capped twice, once by the loan-to-value and once by coverage, and whichever bites first wins.

Which shape fits depends on the asset, your appetite for giving up ownership, and what investors want to buy, and the two can be blended in a single deal, with a debt-like tranche sitting under a thinner equity-like one. The full comparison, including how each option changes your cost of capital, your control, and your obligations, is the subject of the tokenization versus bank debt versus equity guide. For sizing purposes, the point is that equity is set by the fraction you sell and debt is set by a loan-to-value that coverage keeps honest.

For a debt-like raise the practical question is what fraction of value the market will advance. As an illustration, advances for real assets commonly sit in the region of 50 percent to 70 percent of value, depending on the asset. That is a range, not a promise, and where a given asset lands inside it, or outside it, is decided by a handful of factors that any lender or investor weighs. Treat the band as a planning sketch and verify it for your asset before you build a plan on any single number.

Four things move an advance up or down. Cash-flow certainty comes first: a contracted, investment-grade income stream supports far more than a merchant or trading exposure that swings with the market. Asset quality is next: a modern, well-located, well-understood asset is easier to underwrite than an unusual or hard-to-resell one. Contract length matters because a long lease or offtake that comfortably outlasts the token is worth more than one that expires mid-term. And investor appetite at the moment you raise sets the tone for all of it, because the same asset can support a higher advance in a warm market than a cold one.

Put those together and the ranges make sense. A long, contracted, high-quality asset earns the upper end of the band; a shorter, more merchant, less familiar asset sits at the lower end or below it. And the coverage test from the previous section can cap the advance further, because even a strong loan-to-value gets trimmed if the cash flow does not cover the coupon with room to spare. Every percentage in this section is illustrative and asset-specific, so use it to frame the conversation, not to set an expectation.

There is a size below which a tokenized raise stops making sense, and it is worth knowing early so you do not spend months on a structure that cannot pay for itself. The reason is that most of the cost of a raise is fixed. The legal structuring, the holding vehicle, the platform or registrar, the token issuance, and the offering documentation cost broadly the same whether you raise 1 million or 10 million. Spread those fixed costs over a small raise and they become a punishing percentage of the money you actually keep.

In practice, the desk's realistic floor is around 3 million euro, with the sweet spot at 5 to 10 million and up and no fixed upper cap. Below the floor, the economics usually argue for a simpler form of financing rather than a bespoke tokenized structure, because the setup swallows too much of the proceeds. Around and above the sweet spot, the fixed costs shrink to a sensible fraction of the raise and the structure earns its place. What those fixed costs actually are, in ranges, is set out in the cost to tokenize guide, and the related question of how small each investor ticket can sensibly be is covered in the minimum ticket guide.

Everything so far has been about what the maths allows. The real ceiling is something else entirely: demand. You can only raise what investors will actually commit, and a perfectly structured, fully compliant token that no one buys has raised nothing at all. The structure does not create demand. It makes your asset investable and divisible, and then the money still has to be found, one committed investor at a time, within whatever offer route you are using.

That is the part operators most often underestimate, because it is the part a good structure cannot solve on its own. Reaching the right investors, presenting the asset in terms they underwrite, and getting them to actually transfer money is a distribution job, not a legal one, and it is where most tokenized raises stall. How you find and reach that audience is the whole subject of the how to reach investors guide, and it is worth reading before you fix a target number, because your reachable audience is part of what sets the number.

Demand is also shaped by the route you are allowed to take. The exemption you rely on to offer without a full prospectus decides who you can market to and how, and that in turn caps how much you can place. An offer restricted to a handful of qualified investors is a different ceiling from one open to a wider base, so the legal route and the demand ceiling are the same question seen from two sides. Which route fits, and how each one constrains the raise, is set out in the prospectus exemptions guide. Size the raise to the demand you can actually reach, not to the value the asset could in theory support.

Read the three rows together and the framework does the work. Each raise is the asset's supportable value multiplied by a slice, a loan-to-value for the two debt-like sketches and an ownership fraction for the equity one, and each note points at the factor that moved it. The more contracted and certain the cash flow, the more comfortably it carries debt at a higher advance; the more variable it is, the more the deal leans toward equity or a lower loan-to-value. These are sketches to show the mechanics, not quotes and not a valuation of anything you own. Your real numbers depend on your real asset, your real contracts, and the demand you can actually reach, so treat the table as a way of thinking, then get your own figures.

Turning the framework into your actual number is a short, concrete sequence. Start with an independent valuation on the asset's real, net cash flow, in a form a third party would sign, because that is the input every other number depends on. Get that wrong or soft and everything downstream is fiction. This is also the step where the equity-or-debt decision starts to answer itself, because a strongly contracted asset supports debt at a decent loan-to-value while a more variable one leans toward equity.

Then settle the offer route, because it sets your demand ceiling as much as your legal obligations. The exemption you rely on decides who you can approach and how many, which caps how much you can realistically place, so the route and the target number have to be chosen together rather than in sequence. Getting the vehicle right sits alongside this, and how the asset is ring-fenced so your token is a claim on that asset and nothing else is covered in the tokenization SPV guide. Value, slice, and route together give you a sized, reachable raise rather than a wish.

You can get a first, rough figure yourself in a couple of minutes with the on-site calculator, which is a good way to sketch a range before any conversation. To move from that sketch to a number you can put in front of investors, a strategy session looks at your specific asset, contracts, and reachable audience and maps the valuation, the structure, the offer route, and the realistic raise. The desk structures the raise and then runs the placement, which is the part that decides whether the number on paper becomes money in the account.