Today, as many traditional companies delve into the realm of tokenization, Across Protocol is proposing a different path to its token holders: either buying out their tokens to become a private company or exchanging them for equity. Across Protocol co-founder Lambur said on a podcast: “The protocol is seeking to go private because its DAO structure is hindering its development.”
“I’ve always been a token maximalist,” Lambur said. “We launched the Across token very early on, with a very low market cap and a very broad airdrop, mainly because we wanted to build in the open and accumulate value for our community and users. But I think the macro environment has changed.”
Across Protocol connects multiple major networks (including Ethereum and Solana), allowing users to bridge or swap tokens across chains. To date, it has processed over $35.00B in transaction volume. But as institutional and corporate demand grows, its structure has proven to be a bottleneck. Lambur believes the protocol “would develop better with a more traditional structure.”
The proposal for Across to privatize itself is a rare move, but it comes as the industry begins to recognize that DAOs are a difficult organizational structure to operate. In August 2025, when Uniswap proposed creating the legal entity DUNI, the protocol stated that a formal structure would bring more “capabilities and greater autonomy.” And earlier this week, Aave founder Stani Kulechov wrote about the friction of running a DAO. “DAOs are exceptionally difficult as we’ve been running them, and it’s a different kind of difficult than building complex things. It’s difficult in that you’re fighting your own organizational structure every day.”
For Across, Risk Labs is the foundation and legal entity “currently responsible for signing contracts” and building the protocol, but Lambur says the DAO is separate from it. The protocol currently operates under a “classic token structure,” where you have an on-chain protocol and a legal entity that is loosely affiliated with it. But Lambur says they are two separate structures. “That’s one of the reasons people criticize the DAO model, and in essence, we’re trying to unify the two,” he added.
Across had been considering the move for months before unveiling the proposal on Wednesday. “It’s this situation: you look at the macro environment, see how undervalued these tokens are, and then look at all the friction you face when trying to do business in a more traditional way.” The proposal offers token holders two options: exchange their ACX tokens for equity in AcrossCo., or exchange them for USDC at a one-month average market price. Users holding a large number of tokens can directly exchange their tokens for shares, while users holding a small number of tokens can exchange them through a fee-free special purpose entity.
Lambur acknowledges that one of the biggest negatives of the proposal is the limitation on how many token holders can transfer their holdings into a potential C-corp through equity. “This is based on U.S. securities law, and we’ve designed it to be as inclusive as possible within what’s artificially possible.” “It’s impossible for a U.S. C-corp to have 5,000 entries on its cap table,” so some consolidation is needed, he noted. Nevertheless, he remains optimistic that it will work. The proposal will have a two-week discussion period before a Snapshot vote or vote is released to the community.
[ChainCatcher]
Across Protocol’s DAO Abandonment: A Watershed Moment for Crypto Governance?
Across Protocol’s recent proposal to abandon its DAO structure represents one of the most significant reversals in crypto organizational philosophy we’ve seen in recent years. Once hailed as the gold standard for decentralized governance, the DAO model is increasingly facing questions about practicality and efficiency, with Across Protocol becoming a high-profile case study in the challenges of decentralized operational structures.
The Rationale Behind the Pivot
Across Protocol’s decision to abandon its DAO is not impulsive but rather a pragmatic response to market realities. Co-founder Lambur’s admission that the DAO structure is “hindering development” speaks volumes about the growing friction between ideological purity and operational efficiency. The protocol, which has facilitated over $35 billion in cross-chain transactions, is now facing institutional and corporate demand that its current governance structure cannot adequately support.
What makes this particularly noteworthy is Lambur’s background as a self-proclaimed “token maximalist” – his ideological evolution reflects a broader industry realization that pure decentralization may not always be the optimal path for protocol development and adoption. The protocol’s “classic token structure,” characterized by a loose affiliation between the on-chain protocol and its legal entity (Risk Labs), has created operational inefficiencies that are increasingly untenable.
Market Implications and Broader Trends
Across’s move should be viewed within the context of a larger industry trend. We’ve seen similar sentiments from other major protocols, with Uniswap creating the legal entity DUNI and Aave’s founder acknowledging the “friction of running a DAO.” These developments suggest that the honeymoon period for pure DAO governance may be ending, replaced by a more nuanced understanding of organizational structures in crypto.
This shift reflects the maturation of the crypto industry. As protocols scale and seek integration with traditional financial systems, the rigid governance models of early DAOs are proving inadequate. The industry is moving toward hybrid models that preserve decentralization where it matters most while allowing for more efficient operational structures.
Token Price Analysis and Investor Considerations
For ACX token holders, the proposal presents a critical decision point with significant financial implications:
-
Exchange for Equity: Those holding substantial token positions may prefer equity in AcrossCo., potentially offering greater long-term upside if the private company structure proves more effective at generating revenue and attracting institutional clients.
-
Exchange for USDC: Smaller token holders or those more risk-averse may opt for USDC at a one-month average market price, providing immediate liquidity but potentially missing out on future upside.
The token’s price will likely experience increased volatility during the voting period and transition. If the proposal passes, we could see initial selling pressure as token holders exchange their holdings, particularly if a significant portion opt for USDC. However, long-term, the token could appreciate if the private company structure enables more efficient revenue generation and attracts institutional capital.
Risks and Opportunities
Risks:
– Centralization Risk: The most significant concern is the erosion of decentralization principles. Moving to a private company structure concentrates decision-making power, potentially compromising the protocol’s original ethos.
– Regulatory Exposure: Operating as a C-corp introduces additional compliance requirements and regulatory scrutiny that the DAO structure largely avoided.
– Community Fragmentation: The proposal could divide the community between those who value decentralization and those who prioritize operational efficiency.
– Liquidity Concerns: Securities laws limit the number of shareholders in a C-corp, potentially excluding many small token holders from equity participation.
Opportunities:
– Enhanced Operational Efficiency: Traditional corporate structures can make decisions faster than DAOs, enabling quicker response to market conditions.
– Institutional Adoption: Private companies are more familiar to traditional institutions, potentially easing integration with traditional finance.
– Sustainable Revenue Models: The shift to a private company could enable more sustainable revenue generation, benefiting all stakeholders.
– Structural Coherence: Resolving the disconnect between the on-chain protocol and legal entity could create a more coherent organizational structure.
Conclusion: Pragmatism Over Ideology
Across Protocol’s decision to abandon its DAO represents a pragmatic evolution rather than a failure of decentralization. It signals that the crypto industry is maturing, recognizing that ideological purity must sometimes yield to operational practicality. For investors, this development underscores the importance of evaluating protocols not just on their technical merits but also on their governance structures and adaptability to changing market conditions.
As the industry continues to evolve, we can expect to see more protocols adopting hybrid models that balance decentralization with the need for efficient operations. Across Protocol’s journey offers valuable lessons for the broader crypto ecosystem about the importance of organizational flexibility in an increasingly complex and institutionalizing market.