Across Protocol’s proposed shift from a DAO to a private company puts a familiar crypto narrative under pressure: whether token-based governance helps decentralized infrastructure grow—or becomes an obstacle when that infrastructure needs conventional business contracts.
In a March 12, 2026 report, PANews journalist Nancy examined Across’s plan to establish a U.S. C corporation and give ACX holders a choice between equity participation and a USDC exit. The restructuring was a proposal, not an approved transition.
What Across proposed
Across published its temperature-check proposal on March 11. Under the plan, a new operating company, AcrossCo, would take over the protocol’s intellectual property and handle development, partnerships and commercialization. PANews described the proposed move from a DAO to a U.S. C corporation as a first in crypto.
The proposal offered ACX holders two routes:
- Equity participation: Holders could exchange ACX for AcrossCo equity at the proposal’s stated 1:1 ratio. Those holding more than 5 million ACX could participate directly; smaller holders would participate through a no-fee special-purpose vehicle, or SPV.
- USDC exit: Holders could redeem ACX at $0.04375 per token, a 25% premium to the preceding 30-day average market price. The redemption window would last six months and was expected to open within three months of approval.
The published schedule called for a community call on March 18, a final proposal on March 26 and a Snapshot vote on April 2.
Across was not approaching this transition as an untested project. According to the report, it had operated for four years, raised approximately $51 million across two funding rounds and processed more than $58 billion in cumulative cross-chain volume. Its investors included Paradigm, Coinbase Ventures, Bain Capital Crypto, Multicoin Capital and Hack VC.
A token rally did not erase the longer decline
CoinGecko figures cited in the report showed ACX rising 94.9% over the preceding 24 hours after the proposal appeared. Even after that increase, it remained approximately 96.2% below its all-time high.
On-chain analyst Ai Auntie estimated that the largest ACX-holding address still needed a 5.66-fold price increase to break even.
PANews suggested that the proposed redemption terms may have attracted buyers looking for an arbitrage opportunity and contributed to the short-term rally. That was an interpretation of the price move, not a demonstrated explanation for all buying activity.
The commercial constraint: who signs the contract?
Across co-founder Hart Lambur argued that the token and DAO structure had begun to impair the protocol’s ability to secure partnerships and integrations as its institutional and corporate relationships deepened.
Although Across has consumer-facing products, Lambur described it primarily as payments infrastructure. He said it had signed contracts with major crypto projects over the years but, without its own legal entity, had needed to route agreements through the Risk Labs Foundation.
According to Lambur, that intermediary arrangement became an obstacle when approaching more traditional financial institutions. He also argued that contracts outside the protocol would become increasingly important as third parties paid transaction fees on users’ behalf. A conventional company, in his view, would be better equipped to enter enforceable contracts, structure revenue agreements and create value for stakeholders.
The distinction matters: Across’s reported operating volume and funding demonstrate activity and financial backing, but do not by themselves establish that its DAO or token structure is commercially effective. The restructuring proposal sought to change that structure rather than abandon the underlying infrastructure.
Stablecoin transfers and AI-agent payments
Lambur outlined two business priorities if the proposal passed: stablecoin bridging and AI-agent payments.
For stablecoins, he described Across’s cross-chain intent architecture as the only viable way to connect the fragmented landscape of layer-2 networks, sidechains and alternative layer-1 chains. That was his assessment, not an independently established conclusion. He predicted that free cross-chain transfers would become standard for stablecoins by the end of 2026.
He also said that, beyond Hyperliquid, Across had two undisclosed partnerships intended to provide users with free fund transfers.
For AI-agent payments, the proposed use case involved users expressing their requirements and a competing network of solvers executing them automatically, enabling automated and personalized services. These were stated business priorities, not evidence that those services had already achieved broad adoption.
Governance reform, token economics and the equity question
PANews placed Across’s proposal within wider concerns about DAO accountability, concentrated voting power, slow decision-making and limited community participation.
The report cited Aave founder Stani Kulechov’s criticism that forum discussions, temperature checks and repeated votes can slow execution, while political alliances can reward “politicians” rather than builders. Kulechov argued that collective governance should focus on matters such as major protocol changes and treasury strategy, leaving execution to leadership.
Lambur also identified token economics as a problem. Despite supporting tokens, opposing high-fully-diluted-valuation, low-float launches and issuing ACX early at a low valuation, he argued that macroeconomic conditions had changed. In his assessment, ACX was severely undervalued and overlooked, and the disadvantages of having a token now outweighed the benefits for Across.
PANews suggested that conventional equity incentives could offer more stable financing and valuation, but that remained a potential benefit rather than a proven outcome. The report also described divided reactions: some viewed the proposal as a retreat from decentralization that could marginalize retail crypto participants; others saw it as a pragmatic adjustment for DeFi.
Lambur said tokenized equity could be considered later. The immediate priority, however, was traditional equity, with tokenization left for a subsequent stage.
Across’s proposal therefore posed a narrower question than whether DAOs succeed or fail universally: whether this protocol’s next phase required corporate ownership and contracting tools rather than its existing token-governance arrangement.
Original reporting: Nancy, PANews. Published March 12, 2026, at 15:58 (UTC+8). This article preserves the proposal’s status and timeline as reported at that time.
