DeFi Protocol Considers Abandoning Token Model for Traditional Corporate Structure

Across Protocol Proposes Revolutionary Shift From DAO to Corporation

In a move that’s sending shockwaves through the decentralized finance world, Across Protocol has put forward a groundbreaking proposal that challenges one of the fundamental principles of crypto: that decentralized autonomous organizations are the future of business. The cross-chain bridging platform is asking its community to consider something almost unthinkable in DeFi circles—dissolving its token structure entirely and converting into a traditional U.S. C-corporation. This isn’t just another governance proposal; it’s a potential turning point for how we think about decentralized protocols and their relationship with the traditional business world.

The announcement immediately sparked a frenzy in the markets, with Across Protocol’s native token, $ACX, surging by an impressive 80% to reach $0.06 on Thursday. This dramatic price movement reflects both the surprise of the proposal and traders’ quick calculations about what it might mean for their holdings. The team behind Across didn’t mince words in their explanation, stating plainly that their current token and DAO structure has become a “material impact” on their ability to close deals with institutional and enterprise partners. In other words, while the crypto community might love DAOs and tokens, the traditional financial institutions that Across wants to work with simply don’t know how to deal with them—or worse, actively avoid them due to regulatory uncertainty and unfamiliar legal frameworks.

Understanding the Proposal and What It Means for Token Holders

The mechanics of this proposed transformation are actually quite straightforward, even if the implications are profound. The team has structured what they’re calling a “temp check”—essentially a preliminary poll to gauge whether there’s enough community support to move forward with a formal vote. This approach is smart politics in the DAO world, allowing the team to test the waters before committing to a potentially divisive formal governance process. If the community shows strong opposition at this early stage, they can adjust their approach or abandon the idea altogether without the embarrassment of a failed official vote.

For current $ACX token holders, the proposal offers two distinct paths forward, each with its own potential advantages and risks. The first option is to exchange their tokens for equity in the new company that would be created, tentatively named “AcrossCo.” This entity would hold all the protocol’s intellectual property and manage its ongoing development. For larger holders—those with more than 5 million $ACX tokens—the conversion to equity would be direct and straightforward. Smaller holders aren’t left out in the cold, though; they could access equity through a special purpose vehicle (SPV) structure that doesn’t charge fees, though they’d need a minimum of 250,000 $ACX tokens (worth roughly $10,000 at current prices) to participate. Importantly, the conversion ratio would be the same for everyone: one token equals one share, regardless of whether you’re a whale or a smaller community member.

The second option is simpler but potentially less exciting for those who believe in Across’s long-term potential. Token holders who don’t want to become equity shareholders can instead sell their tokens for $USDC stablecoin at a price of $0.04375 per token. That might not sound like much, but it represents a 25% premium over the average trading price from the previous 30 days—essentially a guaranteed profit for anyone who bought during that period. The fact that the token immediately jumped to $0.06 and has been trading well above the proposed buyout price tells us that many traders believe either the equity option is worth more than the buyout price or that there’s a chance the team might sweeten the deal with a higher offer if they encounter resistance.

The Timeline and Process Moving Forward

The governance process for this dramatic proposal follows a carefully structured timeline that gives the community ample opportunity to discuss, debate, and ultimately decide. A community call is scheduled for March 18, where token holders can ask questions directly and hear more detailed explanations from the team. This is followed by a formal discussion period running through March 25, giving everyone time to digest the information, run the numbers, and form their opinions. The actual Snapshot vote—the moment of truth where the community makes its decision—would then take place on March 26.

If the vote passes, the conversion process would begin in early April, moving quickly to take advantage of current market conditions and institutional interest. The buyout window for those choosing the $USDC option would open within three months of the proposal passing and remain open for six months, funded by the protocol’s existing liquid assets. This extended window ensures that even token holders who aren’t closely following governance discussions won’t miss their opportunity to participate. It’s worth noting that the 24-hour trading volume following the announcement reached $149 million—roughly 3.5 times the token’s entire market cap—reflecting the extraordinary level of speculative interest this proposal has generated.

Questioning the DAO Dream: Is Decentralization Worth the Cost?

This proposal forces an uncomfortable conversation that many in the DeFi community have been avoiding: are decentralized autonomous organizations actually better than traditional corporate structures, or have we been drinking our own Kool-Aid? For years, DeFi proponents have championed tokens and DAOs as revolutionary alternatives to legacy corporate governance, arguing that they’re more transparent, more democratic, and more aligned with users’ interests. The promise was that by giving everyone a voice and a stake through tokens, we could build better, fairer systems that didn’t concentrate power in the hands of executives and boards.

Across Protocol is now publicly arguing the opposite position, and they’re backing it up with real-world experience. According to Risk Labs, the team behind Across, the token has been “significantly undervalued” by the market, and the DAO structure is actively preventing them from capturing opportunities that could benefit all stakeholders. Their argument is essentially pragmatic rather than ideological: when you’re trying to negotiate contracts with major financial institutions, those institutions want to deal with familiar legal entities that fit into their compliance frameworks and risk management systems. They want to know who’s legally responsible, who has the authority to sign contracts, and how disputes will be resolved. A DAO with distributed governance and pseudonymous token holders simply doesn’t fit that model, no matter how theoretically superior it might be.

The proposal describes the conversion as an opportunity to “double down on Across” through a structure that institutional partners “actually understand.” This is diplomatic language for a harsh reality: major financial institutions, the very partners that could bring massive volume and revenue to the protocol, are either unable or unwilling to navigate the legal and regulatory uncertainties of dealing with a DAO. Whether that’s fair or not is almost beside the point—it’s the reality Across is facing in its business development efforts. The team believes that by converting to a traditional C-corporation, they can unlock partnerships and integrations that are currently impossible, ultimately delivering more value to stakeholders than the current structure allows.

Broader Implications for DeFi and Crypto Governance

If Across Protocol moves forward with this conversion and it proves successful, it could trigger a wave of similar moves across the DeFi ecosystem. We’re already seeing protocols struggle with the practical realities of DAO governance—low voter participation, difficulty making quick decisions, regulatory uncertainty, and challenges in establishing legal accountability. Many protocols have effectively become DAOs in name only, with core teams making most real decisions while maintaining the appearance of decentralized governance. Across is simply proposing to make that reality explicit and formal.

However, this doesn’t necessarily mean the “DAO vision is dead,” as some might dramatically claim. What it might mean is that we’re entering a more mature phase where the crypto industry recognizes that different structures work better for different purposes. Pure decentralization might be ideal for certain types of protocols—particularly those that need to be censorship-resistant or those that genuinely benefit from broad community input. But for protocols that need to move quickly, sign complex legal agreements, and integrate deeply with traditional finance, a more conventional corporate structure might simply be more effective. The question isn’t whether DAOs or corporations are “better” in some abstract sense, but rather which structure best serves the specific needs and goals of each project. Across is making a calculated bet that for their particular situation, with their particular ambitions in the institutional space, a C-corporation will deliver better outcomes for everyone involved—even the token holders who believed in the decentralized vision.