When we started this organization in 2021, we were guided by a conviction that emerging technologies, especially blockchain, could help bring more equitable governance and ownership to the digital economy, enabling broader economic participation through more disintermediated systems.

At the time, our work was necessarily focused. As the “DAO Research Collective,” we concentrated on Decentralized Autonomous Organizations as a new organizational form – one that challenged long-standing assumptions in law, economics, computer science, organizational design and political theory. Through workshops and collaborative research, we brought together scholars and practitioners across disciplines to better understand how decentralization works in practice, not just in theory.

Those early years were shaped as much by generosity as by inquiry. From the beginning, our work benefited from the intellectual contributions of people who cared deeply about blockchain’s original promise: decentralized control, open and permissionless access, user sovereignty, credible neutrality, and transparency. Many contributed their time, insight, and energy simply because they believed this work mattered.

As our research matured, so did our understanding of decentralization’s relevance.

From Research to Responsibility

By the time we became the Decentralization Research Center, it was clear that decentralization was no longer a niche research topic. It had become a core design question not only for blockchain systems, but for data ownership, digital identity, AI, and internet governance more broadly. It was also clear that this work did not exist in isolation from long-standing research traditions (e.g., cooperatives, pluralism, commons governance) that long predate blockchains themselves.

And increasingly, decentralization had become a policy question.

In mid-2024, we recognized a pivotal shift. Decisions being made in Washington, D.C. would determine not just whether blockchain technology could operate in the United States, but what kinds of systems would be economically and legally viable.

We were concerned that if decentralization remained underrepresented in policy debates, regulation would naturally tilt toward centralized models, simply because they are easier to classify, supervise, and control. Without deliberate policy incentives, builders face strong pressure to centralize: compliance becomes cheaper, governance becomes narrower, and the very properties that make decentralized systems valuable are eroded.

So we stepped into that gap.

What 2025 Made Possible

Throughout 2025, DRC focused on translating decentralization from an aspiration into work that could meaningfully shape policy outcomes.

In April, we hosted our third annual Decentralized Tech Summit, convening more than 100 policymakers, regulators, Congressional staff, industry lawyers, builders, and researchers. The goal was not surface-level alignment, but sustained dialogue, bringing together people who rarely share a room to grapple with how decentralization intersects with consumer protection, market structure, AI, digital identity, and data governance. These conversations made clear that while decentralization is frequently invoked, it is rarely articulated in ways that policymakers can apply consistently or fairly.

That same month, we released Designing Policy for a Flourishing Blockchain Industry. The report did not seek to redefine decentralization, but to translate long-standing values – open and permissionless access, user sovereignty, credible neutrality, and distributed governance – into policy frameworks that can work in practice. A central insight of the report is that decentralization is not the default outcome of innovation: it is harder, slower, and more resource-intensive than centralized alternatives. When policy fails to account for this reality, it inadvertently favors centralization. The framework therefore focused on how regulation can distinguish between centralized and decentralized systems without freezing technology in place, and without rewarding control by default.

This work became foundational to our engagement throughout the year. It informed detailed briefings with House and Senate staff, shaped our responses to regulators, and provided a shared vocabulary for conversations that often struggle to move beyond abstraction. More importantly, it helped reframe decentralization not as a branding exercise, but as a set of design and governance choices that policy can either support or undermine.

Our work in 2025 also extended beyond blockchain alone. Through a global report co-authored with the Project Liberty Institute, we explored data cooperatives as one model for collective ownership in the digital economy. The project situated decentralization within longer-standing traditions of cooperative governance and pluralism, demonstrating how these principles can apply across technologies and institutional contexts, not just within the blockchain industry.

Serious Alignment, Without Oversimplification

One of the most meaningful outcomes of 2025 was coalition-building.

Over the summer, DRC organized a joint letter signed by 50+ organizations urging Congress to adopt control-based approaches that actively incentivize decentralization in market structure legislation. This was not consensus around a single definition of decentralization. Rather, it reflected alignment on core principles: that control is the appropriate policy lens; that insider restrictions and maturity-based frameworks matter; and that incentives must reward genuine decentralization rather than surface-level structuring .

In a fragmented policy environment, that level of substantive alignment was meaningful.

Showing Up Where It Counts

Throughout 2025, DRC engaged deeply across the federal policy landscape.

We provided detailed, technical feedback on House and Senate market structure drafts, submitted a comprehensive response to Treasury’s Counter Illicit Finance RFI proposing privacy-preserving compliance architectures, supported coalition efforts on staking and developer protections, and met directly with SEC staff to discuss safe harbor approaches grounded in control and network maturity.

Across these efforts, our role was consistent: to reduce information asymmetries, bring technical clarity, and ensure decentralization was treated as a real design objective.

Gratitude, and Looking Ahead

As a small nonprofit, we consistently punched above our weight – not because of resources, but because of people. Throughout our journey, we have been fortunate to work alongside some of the most thoughtful researchers, builders, lawyers, and policymakers in this space – people motivated not by short-term gain, but by a desire to see these technologies live up to their original promise.

We are deeply grateful for that trust.

As we look toward 2026, the work becomes even harder. Legislation must be translated into rules, guidance, and enforcement. The incentives embedded in those decisions will shape decentralized technologies for decades to come.

We enter that next phase with momentum, clarity, and a deep sense of responsibility.

Thank you for being part of this work.