Across Protocol proposed moving from a DAO to a private US company, offering ACX holders a choice between equity and a USDC exit. The plan was still subject to governance approval when PANews reported it on March 12, 2026, at 15:58 UTC+8.
The proposal puts a practical question behind the decentralization debate: can a token-governed protocol work effectively with institutional customers when it cannot sign contracts directly?
What the proposal would change
Across published its temperature-check proposal on March 11. Under the plan, a US C corporation called AcrossCo would become the operating company behind Across Protocol, take ownership of its intellectual property, and handle development, partnerships and commercialization.
ACX holders would receive two options:
- Exchange tokens for equity: The proposal describes a 1:1 exchange of ACX for AcrossCo equity. Holders of more than 5 million ACX could participate directly; smaller holders would participate through a no-fee special-purpose vehicle, or SPV.
- Exit into USDC: 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 proposed timetable called for a community call on March 18, a final proposal on March 26 and a Snapshot vote on April 2, 2026. These were planned steps—not completed approvals—at the time of publication.
ACX rallied, but remained far below its peak
CoinGecko figures cited by PANews showed ACX rising 94.9% over 24 hours after the proposal, while still trading approximately 96.2% below its all-time high. On-chain analyst Ai Yi estimated that the largest ACX-holding address would still need 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. That was a possible explanation for the rally, not an established cause. The price move did not establish that the restructuring would be approved or improve the business.
Across had operated for four years, raised approximately $51 million across two funding rounds, and processed more than $58 billion in cumulative cross-chain volume, according to the report. Its investors included Paradigm, Coinbase Ventures, Bain Capital Crypto, Multicoin Capital and Hack VC. Those figures describe its financing and transaction history, not its profitability or token value.
Why Across wants a corporate structure
Across co-founder Hart Lambur argued that its DAO and token structure had become an obstacle to institutional partnerships and integrations.
According to Lambur, Across had signed contracts with major crypto projects through Risk Labs Foundation because the protocol lacked a legal entity able to contract directly. He said that intermediary arrangement became more difficult when approaching traditional financial institutions.
Lambur described Across primarily as payments infrastructure, despite its consumer-facing products. As third parties increasingly cover users’ transaction fees, he argued, enforceable off-chain contracts and revenue agreements would become more important. A conventional company, in his view, would make those arrangements easier.
If approved, Lambur said Across would focus on two businesses:
- Stablecoin bridging. He argued that Across’s intent-based architecture could connect fragmented chains and predicted that free bridging would become standard for stablecoins by the end of 2026. Alongside Hyperliquid, he said Across had two undisclosed partnerships intended to offer users free fund transfers. These were his claims and expectations, not confirmed industry-wide outcomes.
- AI-agent payments. Users would state what they wanted, and a competing network of solvers would execute those requests, supporting automated and personalized services.
A governance debate—not proof that DAOs have failed
PANews framed the proposal as part of a broader debate over DAO accountability, concentrated voting power, participation and slow decision-making.
The report also cited Aave founder Stani Kulechov’s criticism that forum discussions, temperature checks and repeated votes can slow execution, while political alliances can favor political operators over builders. His suggested approach was to reserve collective governance for matters such as major protocol changes and treasury strategy, leaving execution to leadership.
Lambur separately argued that ACX was substantially undervalued and receiving insufficient attention. He said that, despite his support for tokens and opposition to high-fully-diluted-valuation, low-float launches, the disadvantages of maintaining a token had come to outweigh the benefits for Across. That is management’s assessment, not an independently established valuation.
The proposed shift drew mixed reactions in the report: some viewed it as a retreat from decentralization that could marginalize retail participants; others saw a pragmatic response to commercial constraints.
Lambur said tokenized equity might be considered later, but the immediate priority was conventional equity. Neither future equity tokenization nor the benefits claimed for the restructuring were established outcomes at publication.
Source: Nancy, PANews — original article, published March 12, 2026, at 15:58 UTC+8.