Blockchain Regulation Matrix
The Blockchain Regulation Matrix (BRM) establishes a framework outlining the concerns of regulating the blockchain from both the government and the consumer perspective, and in doing so, provides a pragmatic and clear approach to Web3 regulation. The BRM outlines regulation aspects of the blockchain by viewing it as a blockchain stack in many layers starting with the electricity physically supporting the blockchain at the base layer, all the way to the process of offloading crypto to fiat currency. With centralization and decentralization on either side of the matrix, the primary objective of the BRM is to understand where and how regulation of the blockchain should be developed specific to each layer.
Beginning with the electricty supporting the blockchain, as you hover over the images of each row, you'll see the specifics for that topic within that layer. The left side refers to projects that are centralized, while the right side refers to projects that are decentralized. For example, if there was an organization or business that wanted to provide electricity to miners in their area, that would be a centralized project. However, if there was a solar farm operating as a DAO that wanted to provide electricity to miners, that could be a decentralized project.
There are two illustrations of the Blockchain Regulation Matrix below, a short-form immediately below and a long-form afterwards.
Hover over the icons to preview each topic, and click any icon to pin its details — the address bar then links straight to that cell, ready to share.
The Developercentralized
This row applies to developers who are coding any aspect of their project relating to the blockchain.
Partially addressedProsecution memos and case law bound liability loosely; no accreditation or standards regime exists.
Government Concerns
- No accreditation or professional standards exist for developers deploying financial code
- Whether publishing and maintaining code creates money-transmission or advisory liability
- Attribution: identifying who deployed a contract when harm occurs
Consumer Risks
- How can I protect myself without having to be a smart contract auditor?
- Exposure to smart contract vulnerabilities and financial losses
- Lack of recourse in case of errors or bugs in blockchain applications
- Difficulty in verifying the security and legitimacy of third-party smart contracts
- Limited understanding of complex blockchain technologies leading to mistakes
- No coding or certification requirements or standards
Cons to over-regulation
- Excessive regulations stifling innovation and hindering developer experimentation
- Barriers to entry for developers, limiting accessibility and diversity in the ecosystem
- Potential migration of developers to more permissive jurisdictions
- Slowing down the pace of technological advancement in the blockchain space
Cons to lack of regulation
- Proliferation of insecure and unreliable smart contracts
- Lack of standardized coding practices leading to increased risks
- Difficulty in addressing disputes and liabilities arising from faulty code
- Undermining public confidence in blockchain technology due to frequent incidents
Does blockchain technology currently exist to fulfill these obligations, and if so, what is it?
- Verified source code on public explorers with reproducible builds
- Battle-tested libraries (OpenZeppelin) replacing hand-rolled financial primitives
- On-chain attestations (EAS) building portable, verifiable developer track records
Current regulatory landscape
- guidanceDOJ digital-assets enforcement memo — US, 2025. Narrowed 'regulation by prosecution': charging decisions should target fraud and willful violations, not code publication as such.
- guidanceProfessional licensing regime — None, —. No jurisdiction licenses smart-contract developers — the gap this organization's accreditation drafts address.
Notable incidents
- Tornado Cash developer prosecutions (2023–25) — Pertsev convicted in the Netherlands (2024); Storm's US trial (2025) produced a partial verdict — the live test of whether publishing code is itself a crime.
- SushiSwap 'Chef Nomi' dev-key sale (2020) — An anonymous founder sold the dev fund overnight (later returned) — the anonymous-developer accountability problem in one weekend.