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.

Regulatory heat map

All jurisdictionsUnited StatesEuropean UnionGlobal & other

CentralizedBlockchain LayerDecentralized

ElectricitySettlement LayerNode / Validator LayerComputation-intensive Consensus MechanismsCapabilities-based Consensus MechanismsVoting-based Consensus MechanismsTransaction LayerOn-chain Data StorageAsset Layer - StablecoinsAsset Layer - Fungible TokensAsset Layer - Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)Exchange LayerProtocol LayerApplication LayerPermanent Storage LayerInternet BrowserThe DeveloperProgramming Language AuditorDeFi Architecture and SecurityDeFi Architecture Standards / AuditorFiat Onboarding / Offboarding Access

Permanent Storage Layerdecentralized

✕

This row applies to protocols providing immutable data storage to their users.

UnaddressedOperatorless permanence breaks every hosting-law assumption; nothing addresses it.

Government Concerns

• Nobody — including the network's creators — can remove illegal content once replicated
• Jurisdictional void: data exists everywhere and nowhere at once

Consumer Risks

• 'Pay once, store forever' models depend on endowment economics that may not survive decades
• Storage does not guarantee retrieval — data can be stored yet practically unreachable

Cons to over-regulation

• Content liability on node operators who cannot inspect what they replicate ends volunteer participation

Cons to lack of regulation

• Illegal and abusive content gains a permanence no other medium provides
• Victims of published private data have no remedy at all

Does blockchain technology currently exist to fulfill these obligations, and if so, what is it?

• Arweave's endowment model funding storage economically rather than by promise
• Proof-of-spacetime making storage claims cryptographically verifiable
• Gateway- and indexer-level filtering as the practical moderation point above an unfilterable base

Current regulatory landscape

• enactedEU Digital Services Act — EU, 2022. Duties attach to identifiable intermediaries; a permissionless storage network with no operator sits outside the enforcement model.

Notable incidents

• Illicit content in permanent storage (2019–) — Studies documenting illegal material written into permanent ledgers and storage networks — content no party can remove — remain the layer's hardest policy problem.
• IPFS-hosted phishing waves (2022–23) — Phishing sites pinned to decentralized storage evaded conventional takedowns, forcing gateway-level filtering as the practical control point.

Suggest an addition (GitHub)About contributing