Across Protocol’s proposal to replace its DAO structure with a private company puts a practical question before its token-holding community: exchange ACX for equity, or take a USDC exit.
As reported by Nancy at PANews on March 12, 2026, at 15:58 UTC+8, the four-year-old cross-chain protocol had published a temperature-check proposal on March 11 to transition into a U.S. C corporation. At the time of publication, this was a proposal—not an approved restructuring.
What ACX holders would receive
Under the plan, a new company, AcrossCo, would take over the protocol’s intellectual property and handle development, partnerships and commercialization. Holders would have two routes:
- Exchange ACX for equity: The proposal describes a 1:1 exchange of ACX tokens for AcrossCo equity. Holders with more than 5 million ACX could participate directly; smaller holders would participate through a free special-purpose vehicle, or SPV.
- Exchange ACX for USDC: Holders could redeem at $0.04375 per ACX, 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 governance timetable called for a community call on March 18, a final proposal on March 26, and a Snapshot vote on April 2, 2026.
Across had raised approximately $51 million across two funding rounds, with investors including Paradigm, Coinbase Ventures, Bain Capital Crypto, Multicoin Capital and Hack VC. PANews reported that the protocol had processed more than $58 billion in cumulative cross-chain volume.
Why the team wants a legal entity
Across co-founder Hart Lambur argued that the token-and-DAO structure was making partnerships and integrations harder to secure, particularly with institutional and corporate counterparties.
According to Lambur’s explanation, Across could not sign contracts directly and instead had to route agreements through the Risk Labs Foundation. He said that arrangement became an obstacle when dealing with more traditional financial institutions. As third parties increasingly cover users’ transaction fees, he argued, enforceable commercial agreements outside the protocol itself would become more important.
His case for incorporation was therefore about execution as much as governance: a company could sign contracts, establish revenue agreements and pursue commercial relationships more directly.
If approved, Lambur said Across would focus on two businesses:
- Stablecoin bridging. He argued that Across’s cross-chain intent architecture could connect fragmented networks and predicted that free bridging would become standard for all stablecoins by the end of 2026. In addition to Hyperliquid, he cited two undisclosed partnerships intended to enable free transfers for users. These were his claims and expectations, not established outcomes.
- AI-agent payments. Users would state what they wanted done, while a competing network of solvers would execute those requests to provide automated, personalized services.
A governance debate, not just a corporate reshuffle
The proposal changes the form of participation on offer: token holders would be asked to choose between becoming equity participants under the proposed structure and exiting through USDC.
PANews placed the move within a broader debate about DAO accountability, concentrated voting power, limited participation and slow decision-making. It also cited Aave founder Stani Kulechov, who had recently argued that forum discussions, temperature checks and repeated votes could bog down execution and encourage political coalitions rather than building.
Kulechov’s proposed distinction was to reserve collective governance for matters such as major protocol changes and treasury strategy, while leaving execution to leaders. That is a critique of how DAOs operate—not evidence that every DAO faces the same problems.
Lambur also argued that ACX was substantially undervalued and receiving insufficient attention. Although he described himself as a token supporter and an opponent of high-fully-diluted-valuation, low-circulating-supply launches, he said the drawbacks of having a token had come to outweigh the benefits for Across. Those valuation judgments were his, rather than independently established facts.
The response described by PANews was divided: some viewed the proposal as a retreat from decentralization that could marginalize retail participants; others saw it as a pragmatic adjustment for a DeFi business. The report did not establish a community-wide consensus.
The price reaction did not erase earlier losses
At the reporting snapshot, CoinGecko data showed ACX up 94.9% over 24 hours, while still approximately 96.2% below its all-time high. On-chain analyst Ai姨 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 seeking an arbitrage opportunity and contributed to the short-term surge. That explanation remained an interpretation, not a demonstrated cause.
Lambur said tokenized equity could be considered later, but the initial priority would be conventional equity. For the community, the immediate decision was narrower: whether the proposed corporate structure and holder options offered an acceptable replacement for the DAO.
Source: Nancy, PANews — original article, published March 12, 2026, at 15:58 UTC+8. This account preserves the proposal’s status and timetable as reported then.