The Bridge Across

Proposals
1

The Bridge Across

Title: The Bridge Across - Temp check proposal for a potential Across Token Buyout
Author(s): Risk Labs
Status: RFC
Submission Date: 11-03-2026

Body

Summary:

This proposal explores whether transitioning from a token structure to a private company through an ACX token-to-equity exchange and buyout offer would better serve long-term protocol growth. The goal of the proposal is to strengthen our commitment to Across, while continuing to ensure token holders can participate in Across’ success, to the extent legally permissible.

This proposal is a temperature check. Nothing proceeds without community discussion and a formal governance vote.

Motivation:

The Risk Labs team has been building Across Protocol and its suite of products for over 4 years. During this journey, we have invented the crosschain “intents” architecture, made 2 second bridging table stakes for our industry, and secured partnerships with countless tier 1 industry leaders.

By empowering ACX holders with a sense of ownership, we saw our opportunities, integrations, and partnerships flourish. Risk Labs has stayed token-purist throughout: no private company, only foundation-managed operations, everything built in public.
However, as Across deepens our work with institutional and enterprise partners, the token and DAO structure has materially impacted our ability to close partnerships and integrations. Transitioning to a traditional legal entity would meaningfully improve our ability to enter enforceable contracts, structure revenue agreements, and deliver more value to Across stakeholders.

At current ACX valuations, we believe the Across Protocol is significantly undervalued. The proposed structure gives us an opportunity to explore new ways to foster growth while acting in the best interests of the broader Across community.

This proposal, “The Bridge Across”, is about aligning ownership, incentives, and governance to set a new foundation for growth and success.

Specification & Implementation:

If supported, a newly formed U.S. C-corp (ie: “AcrossCo”) would become the new operating entity. AcrossCo would hold all protocol IP and manage development, partnerships, and commercialization. ACX holders would have two distinct options:

  • Equity exchange: Exchanging tokens for equity exposure in AcrossCo (directly or via an SPV), to the extent legally permissible.

  • Token buyout: A token buyout option, where ACX holders are able to receive USDC as consideration for selling ACX.

Equity exchange

All equity exchanges for all stakeholders would happen at a 1:1 ownership ratio: if you own 1,000 ACX tokens, you would exchange for 1,000 shares (or equivalent units in the case of the SPV) in AcrossCo. All token holders—institutional investors, employees, everyday token holders—are treated the same.

Holders with >5M ACX will be able to convert to equity directly. Holders with <5M ACX would be able to exchange for equity via a no-fee SPV structure, subject to a minimum exchange size (currently targeting 250k ACX, or approx. ~$10k) for legal and administration practicalities. We are purposefully targeting a low minimum exchange size to be as inclusive as possible to the ACX holder base.

Fill in this form (simple, under 1min) to indicate your interest in this token-to-equity exchange. This is a preliminary, non-binding expression of interest. For the SPV involvement, US security laws limit us to the first 100 US investors and first ~500 non-US investors. Other (required) legal restrictions apply, including that the US investor must verify their status as “accredited investors” to participate.

Token buyout

Holders who choose to not participate in the token-to-equity exchange will be given an opportunity to sell ACX for USDC at price of $0.04375, a 25% premium to today’s previous 30 day average trading price.

This ACX-to-USDC buyout would be available for up to a 6-month window, which we anticipate would open within 3 months of this proposal passing. Across’ liquid assets, roughly equating to the current market cap of the protocol, will be utilized to finance this buyout.

What changes (and what doesn’t)

Across Protocol will continue operating without interruption. If this proposal is passed, a transition period would occur where ACX would be purchased from eligible ACX holders. AcrossCo would then set out with institutional clarity and a new path for success.

This is an opportunity for Risk Labs and ACX stakeholders to double down on Across, setting precedent for how protocols can evolve beyond token structures to build lasting infrastructure.

Estimated Timeline

  • March 11th: This temp check is posted to the Across Forum. :white_check_mark:

  • March 18th: “The Bridge Across” community call where the Across leadership will answer all open questions.

  • March 25th: Temp check forum discussion

  • March 26th: Finalized proposal posted for Snapshot voting.

  • April 2nd: Snapshot vote passes/fails

  • April 3rd: Contingent of proposal passing, work commences on (i) legal structuring, (ii) SPV creation and investor rollovers, and (iii) development on an exchange/sell UI.

  • Within 3 months of proposal passing, ACX holders will be able to exchange or sell their tokens and the 6 month buyout window will begin.

Note this timeline is an estimate and may change based on public feedback.

Rationale

This proposal follows months of internal legal and regulatory review. Our goal is to offer ACX holders two distinct paths forward—equity exchange or sell —while also clearing a path for the continued growth of Across Protocol. We want to chart a new course while maintaining integrity toward the protocol, team, community, and stakeholders.

Next Steps

We invite community feedback on this proposal’s benefits, drawbacks, and implications. Risk Labs will actively engage throughout this temp check and answer questions before moving forward.

2 Likes
2

I posted my personal thoughts on this proposal and my views on what’s next for Across in this X post.

2 Likes
3

As CT heavyweight CMS says:

“Do you want to be right, or do you want to make money”.

So called Internet Capital Markets have seen valuations crushed, with regulations getting in the way of passing equity like value to token holders.

Token prices going down retards the ability of a project to operate, which forces it into a death spiral.

Equity, especially privately held equity, would be far more stable and allow direct benefit to holders.

To make an informed choice people need to know the full governance arrangements (shareholder rights) and if there is any dividend policy. Even with terrible terms its probably a good move (voicing opinion to approve).

Is there a limit to how much can be moved through the sale options vs the conversion option?

4

Yes this will be made available to any token holders that are seriously considering the exchange. This proposal is just a temperature check, so these docs have not been drafted yet. One thing that’s important to note is that ALL tokens will convert to the same class of shares—everyone would get the same dividend policy, etc.

No limits here. Token holders are free to choose to exchange for shares or sell for USDC.

5

Proformas for potential new OpCo?

This proposal implies a business case has been developed to determine the path to privatization of the DAO makes financial sense for $ACX token holders.

DAO has generated no revenue in protocols existence (exception being the work of AUVC).

How is an $ACX token holder to assess this proposal with no visibility into last 4 years of revenue, expense, ip assets, ip value, etc.?

6

Yeah, remember that this is just a proposal. None of the structuring work has begun yet.

Token holders interested in the token-to-equity conversion will be given a disclosure package (if this proposal moves forward).

In terms of IP and its value, Across has been fully built in public. All our IP is out there for the public to see. And in terms of revenue, the protocol has generated tens of millions of bridging fees paid by users to the solver network.

1 Like
7

Based on potential new org structure, the proposal limits participation to accredited investors only for US residents. That presumably leaves buyout as only option for many.

If this proceeds, who’s funding the buyout and how is the buyout valuation being calculated?

What valuations where used a number of years ago when raises were done that granted some parties ACX options and RL operating capital?

One would hope, after the years of RL creating value while $ACX token holders experienced a 98% drawdown from 2024 highs, that those token holders who would have no choice but to take buyout are offered a proper exit.

8

How will this private equity be facilitated in trading? Will it be tokenized? What are the future plans?

9

:fire:_​:fire: (Fire Eyes) has been collaborating with Risk Labs on a potential path forward for ACX. Fire Eyes is one of the most token-aligned organisations on earth, contributing to the launch of many of Ethereum largest tokens and DAOs.

We’re strong believers in the idea that tokens unlock permissionless ownership and contribution. However, they also come with clear hurdles as the industry starts to integrate with a more institutional world - The proposed outcome would give ACX holders a choice alongside the Across team to double down on the protocol, product and roadmap.

Across is uniquely positioned as a protocol: delivering objective value to the industry on a number of fronts, with over $35 billion in bridge volume and over 4 million unique wallets interacting with the Across protocol over the past 3+ years. Over this same timeframe, the token landscape has continued to change and ACX has been overlooked by the market. Now as Across moves towards providing more bespoke, institutional facing products and services, operating as a token and DAO backed protocol has added complexity rather than being a driver of growth.

There are clearly tradeoffs for any proposal of this nature, however the most important part from our perspective is the inclusive nature of this proposal; Where ACX holders have meaningful optionality to continue to align, both financially and philosophically, with the Risk Labs team. This has never been a option for token holders

This type of proposal certainly isn’t a catch all solution for token projects; We want to see this framing and mechanism emerge as one of many responsible paths that protocols can take in order to preserve token holder interests and drive growth into legacy financial systems.

Fire Eyes has been a ACX holder since launch, has contributed to this proposal’s development alongside Risk Labs and is supportive of this initiative.

1 Like
12

Hi there,

I have a few questions:

  1. What are the implications for non-US investors? Will they be eligible? What will be the tax implications?

  2. It looks like that only holders of at least 250k tokens will be able to participate in the token-to-equity transaction. So for anyone else this basically means that the only option will be selling on the market or participating in the token buyback,

  3. Why not simply treat the token as equity on-chain? Or convert it into a non-tradeable token.

    Much simpler for everyone. Doesn’t matter where the token instrument is registered. In a spread sheet or a blockchain. Latter is just easier as it’s already on the blockchain. And I think showing that equity can be on-chain would send a strong signal to the market.

2 Likes
13

This sounds like an interesting idea, but I’m not in a position to participate without borrowing against personal assets. I can’t justify taking on that kind of risk, especially when my experience over the past five years has been a significant loss in value despite the clear success of both Across and UMA. I feel deeply attached to Risk Labs’ products, but I struggle to understand why those successes have never translated into meaningful benefits for token holders. What will make this outcome different?

Hash-error also raised an important point on Discord: where is the $25M for the buyout coming from? Did the DAO have access to $25M that was not previously disclosed? If so, that’s concerning, particularly if those funds could have been deployed to strengthen Across as a DAO. It also raises questions about capital allocation, spending $25M to buy out the DAO and then potentially raising $50–100M+ for Risk Labs through equity shortly afterward.

I’m also curious why the existing token cannot be structured or treated as equity, as has been suggested above.

While this is framed as a proposal seeking community feedback, it appears that preparations are already underway, including requests to return PoolTogether funds used for the relayer by a March 26 deadline. That timeline makes it feel as though the decision may already be settled.

As a long-term Across/UMA community member, I’ve always hoped to share in the upside of Risk Labs’ success. And there has been extraordinary success: Polymarket’s transformation into a mainstream prediction market featured in major media(i used Polymarket personally to track election results and was thrilled to see it featured on South Park), Across becoming integrated into Uniswap and recognized as one of the fastest bridges, and continued ecosystem growth. If someone had described this trajectory five years ago, I would have assumed it would lead to substantial value creation for supporters like myself. Instead, I’m down roughly 98% and now face the prospect of being bought out rather than included in future upside. That’s a tough pill to swallow.

3 Likes
14

Interesting proposal, it came a bit as a surprise yesterday and, I must say, feels somewhat uncomfortable at this point in time. I sat down, thought it through, and tried to incorporate the contributions that had already been made. I also used a “Friend” to help clean this up and enhance readability:

After reviewing discussions across multiple threads and the proposed AcrossCorp structure, it’s clear the idea of transitioning the protocol into a U.S. C-corp has practical motivations, especially around legal clarity and institutional partnerships. At the same time, several points remain unclear, and more information is needed before a vote:

  1. DAO governance & community role – What influence will remain on treasury and protocol decisions? How will smaller holders retain a meaningful voice?

  2. Minimum conversion threshold – The proposed 250k ACX minimum (~$10k) could exclude smaller and long-term holders from meaningful equity participation. Alternative mechanisms, such as pooled participation vehicles (similar to models used by investment syndicates), could help address this.

  3. Economic transparency – Share classes, rights, and potential dilution need clarification.

  4. Legal & international participation – Taxation, liability, and investor status questions remain.

  5. Process & timing – Community input currently feels more procedural than substantive; transparency and discussion will be key.

Overall, the proposal is worth exploring, but clarifying the DAO’s role, protecting long-term holders, providing transparency, and considering inclusive participation structures will strengthen trust and alignment.

I have also prepared a short paper with more extended thoughts for those interested, including suggestions such as hybrid or pooled participation mechanisms, and a more detailed discussion of economic, legal, and governance considerations ,see:[link to long document].

3 Likes
15

Hello to all.

DAO to Corporate transition is something I have been thinking for some time. I believe that token structures don’t serve the token holders, the founders, and investors, as there is no way to ensure rights and obligations enforcement. A good recent example is the Aave debacle.

The past 5 months I have been building an equity tokenisation layer, with compliance and rights enforcement baked in.
This case would be a perfect first to prove that blockchain can enable fair enforceable corporate structures.

If this proposal passes, I’d like to offer the infrastructure to help Across transition to a corporate form while remaining on-chain, for both US and non-US shareholders.

Happy to hear feedback and ideas. I won’t link the project here yet to keep the conversation focused, but happy to share more.

16

I would be interested to know more of your project. DM me if you don’t want to share here. But strictly speaking this is supposed to be a temp check only here, depending on the outcome the process would continue , or not - so the theory :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

1 Like
17

Thank you, I will!

I understand, and maybe I didn’t get my point across well :smiley:

I believe it’s a net positive for everyone involved to move to an equity based model, as it enforces the rights and obligations of all parties and open new paths of cooperation with the traditional financial system.

I am supportive of this motion. We have all the tools to ensure fair shareholder participation and translate teachings from DAOs to modernise Corporations. :victory_hand:

18

Sure, moving to a corporate structure can be an option, and exploring other avenues makes sense, hence my paper. That said, the proposal currently provides very little meaningful information for many members, yet seems to expect a blank check.

It is the text in the proposal that counts, not a reassuring X tweet hinting at possible adjustments later. The proposed squeeze-out at near-market lows is the easiest and cheapest path for the initiators. If 10k USD is indeed a regulatory threshold, then many members may not meet it simply because the transition is happening now. Previously, this would not have been as much of an issue for most. These are the frictions that arise when transitioning from a crypto-native to a fiat-based system, so timing matters. It is also worth noting that token value is tied to the current market price, which may not fully reflect its underlying value. A careful assessment of real value could help ensure a fair conversion, for example by taking the higher of market price or evaluated value, protecting participants from exiting at artificially depressed levels. Mechanisms such as a Syndicate system, which I mentioned in my paper, could complement this approach to help smaller holders participate more effectively.

Claims that regulatory constraints prevented Across from thriving are hard to assess. How, for example, do Solana or Ethereum manage similar challenges? As @TheRealTuna_Across so nicely noted: “What will make this outcome different?” No one can say for sure, of course. As a spin-off from RL’s books, AcrossCorp could attract its own VC investment, which would almost certainly dilute other participants unless appropriate safeguards exist. RL’s ongoing role and long-term commitment beyond stated claims also remain unclear.

Many discussions have likely already taken place behind the scenes. The tight timeline suggests the process may now be mostly about execution, particularly seeing contributors like Hart actively engaging, while the broader community is not privy to those conversations.

1 Like
19

Appreciate the engagement from the community. These are exactly the kinds of questions a temp check is designed to surface. I want to address a few recurring themes together rather than go point-by-point.

On process and timing

To be really clear again: this proposal is just a temperature check. We’re here to discuss, hear concerns, and determine whether the community wants to move forward. No structuring work has begun. No decisions have been made. Suggesting that decisions were made behind closed doors runs counter to what is literally happening right now!

Note: Risk Labs is hosting a community call on March 19th, as discussed in the proposal.

On the buyout funding

This is stated directly in the proposal: “Across’ liquid assets, roughly equating to the current market cap of the protocol, will be utilized to finance this buyout.” The treasury is the source of buyout funding!

On treating the token as equity

I understand why this sounds appealing. But unfortunately a token can’t just be “treated as” equity. I wish it could.

If a token confers equity-like rights (dividends, governance over a corporate entity, claims on assets), it becomes a security under U.S. law. And if that security is freely tradeable on public markets, you need SEC registration, audited financials, annual disclosures, and an entire regulatory infrastructure that doesn’t exist today. The whole point of this proposal is to create a clean, legally sound structure that gives holders the option to exchange tokens for equity, and gives holders the benefits (i.e. investor protections) that equity confers.

Please keep the questions coming. That’s what this period is for.

20

The biggest problem here is that many of your biggest supporters are excluded from participation. $10,000 USD only includes your top 106 holders, many of which are exchanges, whales, and team members. Is there anything that can be done to not exclude people such as myself from equity in the Across company?

image
If you use your power to exclude all these smaller holders and force us to sell for USD, it seems you are giving yourselves a pretty good deal! You get to absorb the value of all the uncirculated tokens and share it amongst those at the top.

1 Like
21

Some things need to be brainstormed behind closed doors first - nothing wrong with that.

It would be helpful to know more about the valuation assumptions and where you see Across positioned and its growth potential, e.g. turning on the fee switch and retain ≥80% of volume. That may also help to understand what the success of incorporation may be. If I understand correctly you currently value AcrossCorp at 40 mil. USD (~1 bill. token *~0.04 USD).

We are all here because we are interested in making Across a success - and where feasible join along the ride.

22

Regarding the following.

On the buyout funding

This is stated directly in the proposal: “Across’ liquid assets, roughly equating to the current market cap of the protocol, will be utilized to finance this buyout.” The treasury is the source of buyout funding!

Please provide Across DAO addresses containing the liquid assets.