The Bridge Across

Proposals
23

All for receiving stock for tokens, onward and forward with across team : )

look forward to more financial type statements and information about across potential.

UMA is next?

24

Reading this further, only 100 US investors?

How many slots are left for non company, non employee, non insider, non VC affiliated people?

I put about 10k USD into across(?), but its hardly worth anything now. I have 19,140 ACX tokens after staking.

I can put 10k more in to meet the USD minimum, but even then, does not seem like I would make the 100 USA cut? I am an accredited investor.

How are the 100 people chosen? would I make the cut? I filled out the form. Let me know, so I can consider buying 9k USD more…..

25

Following yesterdays 30+ min. AMA show, I feel none the wiser really. We learned that no decisions were made in the background yet but conversations have been ongoing with the VCs, who’s bread and butter occupation is structuring investments. Unfortunately, none of the business/investment proposition questions were answered, most not even addressed.

E.g., what C Corp type was being considered (Close Corporation?) that is limited to 100 investors given that there seem to be already 106 significant holders exceeding 250k ACX holdings, consisting most likely of investors, whales and the team as was already pointed out here.

And, if limiting shareholders is intended, how should further investors be able to join the cap table later?

Unclear also what the intermediate to long term business strategy would be, apart from B2B agreements to provide the bridge as infrastructure and, presumably, striving for network effects.

Further how the new entity would be run and controlled? Would DAO members be involved there or be relegated as bystanders corresponding to their holding size?

Perhaps the Q&A will shed some light on these technicalities.

Another take away is that the ACX in the Across DAO treasury would be “repossessed“ by RL and not form part of a share disbursement. So no AcrossCorp shares for the DAO itself. Of course the question did come to mind what would happen with the ~250 mil or so, I cannot remember the exact amount, tokens which RL awarded itself for strategic purposes about 2 years ago. Were they spent and if yes what for and if not, what would happen to them in this context? This way RL would hold ~50% of all ACX tokens. What will happen to all these tokens? Just be retired as is? This would be interesting regarding potential dilution.

I found these two SAFE wallets and am wondering whether these are the corresponding ACX wallets for Across and RL:

26

Some responses to questions in this forum thread and the Across Discord:

Limits on US Investors:

  • For US people, and only US people, US security law limits the token-for-equity exchange to 100 accredited US investors (note that employees or insiders do not count towards this limit).
  • For non-US people, there is no legal limit on participation.
  • From our data, most ACX tokenholder are non-US people. US tokenholder make up a small minority.
  • In my view, this US accredited investor limit is one of the biggest downsides of the proposal. However, as of the time of my writing this, substantially less than 100 US investors have indicated their interest in this conversion. (Remember, most token holders are non-US!) If you are interested in the token-for-equity conversion, you should fill out the form (@bananachain, @h3rf, @TheRealTuna_Across).
  • If the proposal passes, we will rank US investors based on when they filled out the form in the proposal. Our goal is to be as inclusive as possible, and based on the data we have so far, there is no one that would be excluded from participation.

Additional details on buyout financing:

  • The assets used to finance the buyout are held by Risk Labs (a shareholderless Foundation), not the Across DAO.
  • The DAO does not own or control Risk Labs assets (and it cannot as the DAO is not a legal entity). This is the standard DAO + Foundation structure that most token projects operate with, and it’s this structure that this proposal is looking to change.
  • Across DAO only holds unallocated ACX tokens. These tokens are controlled by the ACX tokenholders collectively, and are similar to “authorized but unallocated” shares in equity companies. These ACX tokens are essentially owned by no one, and the Across DAO essentially has no other assets.
  • Risk Labs assets are partially held on chain (i.e. the RL multisig), but are also held offchain (bank accounts, etc).
  • If this proposal passes, Risk Labs if offering to transfer substantially all its Across related assets to AcrossCo, less the funds used to buyout any token holders who opt for the buyout. These assets are approximately worth the market capitalization of ACX before this proposal went live. Risk Labs has no obligation to transfer these assets, but it is proposing to do so because it believes it’s the best path forward for Across and all ACX token holders!

Equity holders rights and economics:

  • If the proposal passes, tokenholders will have the option to exchange ACX tokens for AcrossCo equity.
  • As stated in my X post, all tokenholders will convert to the same class of shares, on the same terms, with the same economics.
  • For practical purposes, smaller investors will participate via a no-fee SPV. This SPV will have identical economics to all other investors.

Timeline update:

  • The original forum post suggested closing the discussion today and moving to a snapshot vote.
  • I suggest we delay the snapshot vote until early next week to allow for additional input and discussion.
27

Appreciate the detail.

I’m against the buyout of ACX token holders at -98% from November 2024 highs.

This is not unlocking value for Across’s token holding supporters who don’t meet the minimum proposed thresholds/requirements to participate in conversion.

Consider this. If this passes, you are forcing smaller token holders to sell at 3 year price lows. No value beyond loss harvesting. Presumably, this is being offered now because a) the price is low so it costs less to convert and b) the value that comes with the Across protocol is close to ready to begin being realized.

Is this a leveraged buyout? Have funds been raised at higher valuations? Are small guys receiving a forced buyout at 3 year low prices while the Across protocol is privately being valued at multiples to the buyout offer?

28

Thank you @hart_UMA for your responses. Many folks had been waiting to hear back on these questions, so I agree that delaying the snapshot vote is sensible at this time to allow time for more discussion.

A few follow-up questions:

US Investors

Based on your answer, US investors that are not amongst the first 100 people to fill out the form will not be able to convert to equity. Even if unlikely to pose an issue, this imposes some possible risks for US investors which may be prudent to address.

  • You mention US investors will be ranked on the order in which the form was filled out. This order is not transparent, and investors are not able to independently verify if they are in the top 100 responders, which presents risk in the off chance team prioritizes friends and family, or simply wants to reduce converters. This can be resolved by using an on-chain signature instead of a form, or quite simply first come first serve in the order in which people send their tokens in to be converted to equity (which would have clear onchain proof).
  • In the case where it’s not first-come-first-serve - if someone is, say, 101st in queue, and someone in the top 100 backs out, can the person who is 101st still participate? If so, the deadline for someone in the top 100 to convert their tokens to equity must be before the buyout deadline, so that the 101st person still has time to convert to equity without risking being stuck with useless tokens!

Tokenomics

  1. Will unvested tokens be eligible to convert to equity or participate in the buyout?
  2. What will happen to tokens which are not converted or redeemed after the six month buyout window is closed? Are they rugged?

Treasury

If this proposal passes, Risk Labs if offering to transfer substantially all its Across related assets to AcrossCo, less the funds used to buyout any token holders who opt for the buyout. These assets are approximately worth the market capitalization of ACX before this proposal went live. Risk Labs has no obligation to transfer these assets, but it is proposing to do so because it believes it’s the best path forward for Across and all ACX token holders!

I assume the assets used the finance the buyout are from the $51m total raised from two Strategic raises - raises that involved selling ACX tokens in the interest of developing the protocol. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I find it poor taste that you are suggesting that Risk Labs is performing charity both in offering a buyout and offering to transfer funds to the new entity, as if Risk Labs would be completely in their right to rug both and just do whatever they want with the money.

Can we get more transparency on the amount of Across-related assets? You mention “approximately the market cap of ACX before this proposal went live,” when the buyout price is approximately 25% above the market cap of ACX before the proposal went live. How is this enough then to cover a potential case where everyone chooses the buyout? Is the team supply is assumed to convert already? If everyone participates in the buyout except the team, will there be enough funds to cover it? Will the new entity have any funds in such a case or will any equity converters immediately be diluted because another raise must occur?

29

Look, I’ve been holding ACX since the early days and I usually just lurk (Discord is the bane of crypto’s existence), but some of these takes in the comments are making my head hurt so I gotta say something.

Can we just step back for a second and think about what ACX actually is right now? It’s a governance token. That’s it. No IP rights, no revenue, no legal claim to anything. The DAO isn’t even a legal entity, so it literally can’t own IP. There’s a reason this thing was trading where it was trading. None of this should be controversial.

Now Risk Labs comes along and says “hey, here’s ~$20M in assets and all the IP, we’re just gonna hand it to you as equity with real legal protections.” And people are… mad about this? I’m sorry, what? Do you guys understand how rare this is in crypto? Most teams would’ve just slowly ghosted the token, rugged, and built a new thing. That’s the typical playbook we’ve seen over and over and over again. Risk Labs is doing the opposite and treating tokenholders on the exact same terms as employees. That’s unheard of. I for one can’t wait to participate in this.

And for the people who don’t want equity, there’s a buyout at a 25% premium to where the token sat for months. Months! You’re getting paid above market to walk away. How is that not a win? It’s so short sighted not to see this as a major win.

Yeah, the 100-person US cap isn’t ideal, I’ll give you that. But if you’d actually read Hart’s posts, you’d know there aren’t even 100 US holders. The vast majority of ACX holders are international. This is a non-issue that people are treating like a dealbreaker. You all need to slow down and actually read everything.

I don’t get the negativity here. Honestly I think some folks just have a reflexive distrust of anything that sounds too good, but sometimes a good deal is just a good deal. This one’s pretty obviously that.

I’m in full support of this and will be voting accordingly.

30

I am only concerned with the small token holders who do not meet the minimum thresholds in the proposal and/or folks who would not be able to participate given potential jurisdictional complications.

You’re right though - we all held the shitcoin, governance only token all the way to the bottom while the protocol was built out and seemingly has turned into something of value.

There’s simply a cross-section of holders that this event will be a forced sale and exclusion of ability to participate in the new entity and the potential up side of value it’s intended to unlock.

Boxing these people out is a choice, it does not have to be an inevitability.

Everyone who’s in a position to participate in the conversion is not my concern.

31

If you provide liquidity on Across and there is no more Across token, will the APY drop substantially? Is there a risk most LPs move elsewhere?

What can we expect the new APY to be? If it’s below 4% there are lower risk alternatives with higher yield.

32

Thank you @hart_UMA for the detailed feedback. Delaying the vote slightly will help to get everyone interested on board. What I am currently trying to asses from this proposal is its investment and long-term value merits, i.e. whether this represents a solid opportunity for tokenholders.

Here a list of key points where additional clarity would really help:

1. Valuation & Conversion

  • What valuation underlies the token? Equity conversion beyond the current market price, and how does this align with the actual assets being transferred?

  • Will ~250 million unallocated ACX tokens in the treasury be converted into shares alongside the allocation ~250 million ACX secured by RL?

2. Asset Transfer, Structure & Runway

  • What exactly will be transferred to AcrossCo besides IP (cash, etc.)?

  • What operating runway does this provide under expected costs?

  • Given RL is not legally obliged, how will the transfer be structured and enforced in practice?

  • How will share entitlements be distributed to tokenholders?

3. Shareholder Rights (especially for smaller holders)

  • What rights will shareholders have in practice (information, voting, economic participation)?

  • How will minority holders be protected?

4. Dilution & Future Investors

  • Will shareholders have pre-emptive rights or other protections against dilution?

  • How much capacity is being reserved for future investors or incentives?

  • Are there plans to bring in additional investors, and on what timeline?

5. Business Model, Development & Execution

  • What is the primary revenue model going forward?

  • What, if any, are the concrete plans to expand into infrastructure / enterprise / data services?

  • Will the protocol and underlying technology continue to be actively developed and upgraded?

6. Commitment & Strategy

  • What will be RL’s ongoing role and level of commitment to AcrossCo?

  • What incentives ensure long-term alignment with shareholders?

  • What is the intended path (organic growth, acquisitions, eventual sale or IPO), and what does success realistically look like in 3–5 years?

Overall, I think the direction is interesting, but answering these points would help clarify whether this is not just structurally sound, but also a compelling investment with credible growth prospects.

33

Now that it’s been clarified that non-US investors can be included without a minimum, I’m open to receiving equity in AcrossCo. I’ll need a bit of time to consolidate and organize my wallets. Last week, when I believed I would likely be excluded, I sold some ACX. I have now filled out the form and included the wallet I intend to move ACX into.

I’ve trusted Risk Labs for a long time, but recently that trust has been harder to maintain. From my perspective, there has been a lack of transparency over the past year that contributed to the decline in value. For example, the depreciation of oSnap and the resulting shift in Across governance to a multisig structure was never clearly communicated. I only discovered that through documentation. Situations like that make it difficult for the community to stay aligned and confident.

I also believe there were opportunities to strengthen ACX tokenomics during that period, which may have helped reduce losses for holders. When the team’s faith in the token weakens, holders don’t really have the ability to adapt alongside them, and we’re left reacting after the fact.

That said, I’m still willing to move forward and take part. I hope this transition is an opportunity to rebuild trust and ensure that value is distributed fairly to those who have supported the ecosystem. I’m prepared to commit what I have remaining, but I do so with the expectation that this won’t simply result in value accruing to Risk Labs without being shared more broadly. Don’t let me down.

34

Additional questions.

  1. what was Across’s valuation for this raise?Unifying Ethereum: Across Raises $41M to Accelerate Crosschain Interop | Across Protocol

  2. what is your guidance for those who fall below the 250k ACX minimum threshold?

  3. what is your guidance for those who are US non-accredited investors?

  4. what is your guidance to qualified investors who can’t properly value the conversion opportunity without income statement, balance sheet or cash flow data?

35

Thank you all for your thoughtful questions and responses. A few more common questions have been answered below.

Also, the snapshot vote is now live LINK. Please vote!

If everyone participates in the buyout except the team, will there be enough funds to cover it?

Yes. There are sufficient funds to cover the buyout even if everyone—including the team—chose that option.

If you provide liquidity on Across and there is no more Across token, will the APY drop substantially? Is there a risk that most LPs move elsewhere?

This was addressed in the community call. The plan is for rewards to be paid in USDC, which would allow liquidity provision to continue without depending on the Across token.

What was Across’s valuation at its last fundraise?

The institutional financing announced in March 2025 occurred over a six-month period between April and October 2024 at a range of valuations between approximately $0.25 and $0.40 per token.

What is the guidance for those who fall below the 250k ACX minimum threshold?

The goal is to make participation as inclusive as possible. If fewer than 100 accredited US investors participate, the minimums will be lowered to open it up to more people.

Will the ~250 million unallocated ACX tokens in the treasury be converted into shares alongside the ~250 million ACX secured by Risk Labs?

This was addressed in my previous post: Across DAO only holds unallocated ACX tokens. These tokens are controlled by the ACX tokenholders collectively, and are similar to “authorized but unallocated” shares in equity companies. These ACX tokens are essentially owned by no one, and the Across DAO essentially has no other assets.

Will Across be publishing financial statements for token holders to review?

This was addressed during our community call. Relevant documents and disclosures will be provided to those who are interested in participating in equity exchange. This is not a public offering and not all documents can be made publicly available. If you are interested in participating, please fill out the Exchange Indication Survey here!

Again, the Snapshot vote is now LIVE. Please vote, and thank you for your input and consideration!

1 Like
36

Hi. Brief background on myself. I have been active in DeFi and CT since 2021 and have used ACX from the moment it began, firstly as a liquidity provider with no real points campaign, blindly depositing, to receiving the ACX drop during the time of FTX collapsing, to continuing to use ACX during the L2 craze from 2023–2025.

I have witnessed over the course of the last few months the ACX token cratering, mainly as a result of a combination of poor market conditions for altcoins and the bridge landscape moving towards more centralised options such as CCTP and LZ. Despite perhaps the lack of a concrete tokenomics link with the bridge business, I think the other factors outweigh.

Regardless, I began accumulating the token towards the end of the last cycle and currently hold ~1.2% of circulating supply. I accumulated because Risk Labs have always conducted themselves with the utmost integrity and understood what it really meant to issue and manage a token in the wild (UMA as an example, which secures Polymarket decisions). As such, I was always under the impression that the team could pivot to be bigger and better.

I will now walk you through my thinking on 1) what I think of the process, which came as a surprise, and 2) what I would like to see done differently. I will not comment on the 100 US investor piece or the SPV, as that does not pertain to large holders who may be in my shoes.

Illiquid equity in crypto investing has in the vast majority of cases resulted in significant destruction of wealth for retail non-insiders and non-team members. There are many examples of this, including DATs, Seeds, and SAFTs across the industry. For me to convert into equity, I would need at least a full view of the financials and balance sheet of the equity entity. At this price point, I would be signing away a +$400k cheque without knowing much, which, as you’ll agree, is financial suicide. As such, the proposal as it stands straightjackets me into redeeming for the lowly price of $0.04375. Perhaps the purpose is obfuscation, but given how Risk Labs has conducted themselves thus far, I doubt this.

Now some simple maths. Assuming a $51m treasury, after 2–3 years of burn this would look closer to perhaps $35m assuming no fees flowed. Assuming that 70% of the tokens are not circulating (the Etherscan number — some of these are DAO tokens that are useless and should be burned, some are team tokens that are vested out, so there is some double-dipping, but that’s fine) means the redemption price looks much closer to $0.050. Now take into account potential dead supply being 5–10% after 6 months, and the redemption price range is [$0.0538–$0.0583] rather than $0.04375. It’s hard not to feel incensed when I put the numbers in this stark a way. Cutting the numbers a different way, if we stick with the $0.04375 price (picked during the lows) and with a 5% lost token assumption (standard see AragonDAO e/g/), which gets swept by redeemers rather than confiscated by NewCo, then we would expect at least a $0.04594 redemption price — an additional 5% upside for loyal holders.

What I would like to see changed in the proposal, or at least adjusted, for me to be comfortable voting and for Risk Labs to do right by token holders:

  1. Further financial transparency on what the pro-forma entity financials look like, such that token holders such as myself can make an informed decision on why $0.04375 was picked. If we cannot receive this, then:

  2. More importantly, reach an equitable solution for leftover circulating USD to flow to token holders post-6 months. ACX is an older token, so there will be some lost supply. This solution needs to present a split between the redeemers, which constitute active supply, and the equity entity. If (1) is not provided by Risk Labs, then it is impossible to fairly suggest a split between the two stakeholders, and I would strongly recommend giving remaining USD to redeemers, some of whom will be the team, since the redemption price is arbitrary and lacking transparency from our point of view.

Owning and investing in tokens is hard and risky, but it also means I get to have conversations directly with founders such as this for protocols I own. I do believe the level of transparency you’ve shown thus far is many times greater than more unsavoury projects, but digging deeper, this is not a deal that does the risk of holding the ACX token justice.

image
image2116×834 223 KB

Hope to reach an equitable solution before the snapshot ends.

1 Like
37

I am surprised to see the snapshot is up with many of the concerns going ignored by Risk Labs - especially regarding transparency about financials.

To be blunt, the team has already contradicted themselves once about financials:

“These assets are approximately worth the market capitalization of ACX before this proposal went live.”

This was contradicted by the later statement:

“There are sufficient funds to cover the buyout even if everyone—including the team—chose that option.”

Where the total buyout price would be ~25% higher than the market cap of ACX before the proposal went live.

If the value of cash is even higher than the ~31 million or so confirmed to be available from the previous statement, token holders deserve to know to make an informed decision on whether the buyout price is fair.

The team has also ignored questions about whether unvested tokens (mostly theirs, and maybe some of the VC’s) would be eligible for the conversion, and whether tokens which do not convert or get bought out will be worthless after six months. These materially change the nature of the proposal and should be disclosed clearly.

To be clear - I’m not opposed to the proposal - just think there needs to be basic financial transparency before any vote proceeds, as a “yes” vote under current conditions imho is not informed consent.

2 Likes
38

I’m an ACX holder and am planning to convert to equity. The transition makes sense to me given the current structure limits ability to engage with enterprises and lean into this next phase of adoption with stablecoins. I continue to believe in the team and am happy to follow their judgment here.

39

I have to agree with doodee about the lack of transparency regarding the financials and unvested tokens. Without this information, coupled with the numbers provided by potato, it’s difficult to believe token holders are being bought out at a fair price

1 Like
40

My closing remarks:
While this proposal is framed as “optionality,” for many average ACX holders it is not a real choice.

The combination of the 250k ACX minimum for the SPV route, legal participation limits, and accredited-investor restrictions for many U.S. holders means a large portion of the community is effectively being funneled into the buyout path whether they want that outcome or not.

That makes this feel far less like an inclusive transition and far more like an institutional clean-up of the cap table at the expense of the very token holders who helped build belief in Across from day one.

Many of us held through extreme volatility, years of execution risk, treasury funding rounds, roadmap uncertainty, and repeated promises that long-term protocol success would eventually translate into token-holder value(such as, turning on the fee switch). Now that the business case has become strong enough to justify a traditional corporate structure, the average investor is being asked to exit at a price that reflects the token’s depressed market conditions(that Risk Labs allowed to happen) rather than the strategic value that Risk Labs itself is claiming this new structure unlocks.

The most damaging part of this proposal is not the mechanics, it is the precedent.

It sends the message that retail token holders are useful for bootstrapping network effects, governance legitimacy, and community conviction, but once the protocol matures into something institutionally valuable, the endgame is to migrate that value into private equity structures that many of those same holders cannot realistically access.

That precedent will have a long-lasting impact on the reputation of Risk Labs and naturally leaves UMA holders asking what their own long-term alignment looks like when value outcomes for token communities can ultimately be reshaped at Risk Labs’ discretion.

Trust, once broken at this stage, is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild.

4 Likes
41

An Alternative Path Forward for “The Bridge Across”

A Venture DAO Framework That Preserves Community Participation, Protects Treasury Value, and Enables Corporate Transition

Prepared by Seedplex | April 2026

Who are we?

Seedplex is at the forefront of the pseudo-tokenization of equity built around existing communities. Seedplex was part of the latest Solana Incubator cohort (6 out of 300+ applicants) but we can accommodate other chains fairly easily. Treggs, the CEO and author of this post, has been in crypto since 2016 but really ramped my participation up during DeFi Summer in 2020. They also Co-founded Flash trade in 2023, a pool to peer DEX exchange that really extended the model to offer derivatives on longer tail assets, and ultimately left in order to try and fix the problems traditional tokens have with Seedplex.

Executive Summary

The Bridge Across proposal aims to transition Across Protocol from a DAO and token structure to a U.S. C-corp, offering ACX holders either an equity exchange or a token buyout at $0.04375. ACX is trading at approximately the buyout price, meaning the market is assigning near-zero value to the equity component of the deal. If the transition proceeds as proposed, the Risk Labs treasury (currently estimated at ~$30M) is likely to be significantly drained as holders opt for the cash exit, leaving AcrossCo with substantially less capital on its balance sheet to fund future growth.

Seedplex offers an alternative path that achieves the same end goal, a successful corporate transition, while preserving treasury value, keeping long-term holders, and giving exit-seeking investors a fair and orderly way out. The core mechanism is a Venture DAO: an on-chain entity that holds the equity investment (via a SAFE), issues freely tradable non-security Venture Tokens. Once established, it would execute a disciplined buyback strategy over a 3–6 month transition window. Critically, these buybacks are optimized to purchase tokens only below net asset value (NAV), making every buyback strictly accretive to long-term holders as supply is burned and NAV per token rises.

The result: investors who want liquidity can exit over time at or near the buyout price. Investors who want to stay gain exposure to Across equity through a familiar token format, with each Venture Token becoming increasingly valuable as sub-NAV buybacks burn supply. At the end of the transition, the remaining treasury executes the SAFE, AcrossCo (Delaware C-corp) receives operating capital, and the community retains exposure through a governance token with no individual SPV paperwork, no minimum thresholds, and no friction.

The Problem with the Current Proposal

Loyal Holders Cashed Out at the Bottom

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the current proposal is what it means for the community members who believed in Across through the downturn. These holders stayed when the price fell, continued to participate in governance, and maintained conviction in the protocol’s long-term potential. Under The Bridge Across, they are effectively being taken out at the bottom.

Unless a holder is willing and able to KYC into an SPV, or holds more than 5m ACX to convert directly to equity, the default path is a cash buyout at $0.04375. The very people who stuck around are the ones with the fewest options to continue their journey with Across. This is not a structure that rewards loyalty; it is one that forces loyal participants to exit at what may be the least favorable moment.

Market Signal: The Equity Component Is Being Priced at Zero

ACX is currently trading at approximately $0.04375, the exact buyout price offered in The Bridge Across proposal. This is a clear market signal. When a buyout offer exists and the token trades at parity with the cash option, it means the market is ascribing little to no incremental value to the equity exchange path. In other words, the average holder sees no reason to take the equity over the cash.

This is a problem for the protocol’s long-term ambitions. A transition where the majority of holders opt for cash rather than equity would undermine the community alignment that AcrossCo is trying to build.

Treasury Drain Risk

The Bridge Across proposal states that the DAO’s liquid assets, roughly equivalent to the current market cap, would finance the buyout. With the treasury estimated at approximately $30M and rational economic incentives pointing holders toward the cash option, there is a meaningful risk that a significant portion of the treasury is consumed by buyouts before the transition is complete.

Every dollar that exits the treasury is a dollar that does not appear on AcrossCo’s balance sheet after incorporation. The very entity being created to accelerate growth could be born capital-constrained, the opposite of the intended outcome.

The Alternative: A Venture DAO Transition

Seedplex proposes replacing the binary equity-or-cash structure with a Venture DAO, a purpose-built on-chain entity designed to hold traditional assets (equity, SAFEs, or similar instruments) while issuing governance tokens that trade freely in the open market.

The transition unfolds in a structured sequence over 3–6 months, designed to protect all participants:

Step 1: Create the Venture DAO

A new Venture DAO is established on-chain to serve as the investment vehicle for the Across transition. This DAO is purpose-built: its sole function is to hold and manage the equity position in the newly formed AcrossCo.

Step 2: Seed the DAO and Issue Venture Tokens

The existing DAO treasury assets are transferred into the Venture DAO. ACX tokens are transitioned into Venture Tokens (ACXvt) on a pro-rata basis, accounting for team holdings and total dollar value. The Venture Token begins trading freely, seeded with initial liquidity at approximately $0.04375 to match the buyout price from the original proposal.

This step effectively represents a buyout of every circulating token. Every ACX holder receives Venture Tokens anchored to real treasury assets. No one is forced into paperwork, SPVs, or binary choices; just on-chain transactions which we are all familiar with.

Step 3: Write up a SAFE with AcrossCo

A SAFE (Simple Agreement for Future Equity) is signed between the Venture DAO and the newly formed AcrossCo. The SAFE specifies a post-money valuation cap and grants the Venture DAO the right to purchase equity using its treasury funds at any point during the 3–6 month transition window.

This structure gives the Venture DAO flexibility: it does not need to deploy all capital immediately. Instead, it can execute the SAFE at the end of the transition period, deploying whatever treasury remains after the buyback program concludes.

Step 4: Disciplined Sub-NAV Buybacks

During the transition window, the Venture DAO deploys a portion of its treasury to execute a TWAP buyback of ACXvt at any price below $0.04375. This is the mechanism that makes the entire structure work:

  • If holders want to exit, they can sell their Venture Tokens on the open market at or near the buyout price. The TWAP buyback provides consistent demand.

  • If sell pressure is heavy and the price dips below $0.04375, the buyback does not chase the price up. Instead, it buys at a discount, which is strictly accretive to remaining holders. NAV per token rises as tokens are purchased below intrinsic value and burned.

  • Investors who panic-sell or need immediate liquidity are the ones penalized by selling below NAV. Long-term holders are the beneficiaries, as each burned token concentrates more value into fewer hands.

The buyback pace is optimized to absorb sell flow without artificially inflating the price. It acts as a soft floor, not a wall.

Step 5: SAFE Execution and Finalization

At the end of the 3–6 month window, the SAFE is executed. Whatever treasury balance remains after buybacks is deployed to purchase equity in AcrossCo. Venture Token holders now govern a DAO whose treasury contains equity in a growth-stage company. The tokens continue to trade freely.

If a future liquidity event occurs (IPO, acquisition, or similar), proceeds flow back to the Venture DAO treasury, and qualified token holders can redeem proportionally by burning their tokens.

Why This Path Is Superior

Treasury Preservation

Under the current proposal, every dollar used for buyouts is a dollar lost to AcrossCo. Under the Venture DAO model, treasury dollars used for sub-NAV buybacks are not lost. They are converted into burned tokens, concentrating value for remaining holders. The remaining treasury is then deployed into the SAFE. The total value is preserved; it simply shifts between equity and token supply reduction.

Accretive Mechanics for Long-Term Holders

Every sub-NAV buyback mathematically increases the NAV per outstanding Venture Token. This means holders who believe in Across and choose to stay are actively rewarded by the exit of short-term holders. At the end of the 6-month window, each remaining Venture Token should be worth more than $0.04375, not less. This is a fundamentally different incentive structure from the current proposal, where early exiters and long-term believers are treated identically.

Orderly, Market-Driven Exit for Liquidity Seekers

Investors who want out can sell on the open market throughout the transition. There is no 6-month waiting period for a buyout window to open. There is no administrative overhead. The TWAP provides sustained bid-side liquidity. If there is concentrated sell pressure, the price may temporarily dip below the buyout equivalent, but this is a feature, not a bug. It penalizes forced selling and rewards patience, creating a natural sorting mechanism between short-term and long-term participants.

No Minimum Thresholds, No SPV Friction

Every token holder, regardless of size, maintains the same access and exposure. There is no 250,000 ACX minimum. There is no SPV enrollment process. There is no KYC requirement simply to hold. There are no separate tiers for large and small holders. Community members hold a token, and that token governs a treasury that holds equity. The loyal holders who believed in Across through the downturn are not forced to exit at the bottom; they can continue their journey alongside the protocol as it grows.

AcrossCo Still Gets What It Needs

The end state is identical to what The Bridge Across envisions: AcrossCo is a properly incorporated U.S. C-corp with institutional credibility, enforceable contracts, and structured revenue agreements. The difference is how it gets there. Instead of a binary buyout that drains the treasury, Across receives capital through a SAFE execution funded by whatever remains after the market has sorted its participants. The community stays engaged. The balance sheet stays healthy.

Side-by-Side Comparison

Dimension The Bridge Across Venture DAO (Seedplex)
Treasury Impact Likely drained significantly by cash buyouts Preserved; sub-NAV buybacks are accretive, remainder funds the SAFE
Exit Mechanism 6-month buyout window at fixed price ($0.04375) Continuous open-market liquidity with TWAP buyback support
Equity Access Direct (>5M ACX) or via SPV (250K+ ACX minimum) All holders via Venture Token; no minimums, no SPV
Holder Incentives Identical treatment for exiters and believers Sub-NAV buybacks reward long-term holders; NAV rises as supply shrinks
Community Continuity Token ceases to exist; holders become shareholders or exit Token continues trading freely; community structure preserved
Corporate Outcome AcrossCo formed; treasury funds buyout AcrossCo formed; SAFE funded by remaining treasury
Complexity for Holders Equity exchange paperwork or buyout claim Hold a token; same experience as today
Cash on Balance Sheet Reduced by buyout outflows Maximized by deploying only remaining treasury into SAFE

Illustrative Scenario

Consider the following simplified scenario to illustrate the mechanics:

Starting Conditions: The Venture DAO is seeded with $30M in treasury assets. Venture Tokens are issued and begin trading at $0.04375 (the NAV-equivalent price). The SAFE is signed with AcrossCo.

During the Transition (Months 1–6): Around 45% of circulating supply token holders decide to exit. They sell their Venture Tokens on the open market. The TWAP buyback absorbs this sell pressure, purchasing tokens at an average price of $0.038 (below NAV). Roughly $12M in treasury is deployed on buybacks, burning a significant portion of the token supply.

At the End of Month 6: The remaining treasury balance of ~$18M is deployed to execute the SAFE with AcrossCo. The remaining Venture Tokens, now representing a smaller supply, govern a treasury that holds $18M worth of equity in AcrossCo. NAV per token has risen to $0.04866 due to the accretive buybacks.

The Outcome: AcrossCo receives $18M in growth capital. Exiting holders received liquidity at or near the buyout price. Remaining holders own a more concentrated, more valuable position. The community structure is intact.

Conclusion

The Bridge Across proposal correctly identifies the need for Across to evolve beyond a pure DAO and token structure. The motivation is sound: institutional credibility, enforceable contracts, and a path to sustainable growth all require a corporate wrapper. Seedplex does not dispute this.

What Seedplex offers is a better mechanism for getting there. The Venture DAO model preserves the treasury, rewards long-term alignment, provides orderly liquidity for those who want it, and eliminates the structural friction that currently pushes smaller holders toward the exit. It accomplishes everything The Bridge Across sets out to do while keeping the community on the same side of the table.

On the operational side of things, we believe this approach will carry significantly lower costs across the board as the legal work and entity set up to enable the Venture Token is what Seedplex has already worked on for the last year.

Across deserves a transition that is as well-engineered as the protocol itself. We believe this is it.

**I encourage all people who are even curious about an alternative to the current proposal to vote “No” on this. I think it’s definitely worth a discussion. Feel free to respond this post in the forum and/or reach out privately to me through Telegram (@Treggs61).