Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. BitPinas has no commercial relationship with any mentioned entity unless otherwise stated.
📬 Get the biggest crypto stories in the Philippines and Southeast Asia every week — subscribe to the BitPinas Newsletter.
By Ann Cuisia, January 15, 2025
(Republished with permission from the author. Originally posted on the author’s blog.)
Recent statements from the Department of Information and Communications Technology and members of Congress about putting the national budget process “on blockchain” were meant to project progress, transparency, and trust. Instead, they revealed two separate but related problems: a weak grasp of cybersecurity, and a shallow view of how blockchain should be used in government.
Both deserve to be discussed plainly.
The “101% Hack-Free” Problem
The claim that blockchain systems are “101% hack-free” immediately raised alarms within the IT and cybersecurity community.
No serious security professional speaks that way. No system is invulnerable.
Over the past decade, blockchain ecosystems have suffered repeated, high-profile failures. In February 2025, crypto exchange Bybit disclosed that attackers gained control of an ether wallet and stole roughly $1.5 billion worth of crypto, one of the biggest known thefts in the sector. In March 2022, hackers stole nearly $615 million from the Ronin bridge linked to Axie Infinity. In August 2021, the Poly Network exploit moved over $610 million in assets across chains. In February 2022, the Wormhole cross-chain bridge was hit by an exploit involving over $320 million in tokens.
Those incidents span different architectures and failure points: wallet control, bridge security, smart contract vulnerabilities, validator/consensus risk, and cross-chain complexity. The details differ, but the lesson is consistent. There is always an attack surface somewhere, especially when systems interact with people, keys, and software.
That is why cybersecurity is treated as risk management. It is about limiting exposure, detecting breaches quickly, minimizing blast radius, and designing for recovery. It is not built on absolute guarantees.
When a government agency uses “101% hack-free” language, it does not reassure experts. It creates doubt about whether risk is being taken seriously.
Blockchain and the Misuse of Transparency
Separate from security is how blockchain is being framed as a transparency tool.
When officials say the budget will be “on blockchain,” what is often being described is the archiving or tokenization of PDF documents, sometimes by placing document hashes on a blockchain and calling it transparency.
That approach misses where accountability actually comes from.
Blockchain’s value in governance is not document storage. It is event recording: approvals, releases, obligations created, funds moved, and the rules or authorities that triggered those actions. A document hash only tells you a file existed at a certain time. It does not show who approved a release, why it was approved, what checks were applied, or how money moved after.
Anyone familiar with government processes knows that wrongdoing rarely hides in the PDF itself. It hides in the decision trail, the discretion, the delays, the manual overrides, and the gray areas between steps.
If the goal is genuine transparency, the focus should be on making actions traceable: who acted, when they acted, and what consequence followed.
Documents can live in regular archives. What deserves immutability is the action trail and fund movements.
Public Layer-2 Networks and Data Sovereignty
More questions arise with the reported use of public Layer-2 networks such as Polygon for storing document hashes.
Even if only hashes are written on-chain, the infrastructure choice still has sovereignty implications. Public Layer-2 networks operate under governance and economic models shaped by validators, token incentives, and market dynamics that the Philippine state does not control.
Every transaction sent to a public network contributes activity and fees to that ecosystem. Over time, public usage also contributes legitimacy and adoption signals that strengthen the platform’s market position. That is not a moral failure. It is simply how public chains work.
For sovereign processes, the question is whether core public infrastructure should quietly rely on systems whose governance and long-term direction sit outside Philippine control.
Grants, Incentives, and the Absence of Free Lunches
Finally, the reported existence of a large grant or donation, allegedly in the range of $10 million, tied to the initial rollout of document minting deserves public scrutiny.
In technology ecosystems, large grants are rarely neutral. They are strategic instruments used to drive adoption, lock in usage patterns, validate platforms through government association, and shape future expansion.
This is not an accusation. It is basic due diligence.
When public infrastructure is built on technology funded by an external sponsor, government has a responsibility to disclose the terms clearly and ask hard questions early: what obligations follow, what long-term costs emerge after the grant period, and what influence the sponsor gains over standards or future procurement decisions.
Public trust depends on transparent incentives as much as it depends on transparent records.
Choosing Competence Over Catchphrases
This is not an argument against blockchain. Used properly, it can strengthen accountability, reduce discretion, and make public finance more traceable.
Used poorly, it becomes a collection of buzzwords layered over old processes, accompanied by security claims that sound impressive but collapse under scrutiny.
The public does not need hype. It needs systems designed with care, realism, and technical discipline.
If the goal is genuine transparency, the focus should be on recording decisions and fund movements. If the goal is security, the conversation must acknowledge risk instead of denying it. And if the goal is national resilience, infrastructure choices must be examined through the lens of sovereignty and long-term control.
The Filipino people deserve straight answers and competent systems.
Not slogans.
This Opinion article is published on BitPinas: [Op-Ed] Ann Cuisia: Blockchain Is Not Transparency, and “101% Hack-Free” Is Not Security
What else is happening in Crypto Philippines and beyond?
