Why National Accountability Cannot Be Outsourced to a Global Blockchain

Let me talk about an option that often comes up.

Why not just use an existing mainstream blockchain like Polygon?

In fact, some of these networks even offer governments generous proposals.

Free grants.

Millions of dollars’ worth of tokens.

Promises of “immortalizing” documents on-chain.

At first glance, that sounds practical. Even attractive.

But this is where a technologist needs to slow things down and look underneath the pitch.

When a government uses a global public blockchain like Polygon, the validation, security, and economic rewards of that system are shared across the entire network.

That includes validators, node operators, and token holders from all over the world. Not just Filipinos. Not just Philippine institutions. Not just Philippine citizens.

Every transaction fee, every incentive, every long-term network effect contributes to the Polygon ecosystem as a whole.

So yes, even if the initial tokens are “free,” the value created over time flows outward to a global pool of participants.

That is not inherently wrong.

That is simply how global blockchains are designed.

They are borderless by nature.

But national accountability is not borderless.

A country’s budget is funded by its taxpayers. Its transparency systems exist to protect its citizens. Its data reflects its sovereignty.

When we anchor something as sensitive as government spending records onto a global chain, we are effectively saying that the long-term economic and governance value of safeguarding Philippine public data will be shared with people who have no stake, no vote, and no accountability to the Filipino people. That is not an accusation. It is a structural reality.

Now let us talk about something rarely discussed in these proposals: scale and purpose.

Polygon, even with its Layer-2 designs, is optimized for generalized transactions like asset transfers, NFTs, and consumer applications. In real terms, it processes tens of transactions per second under normal conditions.

That may be perfectly acceptable for DeFi or gaming. It is not designed for continuous, high-volume, multi-agency government activity.

Government transparency is not about stamping documents. It is about following flows. Funds moving from appropriations to allotments, to obligations, to disbursements. Programs branching across agencies.

Delays, revisions, reallocations. This is not occasional data. This is constant operational data.

Chains designed around interoperability and horizontal scaling, such as Cosmos-based architectures, approach this problem differently.

They assume that one chain cannot and should not do everything. They allow multiple specialized chains to handle different workloads, connected through standardized protocols. That matters when you are dealing with national-scale data flows, not just proofs of existence.

And this brings me to the real issue.

Many people pushing for Polygon are not starting from the problem. They are starting from the product.

If your mental model of blockchain is “immutability,” then you end up using it as a glorified notary. Hash the document. Mint an NFT. Declare transparency achieved. That is how we reduce a powerful system into an expensive stamp.

But corruption does not happen because documents disappear. It happens because money moves quietly. Processes are altered midstream. Approvals are delayed, rerouted, or reclassified.

If the system only proves that a file once existed, it does not answer who approved what, who benefited, who delayed, and who ultimately got paid.

This is why product-driven blockchain deployments fail governance goals. They freeze paperwork instead of illuminating processes. They immortalize records instead of exposing behavior.

Now compare this with a sovereign-first approach like QADENA or OpenGovChain, or any public-private consortium chain designed with selectable privacy and national accountability context in mind.

In QADENA, or any similar, the people who secure the system are Filipinos.

The universities running nodes are here.

The civic groups verifying data are here.

The citizens earning incentives for keeping the ledger alive are here.

If value is created, it circulates locally.

If incentives are paid, they reward guardians of our own public records.

If the system grows, it strengthens domestic capability, not foreign dependency.

This is the key difference.

Using a global chain is like hiring security guards from all over the world to watch over your national treasury. Using a sovereign chain is like training and paying your own citizens to guard it.

Both can function.

Only one builds national muscle.

Now, about the grants.

Yes, when a global blockchain offers millions in tokens to a government, that helps bootstrap adoption. But once the grant period ends, the country remains dependent on a network whose incentives, upgrades, and governance are decided elsewhere. Fees continue to flow outward. Strategic decisions are made beyond our borders. Economic upside is shared globally.

With a sovereign model like QADENA or any similar, even if government allocates a few million pesos annually to support validators, that money stays in the country. It becomes income for Filipinos who protect public truth. It funds uptime, verification, auditability, and resilience.

That is not waste.

That is infrastructure.

We are already spending public money. The real question is who benefits from that spending.

Do we fund opaque systems and external ecosystems?

Or do we invest in Filipinos who help keep the national ledger honest?

For me, this is not about rejecting global technology. I build technology for a living. I respect global innovation.

This is about being intentional.

National transparency should strengthen citizens, not outsource value creation. And real accountability should be guarded by the people it is meant to protect.

That is the difference.