The third edition of the London Blockchain in Government Summit delivered a compelling blend of real-world case studies and forward-thinking policy discussions, with one particular example capturing the audience’s attention: the United States’ Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Though initially launched during President Donald Trump’s second term and partly supported by entrepreneur Elon Musk, DOGE has become as much a cautionary tale as it is a case study in modern government reform.
Moderated by the Rt Hon. Alun Cairns – former Secretary of State for Wales and a prominent voice in the UK Parliament’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on Blockchain – the session unpacked the regulatory and operational implications of DOGE. Cairns underscored the importance of evaluating global initiatives like DOGE not just for their outcomes, but for the regulatory lessons they provide. These lessons are particularly relevant as the UK and other governments attempt to navigate the evolving landscape of blockchain regulation and public sector innovation.
DOGE was originally pitched as a bold attempt to eliminate inefficiencies and wasteful spending in the U.S. federal government. The initiative set an eye-catching goal: $2 trillion in savings. That figure was eventually revised down to a more modest $150 billion. However, according to the summit’s panel, DOGE’s true legacy lies not in its savings but in its spotlight on the urgent need for transparency, accountability, and efficient governance – principles that align closely with the goals of blockchain governance.
As Jennifer Ewing of Blockchain.com noted, efforts like DOGE often falter due to a lack of public understanding and institutional preparedness. She warned that introducing regulation without first establishing a baseline of education can result in frameworks that replicate the very inefficiencies they aim to solve. In the context of blockchain, this means that blockchain government regulation must be underpinned by broad education initiatives to ensure both policymakers and civil servants understand the technology they are seeking to regulate.
Academic and deep-tech expert Nikhil Vadgama reinforced this point, stating that innovation cannot operate in a vacuum. He argued that governance must evolve in lockstep with technological advancement, especially when turning political ambitions into functional systems. Without this harmony, he warned, public sector innovation becomes disjointed, as DOGE’s history demonstrated.
Other panellists, including Richard Baker of Tokenovate and Tim Daley of Perago, focused on the structural inefficiencies that plagued DOGE and how they might be mitigated in future initiatives through technology. They pointed to the potential of blockchain to offer not just digital solutions, but governance architectures that embed transparency, auditability, and accountability at the core. In particular, they highlighted post-trade transparency and smarter systems design as essential for creating trust between governments and citizens – trust that DOGE was ultimately unable to sustain.
At its core, DOGE sought to expose and eliminate hidden inefficiencies in government. While it fell short of its financial goals, it succeeded in raising public awareness about the opaque nature of public finance. The summit panel collectively agreed that this visibility is where blockchain governance can offer a real leap forward. With distributed ledger technology, governments can enable citizens to trace how public funds are allocated and spent, down to the transactional level. This kind of transparency is precisely what blockchain regulation should aim to support.
However, the panel also cautioned against blind enthusiasm. DOGE’s trajectory serves as a warning of what can happen when grand visions outpace regulatory readiness. The same risks apply to blockchain: without strong, clear, and enforceable blockchain government regulation, deployments can lead to inefficiencies, mismanagement, and even the erosion of public trust.
To avoid repeating the same mistakes, panellists argued that governments must take a methodical approach to blockchain regulation. This includes aligning blockchain implementations with existing legal standards, such as anti-money laundering (AML) frameworks and data protection laws. Regulation must also account for ethical use, data sovereignty, and long-term sustainability, not just short-term innovation.
Perhaps most importantly, blockchain government regulation must ensure that oversight mechanisms are built into any system from the outset. As DOGE demonstrated, without strong governance frameworks, even the most well-intentioned initiatives can falter. Blockchain governance must therefore strike a careful balance – encouraging innovation while enforcing accountability.
In the final analysis, DOGE may not have fulfilled its original promise to revolutionise government spending, but it did accomplish something valuable: it prompted a global conversation about government inefficiency, transparency, and reform. At the London Blockchain in Government Summit, DOGE was not presented as a failure, but as a valuable inflection point – an initiative that highlighted the need for better tools and stronger frameworks.
In this light, blockchain represents both a technological and philosophical response to the challenges DOGE tried to address. When supported by thoughtful blockchain regulation and guided by principles of transparency, security, and scalability, blockchain can deliver on the promise that DOGE aspired to – creating more accountable, efficient, and citizen-centric public institutions.
As the conversation around blockchain in government continues to evolve, DOGE’s legacy may ultimately serve as a stepping stone toward more mature, strategic, and impactful implementations. The next chapter in public sector innovation will depend on how well governments embrace blockchain governance – not just in theory, but in law, leadership, and lived experience.
