Last night, I listened to a BitPinas webcast discussing blockchain in government.
It was set up like a debate. Each speaker had two minutes to talk.
Honestly? I was ready for bardagulan. 🤣 You know the kind, raised voices, ego clashes, people trying to “win” instead of explain. You know, your usual debate.
But that’s not what happened.
What I listened to felt more like a group of educated, thoughtful people who knew each other, respected each other, and genuinely wanted to explore the issue, not dominate it.
And that made the whole experience surprisingly… fun.
The people in the room mattered
You could feel the dynamic right away.
Paul Soliman of BayaniChain spoke from the perspective of someone actually building the technology. Grounded, technical, but not defensive. There was no “we have all the answers” energy — more like this is hard work, and we’re learning as we go.
Jason Torres of BetterGov.PH brought in the civic lens. His arguments weren’t anti-blockchain. They were cautious in a good way. His main point was simple but powerful: before jumping into tech, understand what the government actually needs. Build the foundation first. Infrastructure. Data systems. Then technology.
The way I understood it was: you don’t launch rockets if there’s no road to the launch site.
The roads are the infrastructure and data systems. The rockets are the blockchain.
And then there was Luis, who sat right in the middle. Calm. Neutral. Steady. He didn’t inflame the conversation. He balanced it. That matters, especially in discussions that can easily slide into extremes.
Mike, as the moderator, deserves credit too. He handled the speakers with ease. No chaos. No awkward cutting off. He let the conversation breathe while keeping it engaging. That’s not easy to do.
I’m not political, but I am curious
I’ll say this plainly: I’m not a political person.
But I am deeply interested in how governments use technology, especially something as powerful and misunderstood as blockchain.
The CADENA Bill, for me, feels like the right direction.
Not a magic fix.
Not a promise that corruption disappears overnight.
But a step.
One takeaway that stayed with me
Something that really stuck was this idea:
Blockchain will not end corruption.
And pretending that it will is dangerous.
But… this could be the start of making corruption harder to hide.
And that matters.
About BayaniChain and why bravery matters
One reality that came up in the discussion is this:
Right now, BayaniChain is essentially the only local option the government can realistically turn to for this kind of blockchain work.
Is their system perfect?
No.
Are they still learning?
Yes.
But someone has to step forward first.
And stepping into government tech, especially blockchain, is not a safe, easy move. It invites scrutiny, criticism, suspicion, and pressure from all sides.
From a very human point of view, I see that as bravery.
Not “we know everything” bravery.
But “we’re willing to try” bravery.
My honest, mommy-heart conclusion
Last night didn’t make me think blockchain will save the government.
What it did was make me hopeful that:
- conversations are becoming more mature
- builders and critics can sit at the same table
- and we’re starting to talk less about hype and more about responsibility
A last thought
One thing Jason raised that really stuck with me is this: if you know the technology, you also carry responsibility.
BayaniChain isn’t just there to build what’s asked. They’re in a position to educate, to explain what blockchain is good for, what it’s not good for, and how to use taxpayers’ money wisely. A good tech partner doesn’t just say yes. They push back when needed. They set an example.
They should represent what good governance with new technology looks like.
But seriously, this can’t stay a one-player space. As Jason said, projects like this need many skill sets. More builders stepping up means better systems, better checks, and better outcomes.
If we’re going to do this, let’s do it right. Goodluck!
Leave a Reply