Webcast Recap: Bayanichain and BetterGov Founders Clash Over PH Government Blockchain Strategy

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.

As the CADENA Act positions the Philippines to put its national budget on a blockchain, stakeholders are fiercely divided on how to execute it. To address this, the BitPinas Webcast hosted a debate between Paul Soliman (Bayanichain) and Jason Torres (BetterGov.ph) last Feb. 4, 2026. Blockchain Council of the Philippines President Luis Buenaventura joins BitPinas Editor-in-Chief Michael Mislos to moderate the discussion.

In this article you will find embedded links to the webcast on YouTube and the audio version on Spotify. A recap of what was discussed follows.

Listen on Spotify:

Watch on YouTube

State Tech vs. Civic Tech

The debate opened with both technologists laying out their core missions:

• Soliman positioned Bayanichain as an enterprise-grade builder aiming to “create systems for preservation and verifiable data and evidence-backed data for us to be able to have a reference that can outlive us.”
  • He added that their goal over the next decade is to “provide infrastructure to have a sovereign and also neutral ground for data in the near future.”
• Conversely, Torres introduced BetterGov.ph as a grassroots, “civic tech, open-source movement focusing on making Philippine government data accessible, understandable, and accessible to citizens.”
  • Backed by a community of nearly 4,000 members, Torres emphasized their focus on active budget analysis and tracking government procurement.

The Bidding Controversy: Is Bayanichain a Monopoly?

A major point of contention was Bayanichain’s deep involvement in multiple government blockchain initiatives, including projects with the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT). Critics have raised concerns over vendor lock-in and bidding processes that appear to heavily favor Bayanichain.

Soliman: “We’re like AWS”

Soliman defended his company’s business model by comparing their role to major cloud providers:

“We’re like AWS, Microsoft Azure, and GCP. We don’t really deal directly commercially with the government. In fact, contrary to popular belief, we don’t have any commercial government contract.”

Paul Soliman, Bayanichain

He explained that Bayanichain acts solely as a technology provider to partner companies that win government bids. “We provide the infrastructure and the APIs for them to mint data on the blockchain, and we provide the expertise on smart contracts,” he said.

Torres: Is there a Contract or Not? Are You Being Paid by DBM?

Torres, however, expressed deep skepticism:

“Look, I have no intention to attack this. But you said you don’t have a contract, but somewhere there you were slipping—there’s something in the contract there?”

Jason Torres, BetterGov

Pressing on the financial arrangements, he asked directly, “Are you guys being paid by DBM here? Like what’s the arrangement there?”

Soliman: We’re Early Adopters

Addressing the monopoly allegations, Soliman noted that their dominance is a result of being early adopters:

“It’s not our choice. We were the early ones who focused on this three years ago. In terms of monopoly, people can create companies that can create another BYC. We are open to competition. It’s not our choice to be referenced. Our company is googleable.”

Paul Soliman, Bayanichain

BCP President Luis Buenaventura offered a neutral view. He said Bayanichain’s apparent monopoly probably exists primarily because they were the only provider doing this work for a while. “Monopolies don’t exist very long in a market that is actually competitive,” he noted.

Torres to Soliman: “I’m Not Buying It”: Vendor Bias and Specificity in RFPs

The most tense exchange of the night occurred when the discussion shifted to how the government writes its Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and bidding documents.

Host Michael Mislos pointed out that some government documents explicitly mention specific technologies, such as Polygon and Prismo, and that projects must be endorsed by the Blockchain Council. This effectively limits who can bid.

Soliman: We’re Highly Visible

Soliman said the responsibility lies with the agencies: “You need to ask DBM about it. It’s not us,” Soliman argued, stating that government agencies likely reference Bayanichain’s tech simply because it is highly visible online. “Again, we don’t have the capability to encode everything there. It’s their prerogative.”

Torres: I’m Not Buying It (Soliman’s Explanation)

Torres immediately cut through the corporate defense:

“It’s just… I’m not buying it,” Torres stated flatly. “That’s my opinion. I’m not buying that there’s no sort of influence out there.”

Torres pointed to another specific instance, questioning why “Prismo” had to be explicitly named in a procurement document. “It’s quite obvious, but I just can’t explain it,” he noted.

He stressed the need for technologists to educate bureaucrats to prevent this kind of apparent bias:

“These bureaucrats, they think blockchain will save us from corruption. We all agree it’s not. But they think they do. We should educate them. Otherwise, you’re going to sound stupid calling a Polygon chain ‘Bayanihanchain.’”

Jason Torres, BetterGov

Infrastructure Battle: Sovereign vs. Public Blockchains

The debate also tackled the underlying infrastructure of the government’s blockchain. Early initiatives utilized Polygon, a public Layer 2 scaling solution for Ethereum.

Torres Opposes The Use of Public Chains

Torres strongly opposed the use of public infrastructure for national data, arguing for a strictly sovereign, permissioned Layer 1 blockchain:

“It clearly states that the platform has to be sovereign, and the infrastructure has to be managed and controlled by the government itself. It has to be known validators. I know there are questions about anonymity — no, they should be known so we can hold them liable.”

Jason Torres, BetterGov

He also warned against the volatility of public chains. “Crypto crashed recently, and we’ve seen chains go down or disappear overnight. We don’t want our infrastructure hanging on that.”

Soliman: Public Chain For Censorship Resistance

Conversely, Soliman advocated for anchoring data on public blockchains specifically for “censorship resistance.” While he agreed the government should control the Layer 1 execution layer, he argued that syndicating data to a public chain is essential for longevity:

“Later on, if the administration shifts, the data is still going to be there. How can you do that? You can have multiple public blockchains that cannot be influenced by the government in power.”

Paul Soliman, Bayanichain

Torres agreed that data syndication is crucial, noting that data must go outside to “citizen analysts.” He added, “It doesn’t matter about garbage in/garbage out—if they’re putting garbage there, that’s great because that’s how you identify fraud.”

The “Minting” Approach: Insurance or Overengineering?

The clash in methodologies was most evident when discussing specific use cases, such as tracking government laptop procurements.

Soliman on Why Minting is the Approach

Soliman explained that Bayanichain utilizes the ERC-721A standard for “inscription.” He clarified this isn’t for digital art, but for securing documents. “We use ‘Inscription’ — we don’t play with metadata, we put the data on the block itself for permanence,” Soliman explained.

He argued that if a procurement record is minted directly on-chain, it acts as an immutable safeguard.

“It’s easy to change something in the ERP because it’s driven by administrative function. For me, blockchain is insurance so that later on, these bad actors that want to edit data can be disputed.”

Paul Soliman, Bayanichain

Torres: This is Overengineering

Torres was highly critical of this approach:

“Particularly the minting. That’s something I’m completely against. I don’t think that’s the right way. That’s overengineering, hence using blockchain to track simple laptop procurements is unnecessary. You don’t need blockchain for this. You need data science and AI to identify whether this procurement is unusual.”

Jason Torres, BetterGov

Torres emphasized that blockchain should be reserved for the complex journey of large infrastructure projects:

“We record the journey, not just the outcome. That’s what we need the blockchain for—to form the story from Point A to Point Z.”

Jason Torres, BetterGov

Open Source vs. Legal Accountability

When asked about the viability of using a purely open-source model like BetterGov’s “OpenGovChain,” the two differed on legal and operational realities.

Torres on Open-Source Standard

Torres championed the open-source standard, comparing it to established tech ecosystems.

“Following the Linux model, you have the Linux Foundation, but you have companies like Red Hat engaging with the enterprise. Anybody can pick up OpenGovChain and become a service provider… When I launched it, by Monday I already had 10 validators.”

Jason Torres, BetterGov

Soliman on Why Not Open-Source

Soliman countered that government contracts require strict accountability that a loose open-source model cannot easily provide.

“Since we have MOA and legal obligations, that’s our problem. We cannot create an oracle or put data on Ethereum loosely, because we need to follow a certain scope… and there are legal consequences if we don’t deliver or go offline.”

Paul Soliman, Bayanichain

Closing Thoughts: A Push for Course Correction

Despite their sharp disagreements, both technologists expressed mutual respect.

Torres: Credit where Credit is Due

Torres commended Soliman for bringing the issue to the forefront. “Paul, you guys did a good job surfacing the blockchain initiatives to the country. Credit where credit is due,” Torres said, though he added a warning: “I just want you to do it right and we need to slow down a bit… Tell them to slow down. Do this correctly.”

Soliman: We are All Builders

Soliman reciprocated, praising BetterGov. “We don’t have beef with the community. We are builders,” Soliman said. “The good thing about Jason and BetterGov is it is a necessary civic movement. There needs to be a third party.”

Buenaventura: BCP has a Massive Task Ahead

Acknowledging the friction and the massive task ahead, BCP President Buenaventura admitted that the Council was unprepared for how high the stakes have become. “I knew this job was going to be pretty tricky. I’m not going to sugarcoat this. The Blockchain Council has a lot of work to do,” Buenaventura stated.

Promising greater transparency moving forward, he concluded: “It is messy, but maybe the first step is acknowledging that it is messy and we kind of screwed up a little bit here.”

This article is published on BitPinas: Government Blockchain | Webcast

What else is happening in Crypto Philippines and beyond?