The next standard for blockchain is code neutrality

When financial leaders gathered recently at the Sibos conference in Frankfurt, Germany, the topic was no longer whether cryptocurrencies belonged on the agenda. That discussion is over. The focus is shifting to how banks, networks, and platforms can adapt to a world where blockchain and digital assets are no longer fringe experiments but are building blocks of the global economy.

This change creates significant opportunities for the blockchain industry, as well as pressing challenges. It’s not enough to connect systems and call it innovation. The real question is whether the infrastructure being built is open, resilient, and reliable enough to last.

For years, the rallying cry for blockchain has been interoperability, or the effort to make blockchains communicate with each other. Interoperability remains important, but there are now deeper issues underlying it. Who gets to define the rules by which these systems run?

You may also like: Some blockchains are meant to do one thing and do it very well. opinion

Decentralization has always been the promise of blockchain, but decentralization is often measured in narrow terms such as number of validators, Nakamoto coefficient, or number of nodes. While these metrics are important, they don’t tell the whole story, especially when it comes to showing whether those validators are truly distinguishable. As the new adage goes, “True decentralization must extend to the code itself, because you are only as decentralized as your most centralized link.”

Code neutrality is the principle that no single company or group of investors can control or change the rules. Without this safeguard, decentralization becomes merely superficial. Even systems that appear distributed on the surface can be vulnerable to capture at their core. And just as importantly, the standards that define blockchains themselves must remain open, ensuring that the foundations of these systems are transparent and not owned by a single entity.

Why is neutrality important?

Projects that remain tied to one company or founder rarely stand the test of time. A change in leadership, a reorientation of business strategy, or government pressure. Systems built on centralized code can then collapse overnight. In contrast, neutral cord is built to outlast its creator. It can be maintained and promoted by a wide range of participants, reducing dependence on a single actor.

This is not a theoretical thing. From software platforms to closed networks, open alternatives have consistently given way to proprietary systems that once seemed dominant. Conversely, neutral protocols such as TCP/IP, the foundation of the Internet, have existed for decades and grown stronger as more participants have adopted and refined them.

Trust comes from transparency

Finance is built on trust. People and organizations don’t trust black boxes, especially when they control money and governance. For example, SWIFT is trusted not because of the brand itself, but because its rules are collectively defined and globally verifiable.

For financial institutions, the concerns are not abstract. Banks and asset managers don’t want to be left in an environment where the rules can change without anyone’s input, locked into a system with no recourse. Combining code neutrality and interoperability addresses that concern by ensuring portability and long-term warranties. This allows institutions to take the right steps today with confidence that they will be able to participate in the future.

Blockchains should also provide similar guarantees. When code is neutral and open, the rules are transparent and participants know they will not change without broad consensus. Trust is always conditional when the code is under the control of a single corporate entity.

What we can learn from the past

The success of the Internet was no accident. It flourished because its underlying protocols were neutral and open. Because TCP/IP was not owned by any particular company, anyone could build on top of it without permission, and no single attacker could rewrite the rules. That neutrality created the conditions for decades of growth, allowing countless businesses and innovations to flourish in parallel.

The contrast with closed systems is clear. AOL sought to build a walled garden where access was tightly controlled and rules dictated from upper management. Although it grew rapidly, its model could not withstand the openness of the broader web. When users are given a choice, neutrality wins.

Blockchain networks face the same choice today. If they want to support global finance and large-scale trade, they will need the same principles that powered the Internet: neutral code that no one owns and everyone can trust.

Neutrality determines the path forward

Networks with a single point of control are vulnerable. Neutral systems are more powerful because they distribute governance among many hands. Because no one person holds the keys, they can withstand leadership changes, regulatory scrutiny, and market shocks. This resilience is not just ideological. This is a practical requirement for systems that manage trillions of assets.

Regulations are rapidly advancing to recognize this. In the United States, the CLARITY Act introduced a framework for what it means for a blockchain to be “mature.” The core of the definition is whether the system avoids a single point of control. The law also recognizes that projects may be initiated intensively but may develop to maturity over time. Companies that can demonstrate true decentralization will gain regulatory transparency and market trust.

Neutral code is one way to demonstrate that maturity. This provides visible evidence that no single entity is in control of the system and that the rules are transparent and verifiable. That evidence is what regulators, institutions and users demand.

new standard

Interoperability has helped connect blockchains. Code neutrality helps them last longer. Without it, decentralization risks becoming a mere slogan. This helps networks gain trust, withstand pressure, and support innovation for decades to come.

The future of finance will not be defined by a system where one company owns the rules and everyone else must follow. It is defined by a system where the rules are open, transparent and collectively owned. Code neutrality is how blockchain makes that vision a reality.

This article was co-authored byShyam NagarajanandDaniela Barbosa.

read more: Financial infrastructure requires rethinking blockchain architecture | Opinion