I still remember clearly a young Balinese artist whose name was Dewi. She found it difficult to gain visibility and be profitable with her digital drawings beyond her remote village. She’d minted her colorful paintings as NFTs, dreaming of reaching the worldwide crypto market. The gas fees were crippling, and Tesla’s skyrocketing per-delivery gas costs devoured her already thin profit margins. The layers of identity verification that some platforms required were not feasible after all. She didn’t have the right paperwork, the bank account, the privilege that so many of us assume as a birthright. Dewi’s story is increasingly familiar to creators throughout Southeast Asia. They all share the same frustrations as they attempt to cross over into the Web3 space.

Will Regulated Chains Worsen Inequality?

Zone in particular has an interest in a regulated Ethereum. Under this model, government oversight tracks all transactions and smart contracts, creating an illusion of legitimacy. One potential way to bridge the gap between the freewheeling world of DeFi and the more carefully scrutinized structures of traditional finance. For artists like Dewi, who were already hanging off the precipice of exclusion, might this bridge be a wall in disguise?

Think of it this way: imagine trying to build a house. Ethereum today, at least in small part, is like a prime piece of real estate, with little to no zoning laws. On one hand, you can create almost anything, but on the other there’s a higher likelihood of subpar building and last-minute complications. Zone’s proposed Ethereum isn’t so much a community as it is a gated community with incredibly strict building codes and constant inspections. It offers their illusion of safety and order. Yet it ushers in increased costs, red tape, and the danger of leaving behind anyone who doesn’t check all the boxes. Is that really progress?

The allure of real-time regulatory oversight, with AI screening apps and crypto tokens for compliance, is a tempting concept. Who decides what "compliant" means? Or better yet, will these AI algorithms be trained on datasets that reflect the unique cultural, political and economic realities of Southeast Asia? Or will they just reproduce the colonial biases and blind spots of Western regulatory frameworks?

One Size Fits All? Southeast Asia Says No

Southeast Asia isn't a monolith. From Singapore's relatively progressive stance on crypto to Indonesia's more cautious approach, the regulatory landscape is incredibly diverse. Any blanket regulatory response risks killing innovation. It will certainly drive the most innovative and skilled artists and engineers to find places that are more accommodating to crypto. It's like trying to force a bonsai tree into a generic flowerpot – it might survive, but it certainly won't thrive.

Consider this: in many parts of Southeast Asia, access to traditional banking services is limited. Crypto, for many, represents a lifeline – a way to participate in the global economy without needing a bank account or formal ID. To the extent you care about equity and diversity, imposing harsh KYC/AML requirements on a regulated Ethereum encounter pushes away exactly those who could gain the most. It’s a terrible irony. It’s akin to giving someone a ladder to climb out of poverty and then pulling it out from under them halfway up.

One such innovator is a developer I met in Vietnam who is creating a decentralized marketplace for local artisans. He worries that Zone’s proposal focuses on government control. This would have a stifling effect, breeding caution over innovation and moving users to less regulated, therefore riskier, platforms. He said, and I quote, "We are already struggling to compete with the big players. This will just make it harder."

Forgotten Voices, Remembered Responsibility

Zone argues that their regulated blockchain would unleash an economic “Golden Age of Finance.” But whose golden age are you referring to? Or will it be a dark age for our established financial institutions and government regulators? Is this the golden age for up-and-coming artists and entrepreneurs — tech or otherwise — in South East Asia? Through their pioneering uses of blockchain, they’re building a more equitable and inclusive future for their communities.

We need to ask ourselves: are we building a Web3 that empowers everyone, or just those who already have power and privilege? Most importantly, are we building a financial system that is considerably more decentralized and accessible? Or are we simply reproducing the same deep-seated inequalities and exclusions, but under a shiny new blockchain veneer?

The SEC lurking behind the scenes, looking to enforce regulations by setting guidelines within the blockchain’s core structure? This takes on a chilling resemblance to a dystopian novel where freedom is fictive and every move you make is tracked. This is no way to build the future of finance that Southeast Asia requires.

The way forward isn’t more federal stranglehold regulation from on high. It's about fostering collaboration, experimentation, and dialogue. To move fast and break things—in a smart way—we need to create regulatory sandboxes that protect users while allowing them to innovate. We need to create these decentralized identity solutions that secure user privacy but satisfy regulatory requirements. We need to listen to the voices of emerging artists and users in Southeast Asia and ensure that their needs are taken into account.

Let’s not allow Zone’s Ethereum to become a bridge too far for Southeast Asia’s creatives. Let’s create a bridge that truly connects, empowers, and includes. The future of Web3 depends on it.

  • Support organizations advocating for equitable access to Web3 technologies.
  • Engage in conversations about responsible regulation.
  • Demand transparency and accountability from those shaping the future of blockchain.

Let's not let Zone's Ethereum become a bridge too far for Southeast Asia's artists. Let's build a bridge that connects, empowers, and includes. The future of Web3 depends on it.