Draft, not yet released. In stewardship review. Not indexed until the first approved release.

Readings from the other desks

The distributed ledger baseline is read through each steward’s lens, then once as a whole. Each lens is a projection of reviewed findings, not a separate argument. The other desks’ own editions of this subject are listed first, as cross-references, not copies.

15 min read0 figures8 tables37 notesNR-XTECH-DLT-GLOBAL-2026-BASELINE

Contents
  1. ·Edition home
  2. ·Executive summary
  3. 1Ledgers are settlement infrastructure and a regulatory subject
  4. 2Key findings
  5. 3Systems and sectors at baseline
  6. 4Risks and capability
  7. 5Large stablecoin base against uneven rules and theft controls
  8. 6Readings from the other desks
    1. 6.1 The other desks’ editions of this subject
    2. 6.2 Three lenses
    3. 6.3 Standards, Academy and steward contributions
    4. 6.4 GCRI reading: the model card
    5. 6.5 Global Risks Forum reading: editorial essays
    6. 6.6 Global Risks Alliance reading: 2027 distributed ledger readiness pack
    7. 6.7 Nexus Standards reading: standards and regulatory watch
    8. 6.8 Risk Academy reading: literature and evidence review, science and assessments
  9. 7The 2027 agenda
  10. 8Systems in depth
  11. AMethodology
  12. BData appendix
  13. CReferences and record
  14. ·Complete edition, for print

6.1The other desks’ editions of this subject

Federation: each desk writes its own edition for the subjects in its remit. Until a desk releases, its edition shows its frame and the reading this edition printed for it.

DeskEditionStateIdentifier
GCRI Systems EvidenceNo edition of this subject at this desk in the 2026 Baseline cycleNot in this cycle
GRF Public DeliberationOutside this desk’s remitNot in remit
GRA Capital ReadinessOutside this desk’s remitNot in remit
Standards ProgressNo edition of this subject at this desk in the 2026 Baseline cycleNot in this cycle
Academy CapabilityNo edition of this subject at this desk in the 2026 Baseline cycleNot in this cycle
Index MeasurementOutside this desk’s remitNot in remit

6.2Three lenses

One edition, read by each steward. The lens of this site comes first.

GCRI · KEY T

Technical Truth

The evidence supports reading distributed ledgers as settlement infrastructure and as a regulatory subject. Statutes and supervisory pages are strong evidence. Energy, reserve composition and illicit share are weak, and vendor figures are labelled as such.

GOV-005 · FIN-008 · DAT-010 · SYS-012

GRF · KEY M

Public Meaning

For most people the story arrives as a price headline, a theft or an ad for a token. The baseline asks that public debate separate statutes, project claims and vendor reports, and keep the protection of ordinary holders in view.

GOV-005 · DAT-010 · DAT-011

GRA · KEY F

Capital Meaning

Readiness implications only. Stablecoin supply is large, rules differ by region, and theft losses are lumpy1719. These show where finance-readiness evidence will matter. Nothing here is advice, a rating or an approval.

FIN-008 · GOV-005

NEXUS

Synthesis

Distributed-ledger technology is well described by statutes and single events and thinly measured as a system. The 2027 programme should bind reserve composition, publish a comparable footprint and test the stablecoin stress pathway before the next large event.

SYS-012 · L-01 · L-02

6.3Standards, Academy and steward contributions

How the Nexus Standards drafts, the Risk Academy and the three stewards feed each quarterly edition for distributed ledger. The standards are a preparatory working draft (2026) and are cited as drafts, never as adopted standards.

Table 6.1The quarterly rhythm every edition follows
QuarterEditionQuestionBoundary
Q1State and AgendaWhat matters this year, and what is the starting position?observed baseline stays distinct from planned work
Q2Evidence and BuildWhat new evidence and capability exist?a configured capability is not a validated result
Q3Stress Test and ReadinessWhat do scenarios and tests show?simulated loss or performance is not observed impact
Q4Annual Synthesis and RenewalWhat changed in the year, and what renews?release follows review, not event publicity deadlines
Table 6.2Who contributes what each quarter
Steward or bodyRoleContribution route
The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI Canada)Lead Institution and Consortium Secretariat; publisher of record; technical truth (key T)science and practice communities · GCRI gateway
The Global Risks Forum (GRF)leadership, dialogue and the Universe programme; public meaning (key M)policy, Universe and national adoption · GRF gateway
The Global Risks Alliance (GRA)finance, insurance and development readiness; capital meaning (key F)finance and insurance · GRA gateway
Nexus Standardspreparatory drafts on vocabulary, hazards, indicators and methodsStandards site · working groups HAZ, IND, MTH, FIN, AI
Risk Academylearning pathways tied to the agenda questionsAcademy gateway · learning by review
Nexus Standards and Academytechnology chapter inputs: GCRI evidence, NXS standards, RA capabilitytechnology editorial board

Standards drafts used in this edition

  • Risk vocabulary NRS-C1 (424 terms) for terms in the glossary
  • Hazard atlas NHS-1 1.1.0 (905 hazards in 120 families) for risk objects
  • Seven risk classes: global, catastrophic, existential, emerging, planetary, exponential, frontier-tech

Standards calendar to watch

  • Founding calls from 20 October 2026; working groups meet from 5 November 2026
  • Inaugural Global Standards Council session, 12 January 2027
  • Quarterly reviews in March, June, September and December, aligned with each edition

6.4GCRI reading: the model card

GCRI’s reading of this edition is its model card: what the national model is, what it computes and where it stops. It is printed in full in Annex A, with the methods it belongs to. Annex A, methodology

6.5Global Risks Forum reading: editorial essays

Four signed essays by the Reports editorial team set out the positions this edition takes. They are interpretation, labelled as such; the evidence they draw on is in the findings register.

Distributed ledgers are a protocol base and a regulatory subject. The first changes slowly through documented upgrades. The second is changing fast in statute. Keeping them apart avoids both hype and dismissal.

EDITORIAL ESSAY · 01

Two stories, one technology

A statute, a project page and a vendor report carry different weight. This edition labels each, and asks for a common basis before illicit and theft totals are compared.

EDITORIAL ESSAY · 02

Separate statutes, project claims and vendor reports

Electricity use depends on the consensus design and on how hardware is assumed. A published method is needed before totals are compared across networks.

EDITORIAL ESSAY · 03

The footprint is a method question

Statutes now set reserve and authorisation rules while reserve composition, redemption behaviour and illicit share remain thinly measured. The next year should close that gap.

EDITORIAL ESSAY · 04

Rules arrive before evidence

6.6Global Risks Alliance reading: 2027 distributed ledger readiness pack

The registers that open the 2027 global cycle. At baseline each is initialised from this edition.

Table 6.32027 distributed ledger readiness pack
ItemRegisterState at baselineFirst 2027 entry
E1Distributed Ledger risk state deltabaseline set by this editionchanges against the baseline
E2WEFH+B state deltafive global system readings setindicator updates and freshness
E3Agenda and Portfolio movementeight agenda items · 6 proposed objectsadmission decisions
E4Federation delivery registernational chapters in preparationnational chapters
E5Consortium capability registernational consortia formingfirst contributions
E6Leadership questions and challengesnone yetfirst challenge log
E7Foundry technical statenational environments preparedfirst federation cut
E8Publication candidatestwelve findings carried forwardPUBLISH · HOLD dispositions
E9Universe readinessone candidate missionadmission and role spine
E10Correction registernonefirst federation-wide cycle

Publication dispositions

  • Publish
  • Hold
  • Needs evidence
  • Restricted
  • Superseded

6.7Nexus Standards reading: standards and regulatory watch

Instruments and published guidance that shape the systems in this edition, by status on the retrieval date. The edition assesses no one’s compliance.

  • IN FORCE
  • PUBLISHED
  • DRAFT
  • PUBLISHED · VOLUNTARY
Table 6.4Standards and regulatory watch
InstrumentBodyScopeStatusRelevance
GENIUS Act, Public Law 119-2713US CongressUSIN FORCE 2025 · EFFECTIVE DATE PENDINGpayment stablecoins
MiCA, Regulation (EU) 2023/11141434EU legislatorsEUIN FORCE 2024crypto-asset markets
MiCA rules for ART and EMT issuers15EBAEUAPPLIED FROM 30 JUNE 2024token issuers
Transfer of Funds Regulation35EU legislatorsEUIN FORCEtravel rule
FSB framework for crypto-asset activities11FSBglobalPUBLISHED 2023regulatory framework
Basel crypto-asset standard SCO6016Basel CommitteeglobalPUBLISHED 2022 · UNDER REVIEWbank exposures
FATF standards on virtual assets26FATFglobalPUBLISHEDillicit finance controls
ISO/TC 307 on blockchain3233ISOglobalCOMMITTEE ACTIVEterminology and standards
NIST post-quantum standards22NISTUS, used globallyPUBLISHED 2024signature algorithms
NIST IR 82022NISTUSPUBLISHED · VOLUNTARYtechnology overview

Changed since 2024

  • The MiCA grandfathering period under Article 143(3) ended on 1 July 2026 at the latest14
  • The Basel Committee set its crypto-asset standard in December 202216
  • The GENIUS Act was enacted on 18 July 202513

To watch in 2027

  • Final regulations under the GENIUS Act13
  • Outcome of the Basel Committee review of its crypto-asset standard16
  • Follow-up to the FSB review of 202512

6.8Risk Academy reading: literature and evidence review, science and assessments

The review behind this edition covers distributed ledger assessments, peer-reviewed science and the institutional reports that bind its findings. Systematic reviews for each agenda item begin in 2027.

Review protocol

Question
What does the published evidence establish about blockchain and distributed ledgers as infrastructure and its couplings?
Sources searched
foundational papers; standard setters and central banks; statutes and supervisory pages; protocol pages and security reports
Window
releases available at evidence close, 30 September 2026
Selection
sources that bind or contextualise a finding in this edition
Next step
systematic reviews for agenda items 01 to 05 in 2027
Table 6.5Foundations and peer-reviewed papers
ReferenceTypeYearRoleUsed for
Nakamoto1white paper2008frameworkpeer-to-peer electronic cash
NIST IR 82022NIST report2018frameworkneutral overview
Haber and Stornetta39journal article1991frameworktime-stamping
Lamport, Shostak and Pease38journal article1982frameworkByzantine agreement
Castro and Liskov37conference paper1999frameworkpractical Byzantine fault tolerance
Buterin36white paper2014frameworksmart-contract platform
Eyal and Sirer40conference paper2014contextselfish mining
Daian et al.41conference paper2020contexttransaction ordering and extraction
Table 6.6Institutional flagships
ReferenceIssuerYearRoleUsed for
Makarov and Schoar42journal article2020contextarbitrage across exchanges
de Vries29journal article2023contextwater footprint estimate
Digiconomist index47index page2026contextcompeting energy estimate
Cambridge index method5methodology page2026supportsmethod for electricity estimate
Electric Capital developer report25industry report2026contextdeveloper activity
Glassnode analysis30vendor analysis2026contextexposed supply estimate
Citi Institute analysis31bank research2026contextexposed supply estimate
Table 6.7Law, standards and supervisory work
ReferenceIssuerYearRoleUsed for
BIS Annual Economic Report chapter6BIS2025supportstests for money
BIS survey of central banks7BIS2025supportsdigital-currency work
FSB framework and review1112FSB2023 to 2025supportsrule consistency
GENIUS Act13US Congress2025supportsstablecoin statute
MiCA pages1415ESMA and EBA2024 to 2025supportsEU regime
Table 6.8Protocols, security and field data
ReferenceIssuerYearRoleUsed for
Ethereum Foundation energy page3project body2026contextweak, project-published
Ethereum roadmap page4project body2025contextupgrade dates
Bitcoin proposals 360 and 3612324draft specifications2026contextquantum exposure
Chainalysis report20security vendor2025contextweak, vendor estimate
FBI notice19law enforcement2025supportsattribution of a theft
Federal Reserve note17central bank2026supportsstablecoin size
Atlantic Council tracker8think tank2026contextdigital-currency counts

Where the evidence agrees

  • Stablecoins have grown fast and are now a policy subject617
  • Statutes in the US and EU set reserve and authorisation rules1314
  • Large thefts are attributed to state-linked actors by law enforcement19

Where it is unsettled

  • How large the illicit share of volume is on a common basis2026
  • How far national rules agree in practice1216
  • How soon ledger signatures need to migrate to post-quantum schemes222324

Notes

Numbers are the edition’s reference numbers, so a note reads the same in every chapter. The full list, with every source and its licence, is in Annex C. Annex C, references

  1. 17Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (ed.), Stablecoins in 2025: Developments and Financial Stability Implications, FEDS Notes, 8 April 2026 (market capitalisation USD 317 billion on 6 April 2026; more than 50% above early 2025). Federal Reserve Board, Washington. Observation year 2026. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  2. 19Federal Bureau of Investigation (ed.), Public service announcement on the Bybit theft (about USD 1.5 billion in virtual assets stolen on or about 21 February 2025; attributed to North Korea). FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center, Washington. Observation year 2025. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  3. 13United States Congress, Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act), Public Law 119-27, enacted 18 July 2025 (full text read from the Government Publishing Office version). Observation year 2025. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  4. 14ESMA (ed.), Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) page (timeline: entered into force June 2023; full application 30 December 2024; grandfathering under Article 143(3) ends 1 July 2026 at the latest; no count of authorised providers). European Securities and Markets Authority, Paris. Observation year 2025. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  5. 34UNVERIFIED, not opened: European Parliament and Council, Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets, Official Journal, 2023 (the text did not load; dates taken from the ESMA page), cited from memory. Observation year 2023. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  6. 15EBA (ed.), Asset-referenced and e-money tokens (MiCA) page (requirements for issuers of ARTs and EMTs apply from 30 June 2024; EBA statement; joint reports). European Banking Authority, Paris. Observation year 2024. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  7. 35UNVERIFIED, not opened: European Parliament and Council, Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 on information accompanying transfers of funds and certain crypto-assets, 2023, cited from memory. Observation year 2023. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  8. 11FSB (ed.), FSB Global Regulatory Framework for Crypto-asset Activities (publication page; final report of 17 July 2023). Financial Stability Board, Basel. Observation year 2023. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  9. 16Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (ed.), Prudential treatment of cryptoasset exposures, standard SCO60 (publication page; published 16 December 2022; the page states implementation by 1 January 2025; later date and review known only from search summaries). Bank for International Settlements, Basel. Observation year 2022. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  10. 26UNVERIFIED, not opened: FATF (ed.), Targeted update on implementation of the FATF Standards on virtual assets and virtual asset service providers, 2025 (page blocked automated access; cited from memory without figures). Financial Action Task Force, Paris. Observation year 2025. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  11. 32UNVERIFIED, not opened: ISO (ed.), ISO/TC 307 Blockchain and distributed ledger technologies (committee page blocked automated access; cited from memory). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. Observation year 2026. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  12. 33UNVERIFIED, not opened: ISO (ed.), ISO 22739, Blockchain and distributed ledger technologies, Vocabulary, cited from memory. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. Observation year 2020. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  13. 22NIST (ed.), Post-Quantum Cryptography project page (three finalised standards; announcement of 13 August 2024; HQC selected as a backup on 11 March 2025). National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg. Observation year 2024. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  14. 2Yaga, D., Mell, P., Roby, N. and Scarfone, K., Blockchain Technology Overview, NIST IR 8202 (publication page; published 3 October 2018, page updated 7 May 2026). National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg. Observation year 2018. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  15. 12FSB (ed.), Thematic review on the FSB Global Regulatory Framework for Crypto-asset Activities (publication page; October 2025; information as of August 2025; significant gaps and inconsistencies; eight recommendations). Financial Stability Board, Basel. Observation year 2025. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  16. 1Nakamoto, S., Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, white paper, 2008 (PDF read in full for the abstract). Observation year 2008. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  17. 39UNVERIFIED, not opened: Haber, S. and Stornetta, W.S., How to time-stamp a digital document, Journal of Cryptology 3, 99 to 111, 1991, cited from memory. Observation year 1991. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  18. 38UNVERIFIED, not opened: Lamport, L., Shostak, R. and Pease, M., The Byzantine generals problem, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 4(3), 382 to 401, 1982, cited from memory. Observation year 1982. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  19. 37UNVERIFIED, not opened: Castro, M. and Liskov, B., Practical Byzantine fault tolerance, Proceedings of OSDI, 1999, cited from memory. Observation year 1999. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  20. 36UNVERIFIED, not opened: Buterin, V., A Next-Generation Smart Contract and Decentralized Application Platform, white paper, 2014, cited from memory. Observation year 2014. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  21. 40UNVERIFIED, not opened: Eyal, I. and Sirer, E.G., Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable, Financial Cryptography, 2014, cited from memory. Observation year 2014. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  22. 41UNVERIFIED, not opened: Daian, P. et al., Flash Boys 2.0: frontrunning in decentralised exchanges, miner extractable value, and consensus instability, IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2020, cited from memory. Observation year 2020. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  23. 42UNVERIFIED, not opened: Makarov, I. and Schoar, A., Trading and arbitrage in cryptocurrency markets, Journal of Financial Economics 135(2), 293 to 319, 2020, cited from memory. Observation year 2020. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  24. 29UNVERIFIED, not opened: de Vries, A., Bitcoin’s growing water footprint, Cell Reports Sustainability, 2023, known from press coverage only; no figure used. Observation year 2023. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  25. 47UNVERIFIED, not opened: Digiconomist (ed.), Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index, cited from memory without figures. Observation year 2026. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  26. 5Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (ed.), Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, landing and methodology pages (hybrid top-down method; landing page values load by script and none was read). University of Cambridge, Cambridge. Observation year 2026. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  27. 25Electric Capital (ed.), Crypto developer report and dashboard (page read; figures load by script and none was read). Electric Capital, San Francisco. Observation year 2026. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  28. 30UNVERIFIED, not opened: Glassnode (ed.), analysis of bitcoin supply structurally exposed to quantum risk (about 9.6%), taken from a news summary. Glassnode, Singapore. Observation year 2026. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  29. 31UNVERIFIED, not opened: Citi Institute (ed.), report of 16 May 2026 on quantum risk to bitcoin (about 25% of supply with exposed public keys), taken from a news summary. Citi, New York. Observation year 2026. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  30. 6BIS (ed.), Annual Economic Report 2025, chapter III, The next-generation monetary and financial system (stablecoins fall short on the tests of singleness, elasticity and integrity; over 99% of stablecoins are US dollar-denominated; first 100,000 characters of the page read). Bank for International Settlements, Basel. Observation year 2025. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  31. 7Illes, A., Kosse, A. and Wierts, P., Embracing diversity, advancing together: results of the 2024 BIS survey on central bank digital currencies and crypto, BIS Papers 159 (published 22 August 2025; 93 central banks surveyed; 91% exploring). Bank for International Settlements, Basel. Observation year 2024. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  32. 3Ethereum Foundation (ed.), Ethereum energy consumption (project page citing Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute estimates: annual electricity use of 2,601 MWh; cut of more than 99.988% after the Merge). A project-published estimate, weak evidence. Observation year 2026. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  33. 4Ethereum Foundation (ed.), Ethereum roadmap (project page: Merge 15 September 2022 with a cut in energy use of about 99.95%; Dencun 13 March 2024; Pectra 7 May 2025; Fusaka 3 December 2025). A project-published page, weak evidence for the energy figure. Observation year 2025. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  34. 23Beast, H., Heilman, E. and Duke, I.F., BIP 360: Pay-to-Merkle-Root (P2MR), Bitcoin improvement proposal, status Draft, version 0.12.1 (resists long exposure attacks only). Bitcoin improvement proposals repository. Observation year 2026. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  35. 24Lopp, J. et al., BIP 361: Post Quantum Migration and Legacy Signature Sunset, Bitcoin improvement proposal, status Draft, assigned 11 February 2026 (states that over 34% of all bitcoin had revealed a public key on-chain on 1 March 2026). Bitcoin improvement proposals repository. Observation year 2026. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  36. 20Chainalysis (ed.), 2026 Crypto Crime Report introduction (illicit addresses received at least USD 154 billion in 2025, up 162%; sanctioned-entity value up 694%; North Korea-linked thefts USD 2 billion; Bybit nearly USD 1.5 billion; illicit share below 1%; stablecoins 84% of illicit volume). A security-vendor report and a lower-bound estimate, weak evidence. Chainalysis, New York. Observation year 2025. Accessed 2026-11-03.back
  37. 8Atlantic Council (ed.), Central Bank Digital Currency Tracker (page last updated May 2026: 146 countries and currency unions exploring; 3 launched; 41 pilot projects). Atlantic Council, Washington. Observation year 2026. Accessed 2026-11-03.back

Cite this chapter

Valadbaygi, S. (Ed.). (2026). Chapter 6: Readings from the other desks. In Exponential Technology Report 2026: Blockchain and Distributed Ledgers (Baseline Edition 2026, Report No. NR-XTECH-DLT-GLOBAL-2026-BASELINE) [Draft under review]. The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI).

Every citation form of the whole report, BibTeX and RIS included, is on the edition home. Cite this report

ReportsContribute

Send evidence or a correction on Blockchain and Distributed Ledgers.

Reports is the Consortium’s quarterly publication, written by six desks. This page sits with the GCRI Systems Evidence desk. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work. Sent to the wrong desk, it is forwarded, not refused.

GCRI Systems Evidence deskExponential Technology

CC BY 4.0 Free to read. Text and figures: CC BY 4.0. Data: CC0 1.0. Authors keep copyright. Published by GCRI Canada.

The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation

Science · evidence · measurement

Not for profit

Our articles, maps and twins are free to read and free to republish. Readers and partners keep it that way.

Partner with us

Who funds us

GCRI is a not-for-profit institution. To ask who funds a piece of work, use the funding questions form.

Independence

Editors and the expert reviewers named on each article decide what we publish. Funders and partners do not review or approve articles before publication.

Licence

Articles: CC BY 4.0. Figures, maps, twins and data: CC BY 4.0. Other uses: ask through the permissions form.