Charles Belle is the Filecoin Foundation for Decentralized Web’s Teaching Fellow at the Center for Law, Tech, and Social Good at the University of San Francisco School of Law. Professor Belle’s research focuses on decentralized governance and oracles, and he is teaching a course on DeFi (DeFi: Decentralized Finance Law). Additionally, Professor Belle serves as an adjunct professor at USF School of Law, teaching Business Associations.
Prior to joining the Center, Professor Belle has worked in blockchain in several capacities, most notably he was the COO of a layer-1 blockchain company, where he directed strategy and operations and led the design of the governance protocol. Previously, Professor Belle led a nonprofit focused on the tech-government intersection, where his applied research emphasized open data, open source, and privacy. He also served as Executive Director of the Center for Innovation at UC Law San Francisco (formerly UC Hastings).
Professor Belle is a non-residential Fellow at Stanford University’s Center for Internet and Society (CIS). His past fellowships include UC Berkeley’s Center for Technology, Society & Policy. For nine years, he was a member of the Committee on Information Technology (COIT), the governance body that makes decisions regarding the future of San Francisco’s technology.
He served as a law clerk extern for Judge Carlos Bea of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He was also the founder and Editor-in-Chief of the UC Law Science and Technology Journal (formerly Hastings Science & Technology Law Journal).
Can you share a bit about your journey into the intersection of law, blockchain, and technology? What inspired your focus on these fields?
Government is the most transformative use case for blockchain. My background in public policy, specifically open data and open-source licensing, was formed on the importance of transparency and accessibility for healthy democracies. When I began exploring blockchain in 2013, its potential to revolutionize governance was clear, but the timing wasn’t right. By 2019, compliance discussions became mainstream, and I began to dive deeper working at a Layer-1 startup.
Today, my research focuses on decentralized governance. Outside of work, I enjoy how NFTs and DAOs expand art and culture. I’m a Doodler and FWB member – FWB, or Friends With Benefits, is a DAO that uses Web3 tools to foster culture and creative agency art, culture, and collaboration.
My office reflects my passion—from an NFT on a Muse frame, a Pudgy Penguin on my shelf, and working on a phygital project–combining physical and digital experiences–with my wife to showcase the possibilities of blockchain.
You often discuss the importance of socially responsible tech development. How do you define “social responsibility” in the context of blockchain and AI?
Technology is never neutral; it reflects the values of those who build it. Blockchain and AI offer opportunities to embed equity and accessibility, but only if we challenge plutocracy and systemic bias baked into design. AI systems, for example, often replicate discriminatory practices, and pseudonymous blockchain platforms can exacerbate inequality. Social responsibility means addressing these flaws and creating systems that amplify opportunity for everyone, not just the technically sophisticated. For democracy to succeed, all voices, not just technocrats, should shape our technological future.
The Blockchain Microbond Project (BMB) is a fascinating initiative. Could you explain what it is and its potential to transform community financing and how it addresses existing gaps in municipal finance?
Who wouldn’t want to obliterate a 200-year-old, $4T a year market municipal bond market? The BMB Project uses blockchain to cut out intermediaries, reducing the cost to issue a bond and lower investment minimums from $5,000 to $500. This means more people can participate as investors, not just taxpayers, and communities keep their capital local instead of funneling it to Wall Street, then out of the country. For governments, reducing the cost of capital unlocks new budgets without raising taxes, essentially creating a new revenue stream. This project empowers individuals and local governments, proving blockchain’s potential to transform the way we fund our communities with essential projects like parks, schools, and infrastructure.
What are the primary regulatory challenges that projects like BMB face, and how can they be addressed to encourage broader adoption?
It might surprise people, but regulatory issues are not our biggest hurdle. Bonds are clearly securities, so compliance is straightforward compared to other crypto projects. The real challenge lies in convincing governments, banks, and lawyers to become first adopters of an innovative model. Legacy institutions are notoriously slow to change, but once we prove this works, we believe the floodgates will open. Global entities like the World Bank are also in this space looking globally as well. We are currently in talks with an issuer I am very excited about who could set a precedent for widespread adoption.
Having worked on the governance design of a Layer-1 blockchain, what do you see as the most critical governance challenges for decentralized systems today?
Plutocracy. Decentralized systems often face governance problems rooted in plutocracy. A small group of developers and early investors frequently controls code and major staking operations, undermining decentralization. Even worse, many protocol foundations are subject to oversight by bureaucrats who can veto governance votes, creating hidden centralization. These issues are compounded by legal uncertainties around NFTs, DAOs, and conflicting state laws. True decentralized governance requires standardized frameworks and transparent tools, or individuals will increasingly rely on courts to resolve disputes—an approach that is counterproductive to decentralization.
As AI becomes increasingly integrated with blockchain technologies, what legal and ethical considerations should developers and policymakers prioritize?
The two biggest concerns are discriminatory outcomes and regulatory compliance. AI-driven blockchain systems in lending or governance can perpetuate systemic inequities, hiding biases behind pseudonymity. Developers will need to be aware of these concerns to ensure fairness, equity, and compliance with existing laws. At the same time, pseudonymous AI agents on decentralized platforms will challenge existing Know-Your-Customer (KYC) rules and test national security frameworks. Policymakers must adapt privacy laws, intellectual property rules (existing open-source licenses might not work well), and liability (developers and investors) to address this rapidly evolving space. Ignoring these intersections risks litigation, more instead of less regulation, and any ethical failures can have global consequences given the globalization of these two technologies.
Why do you predict an increase in AI-related litigation by 2025, and what trends or developments do you see driving this shift? How should smaller tech companies prepare for these challenges?
AI litigation will surge as stakeholders recognize the value of their data. Disputes will center on companies misusing user data, failing to protect it, or violating privacy laws like GDPR and CCPA. Smaller tech firms must be transparent about data practices, comply with legal frameworks, and prioritize cybersecurity. Additionally, enterprise clients are restricting data sharing, signaling the rising stakes of data management. Law firm clients, for example, are restricting access to their internal data or prohibiting their internal data from being commingled with other data to inform law firm AI models. If companies are not sharing with legal counsel, that’s a clear signal to startups. Startups that fail to adapt risk alienating customers and facing costly legal battles in an increasingly data-conscious market.
What role do you see AI playing in the development and management of decentralized finance (DeFi) systems?
AI can make sophisticated financial tools once reserved for hedge funds accessible to all of us. Personalized arbitrage bots could allow individuals to profit from global markets 24/7, transforming DeFi into a true consumer fintech revolution. But if only the wealthy access these tools, we risk reinforcing financial inequality and social instability under the guise of innovation. AI’s role in DeFi should be to create opportunities for everyone, not just substituting one aristocracy for another.
In your opinion, what’s the current state of blockchain and crypto regulation in the U.S., and how does it balance innovation with consumer protection?
I do not agree that it’s as bad as PR people are paid to make it sound. Federal regulatory ambiguity is a problem that everyone agrees on, but states are leading with innovative approaches, balancing experimentation with consumer protection. Wyoming’s innovative policies and California’s consumer-focused frameworks showcase this dynamic. These “Laboratories of Democracy” allow us to learn and adapt, creating a middle ground that fosters both innovation and protection. If states had more resources and trusted expertise, this balance could advance even faster. If we want states to move faster, officials need more resources and trusted expertise. I’m going to take this opportunity to plug a proposal that I’m asking for feedback on. I’ve been sharing it with Public Policy people in crypto:
State Government Tech Policy Institute (SGTPI) Proposal
What frameworks or policies would you recommend to governments to better navigate the complexities of blockchain and AI?
Governments need funded sandboxes to experiment with smart regulation. Sandboxes exempt companies from certain regulations, allowing safe testing of blockchain and AI tools. This gives governments the space to learn while minimizing risk to the economy and public. Collaborative spaces for startups, regulators, community groups, and legal experts could resolve conflicts and build smarter policies. Without funding institutional learning, governments can’t keep pace with technology, leaving everyone vulnerable to poorly designed or overly restrictive regulations.
