The type of blockchain you use and who controls it changes everything. We’re told that “blockchain builds trust.” But what if that trust depends on the kind of blockchain being used, and who gets to control it?

As governments, banks, and startups adopt blockchain to solve everything from budget tracking to cross-border payments, the word itself is starting to lose meaning. Because not all blockchains are built the same. Some are open to everyone. Some are locked behind access controls. Some let the public verify every action. Others are only visible to insiders.

So, should you trust all blockchain systems by default? Not quite. Trust in blockchain isn’t automatic—it’s designed. And it begins with one fundamental decision: Is the system public, private, or somewhere in between?

Public Blockchains: The “Trustless” Systems That Rely on Everyone

A public blockchain is often celebrated as the holy grail of transparency. Bitcoin and Ethereum, for example, let anyone with internet access verify transactions, build applications, or propose new blocks. These systems are called permissionless, and that word matters. No one can stop you from participating, because no one controls the gate.

In theory, that makes public blockchains trustless. You don’t need to trust a bank, government, or tech company. You just trust the code and the thousands of independent nodes that enforce it.

But here's the nuance: while public blockchains offer radical transparency, they also bring trade-offs. They're slower, more energy-hungry, and not ideal for private data or high-speed environments. So, while they’re ideal for citizen-focused systems like decentralized finance or public accountability, they’re not always the right tool for the job—especially when privacy and regulatory compliance are required.

That’s why many institutions—especially in the Philippines—opt for something more controlled.

Private Blockchains: Efficiency, But With a Gatekeeper

A private blockchain flips the trust model. Instead of decentralization, it offers control. Only approved participants can access the network, validate transactions, or see the ledger.

For example, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas recently piloted a wholesale central bank digital currency through Project Agila. Instead of using an open blockchain, they chose Hyperledger Fabric—a permissioned, private system. This allowed for tight control over who could participate and ensured the platform aligned with banking regulations.

The logic is clear: in high-stakes environments like interbank settlements, full transparency isn’t always safe. What matters more is accountability within a trusted circle. But again, this raises the question: who watches the gatekeeper?

When systems become private, you’re trusting the institution, not the network. That may be acceptable in some contexts. But it’s the opposite of blockchain’s original promise and it’s important that users understand that distinction.

The Hybrid Middle Ground: Selective Transparency by Design

What if you want the best of both? That’s where hybrid or consortium blockchains come in.

Take the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). This year 2025, it launched a blockchain-powered system live to record SAROs (Special Allotment Release Orders) and NCAs (Notices of Cash Allocation). Through this system, government offices issue budget documents that can be verified by the public through QR codes and web apps. But behind that public-facing transparency sits a private infrastructure that protects sensitive financial data.

This dual-layer approach doesn’t reject public access, it structures it. It says, 'You can verify the truth, but you can’t touch the data.' That kind of design balances openness with operational integrity.

Other local examples follow suit. UBX, UnionBank’s fintech arm, is building a multi-issuer peso stablecoin (PHPX) on a permissioned blockchain to serve cross-border remittance flows. Again, the system relies on trust, not from the crowd, but from known issuers and validators within a closed loop.

The DICT’s eGovChain initiative takes this hybridization further, distributing blockchain nodes across multiple agencies, making digital government services more secure without throwing the doors fully open.

These examples challenge the narrative that blockchain is always neutral. It isn’t. It’s a framework; one that can be built for openness or control, for transparency or obfuscation, depending on the intent of those who deploy it.

So... Should You Trust All Blockchains?

The easiest and safest answer is “no,” and that’s not because blockchain is flawed, but because the term hides more than it reveals.

Ask:

• Who controls the network?
  
  
• Who can see the data?
  
  
• Who can change the rules?
  
  
• And most importantly: who benefits from how that trust is distributed?
  
  

Public blockchains can be slow and chaotic, but they offer accountability you can verify yourself. Private chains can be fast and compliant, but ask you to put your faith in the institution operating them.

In a country like the Philippines, where calls for transparency and digital governance are louder than ever, the architecture of trust matters more than the buzzword. The next time you hear that a system is “on the blockchain,” ask what kind. The answer will tell you who you’re really trusting.

‍