Blockchain for Good Alliance, a Dubai-founded nonprofit initiative, used its appearance at the United Nations Forum on Cultural Diplomacy in Geneva to urge governments to treat blockchain as core public infrastructure for trust, transparency, and accountability in an era increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence.
Speaking at the Palais des Nations, Tan, the alliance’s director of global affairs, told diplomats, government officials, and academic participants that blockchain could help public institutions verify identity, track data provenance, and create accountable records for autonomous systems. His central message was that digital verification should no longer be viewed as a technical add-on, but as a necessary foundation for public systems that rely on AI.
The remarks came as governments and international organizations are moving quickly to understand how AI should be governed across borders. As automated systems become more involved in public services, information flows, compliance, and decision-making, policymakers are facing a basic question: how can institutions verify what is real, who is responsible, and whether digital processes can be trusted?
Blockchain for Good Alliance, also known as BGA, argued that blockchain can help answer that question by creating records that are difficult to alter and easy to audit. In its view, distributed ledger technology can serve as a verification layer beneath AI systems, giving governments and organizations a way to confirm the origin of data, the history of actions, and the ownership of digital assets or credentials.
The forum was co-hosted by the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and the United Nations Institute for Training and Research. It brought together representatives from several countries, including Sweden, Tanzania, Jordan, Yemen, and the United Kingdom. Former ministers, ambassadors, members of parliament, and academics took part in discussions focused on cultural diplomacy, international dialogue, and new ways to build cooperation at a time of rapid technological change.
BGA’s participation reflected the nonprofit’s broader effort to position blockchain as a tool for public interest rather than only a technology associated with financial speculation or cryptocurrency trading. The organization has previously worked with the UNDP SDG Blockchain Accelerator and is a member of the UNDP Blockchain Advisory Group. It has also convened the Impact Leaders’ Summit series, which began at the UK House of Lords.
A trust layer for AI systems
Tan’s comments focused on a growing concern among policymakers: AI systems are becoming more capable, but their outputs can be difficult to verify. Generative AI can produce text, images, code, and analysis at scale, while more advanced autonomous systems may eventually take actions with limited human supervision. That creates a need for reliable records showing where information came from, how it was changed, and who authorized a decision.
Blockchain is not a complete solution to AI governance, and BGA did not present it as one. Instead, the organization described it as a supporting layer that can strengthen trust where verification is essential. A blockchain can record events in a shared ledger, creating a time-stamped history that is difficult to modify without detection. In public systems, that capability could be used to verify credentials, document supply chains, track aid delivery, record environmental claims, or audit automated decisions.
The idea is especially relevant for systems that depend on data from many sources. AI models are only as reliable as the data used to train or operate them. If a government agency uses AI to process benefits, manage procurement, assess documents, or monitor public programs, it may need a clear record of the data involved. Blockchain-based records could help establish whether a document, certificate, transaction, or dataset is authentic.
For governments, the value lies less in the technology itself and more in the confidence it may create. Public institutions are built on records, rules, and accountability. If AI changes how those institutions operate, verification tools may become more important.
Why verification is moving up the policy agenda
The Geneva forum took place during a period of rising international attention on AI governance. The United Nations is convening its inaugural Global Dialogue on AI Governance in Geneva on July 6 and 7, with the aim of encouraging discussion among governments, companies, and other stakeholders on how to manage both the benefits and risks of the technology.
That wider policy environment gave added relevance to BGA’s message. Around the world, officials are working to balance innovation with safeguards. AI can improve public service delivery, speed up administrative work, detect fraud, and support research. But it can also introduce new risks, including opaque decision-making, biased outputs, misinformation, cybersecurity threats, and unclear accountability when automated systems fail.
The central problem is not only whether AI systems can perform tasks. It is whether societies can trust the processes behind those tasks. In many cases, trust depends on verification. A digital identity must be proven. A certificate must be authentic. A public payment must be traceable. A climate claim must be supported by reliable data. A decision made with AI assistance must be explainable enough to be challenged or reviewed.
BGA’s position is that blockchain can contribute to this layer of verification. By recording data trails and digital attestations, distributed ledgers can provide greater confidence that records have not been quietly changed. That could matter in both domestic governance and international cooperation, where multiple institutions often need to rely on shared information.
Public sector AI adoption raises accountability questions
The public sector is already experimenting with AI at speed. Surveys and market research cited across the governance technology field indicate that a large share of public servants now use AI tools, with much of that adoption occurring recently. At the same time, many government organizations remain in the early stages of full integration. Using AI for individual productivity is very different from embedding it across core public operations.
That gap creates both opportunity and risk. Public servants may use AI to summarize documents, draft communications, review large files, or support research. More advanced deployments can involve decision support for health, welfare, transport, tax administration, procurement, and public safety. Each step deeper into government operations raises the need for clear rules and auditable systems.
Market projections also show why governments are paying attention. The global market for AI in government services is expected to expand sharply over the next decade, from tens of billions of dollars in the mid-2020s to a much larger sector by the early 2030s. That growth suggests that AI will become a normal part of public administration, not a limited experiment.
For BGA, this makes the case for verifiable infrastructure more urgent. If public systems increasingly rely on automated tools, citizens and institutions will need stronger ways to check the integrity of inputs and outputs. Blockchain can help by creating records that support audits, compliance, and accountability.
From diplomacy to practical applications
Although BGA’s Geneva message was aimed at policymakers, the alliance has also been working to support practical blockchain applications. Its incubation programs have focused on projects that use distributed ledgers for social, environmental, and governance challenges rather than short-term trading activity.
One example referenced in its recent work is Plastiks.io, a project that uses blockchain records to trace and verify plastic recovery. The project has reported tracking more than 45 million kilograms of recovered plastic by recording recovery activity on a blockchain and converting verified actions into credits. Those credits can be used by partners seeking transparent records of environmental impact.
Such applications reflect a broader shift in how blockchain is being discussed in policy circles. The early public image of blockchain was dominated by cryptocurrencies and market volatility. Today, international institutions and technology groups are increasingly examining whether the underlying ledger technology can be used for identity, supply chains, sustainability reporting, digital credentials, and public finance transparency.
Another area of development is industrial asset management. Blockchain-backed audit trails can create tamper-resistant histories for assets, maintenance records, certifications, and compliance documents. In industries where documentation is time-consuming and highly regulated, verifiable records may reduce preparation time for audits and lower the risk of missing or altered information.
These examples are not proof that blockchain will become standard across public systems. Adoption still depends on regulation, interoperability, costs, privacy rules, cybersecurity, and institutional capacity. But they show why some public organizations are moving the discussion from theory to implementation.
UNDP work adds institutional weight
BGA’s links with United Nations-related programs are part of the institutional context behind its Geneva appearance. The alliance has partnered with the UNDP SDG Blockchain Accelerator, a program connected to efforts to use blockchain in support of the Sustainable Development Goals. It also serves as a member of the UNDP Blockchain Advisory Group, giving it a role in discussions about how distributed ledger technology can be applied responsibly.
The United Nations Development Programme is also preparing to launch a Government Blockchain Academy in 2026. The initiative is expected to support education and technical literacy in the public sector, especially for governments seeking to understand how blockchain can be used in public administration and development programs.
That kind of training may be important because blockchain systems are often misunderstood. Policymakers may associate the technology only with cryptocurrencies, while technologists may underestimate the complexity of government needs. Public sector use requires attention to procurement rules, civil rights, data protection, legal recognition, cross-border standards, and long-term maintenance.
Education programs can help bridge that gap. They can also help public officials ask better questions before adopting new systems. For example, not every database needs a blockchain. A distributed ledger may be useful when multiple parties need a shared record, when tamper resistance is important, or when auditability is central to the system. In other cases, traditional databases may be cheaper and more efficient.
Governance remains the central test
BGA founder Liu has emphasized that the key question is not simply whether blockchain and AI can be used together, but how institutions choose to adopt and govern them. That point is increasingly important as governments face pressure to modernize quickly.
Technology alone does not create public trust. Poorly designed systems can make public services harder to access, expose sensitive data, or create new forms of exclusion. Blockchain records, once created, can be difficult to alter, which is useful for auditability but can raise privacy concerns if sensitive information is recorded incorrectly or permanently. AI systems can improve speed and scale, but they can also amplify errors if oversight is weak.
For that reason, the governance framework around these tools may matter more than the tools themselves. Standards are needed for data quality, consent, identity protection, cyber resilience, procurement, and independent audits. Public institutions must also decide who has authority to write to a ledger, who can access the records, and how mistakes are corrected.
BGA’s message in Geneva placed blockchain within that broader governance challenge. The alliance argued that verifiable data systems can strengthen international policy by making records more transparent and accountable. In diplomacy, development, and public administration, that could support cooperation among institutions that do not always share the same systems or levels of trust.
A broader shift in digital public infrastructure
The discussion at the UN Forum on Cultural Diplomacy points to a wider shift in how digital infrastructure is being defined. In the past, public digital infrastructure often meant connectivity, databases, online portals, and identity systems. AI is now adding a new layer of complexity. As machines take on more tasks, governments may need infrastructure that verifies not only people and documents, but also data flows and automated actions.
Blockchain could become one part of that infrastructure if governments find practical, secure, and legally sound ways to use it. Its strongest role may be in areas where records must be shared across organizations and trusted over time. That includes public procurement, humanitarian aid, carbon and environmental markets, credential verification, trade documentation, and compliance reporting.
The Geneva appearance also showed how blockchain advocates are trying to reposition the technology. Rather than focusing on token prices or trading cycles, BGA presented blockchain as a public-interest tool that can support governance in a digital world shaped by AI. That framing is likely to become more common as policymakers look for mechanisms to make AI systems more accountable.
For now, the debate remains open. Blockchain can improve verification, but it cannot guarantee truthful data at the point of entry. AI can improve efficiency, but it cannot replace public accountability. The challenge for governments is to combine new technology with strong institutions, clear laws, and human oversight.
BGA’s intervention at the Palais des Nations was therefore less a claim that blockchain will solve the trust problem by itself, and more a call to treat verification as a central pillar of future governance. As AI moves further into public life, that argument is likely to receive growing attention from diplomats, regulators, and public agencies seeking systems that can be checked, audited, and trusted.
Explore how AI complements blockchain in building verifiable public systems in our guide: AI complements blockchain.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
