American Innovation Project, 501(c)(3) a Washington

Announced in August 2025 in Washington, the American Innovation Project (AIP) debuts as a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to educating legislators and staff on blockchain and artificial intelligence.

According to press reports, including those from CoinDesk and Decrypt, the launch is supported by an initial funding of 1 million dollars from Digital Currency Group (DCG), with the backing of other prominent industry names, and seed funding also attributed to the Cedar Innovation Foundation.

The initiative claims neutrality, but raises questions about transparency and the boundaries between educational activities and lobbying, especially due to the presence on the board of figures already active in advocacy.

According to the data collected by OpenSecrets, the “Internet” sector recorded about $109,589,153 in federal lobbying expenses in 2024, and the subset related to digital assets contributed significantly to this dynamic.

In monitoring regulatory and advocacy trends, analysts also observe that the aggregate spending of the crypto sector has grown in recent years (with a peak reported in 2023), making the boundary between educational information and political influence more sensitive (Reuters).

In my editorial work and in checks on non-profit practices, I have found that the timely publication of financial statements and Form 990 significantly reduces the ambiguities perceived by the public and policymakers.

What is AIP and what mission does it declare

The American Innovation Project aims to be a non-profit organization committed to promoting a non-partisan dialogue on decentralized technologies and artificial intelligence, translating technical content into materials accessible to public decision-makers. 

The choice of the 501(c)(3) qualification allows for operations in the educational and research fields, while simultaneously imposing strict limits on legislative pressure (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3)). An interesting aspect is the emphasis placed on neutrality, which will need to be tested in practice.

Who finances and who supports: the names and the figures

• Cited supporters: Digital Currency Group (DCG), Coinbase, Kraken, Paradigm, Andreessen Horowitz, Uniswap Labs.
• Affiliate initiatives: Solana Policy Institute and Cedar Innovation Foundation.
• Initial endowment: DCG would have contributed 1 million dollars, while the Cedar Innovation Foundation provided seed funding (Decrypt).

It must be said that several members of the board or committees come from organizations engaged in policy advocacy; this intersection between educational expertise and advocacy activities is the most debated issue, because it can make the boundary between education and political influence less clear.

What AIP will do: format and content

The organization aims to develop workshops, round tables, and private meetings between legislators, technology experts, and executives. The agenda includes:

• Technical seminars on blockchain, tokenomics, and market infrastructures;
• Operational briefings on AI applications and regulatory impacts;
• Off-the-record sessions to facilitate direct interaction with staff and advisors.

The promise is to offer clear and verifiable materials on risks, opportunities, and technological limits. In this context, the selection of teachers and the transparency of criteria will be crucial signals to prove the real educational neutrality of the initiative.

Where the legal boundary lies: education vs lobbying

Organizations 501(c)(3) can inform and educate, but they must not “substantially influence” legislation. The two IRS frameworks to consider are:

Exceeding such limits exposes one to the risk of revocation of tax-exempt status and to penalties. For AIP, the balance will be in keeping the content on an educational level, avoiding pushing towards a stance on specific legislative measures. In other words, the line is thin.

Why transparency is the key

The possible overlap between training and industry interests can affect the perception of the entity’s independence. To reduce such suspicions, observers and watchdogs suggest:

• Make integral the disclosure of the financiers, indicating amounts and any constraints;
• Publish agendas, materials, and minutes of the meetings (except for sensitive information);
• Entrust an external review of the educational programs to academics or independent bodies;
• Establish a clear ethical wall between the educational area and entities active in registered lobbying;
• Publish every year the Form 990 and the policies on conflicts of interest.

US Regulatory Scenario: where AIP fits in

In 2025, the discussion continues between the SEC and the CFTC regarding competencies and rules for digital assets and market infrastructures. Simultaneously, federal initiatives on stablecoin, custody, and retail markets are being discussed (CoinDesk).

In this context, educational projects in Washington like AIP could indirectly impact the regulatory agenda, with potentially positive or sometimes problematic effects.

Timing and political reading

The launch, which took place in August 2025 and coincided with significant economic summits such as the Jackson Hole meeting, amplifies the media attention on the initiative. It must be said that this timing fuels the idea of a coordinated push on the ongoing debate, while still claiming the non-partisan nature of the project.

What to monitor in the coming months

• Government and board: composition, roles, and any connections with advocacy groups;
• Agenda and format: predominance of technical sessions compared to reserved meetings with a political focus;
• Choice of 501(h): if the organization opts for the expenditures test;
• Reporting: publication of Form 990, financial statements, and conflict of interest policies;
• Lobbying registers: any registrations in the USA Senate LDA database (consult the database).

Sources, documents, and coverage

Note: at the time of publication, the articles of incorporation, the IRS registration filing, or the official list of the AIP board are not publicly accessible for independent verification. Links to primary documents will be added as soon as they are available.

Conclusion

A nonprofit tecnologico aiming to elevate the level of literacy on blockchain and artificial intelligence in the heart of Washington can impact the quality of the decision-making process. For this promise to become reality, a transparent governance, a clear separation between education and advocacy, and timely reporting of activities will be needed.