When the US government admitted that its glowing June jobs report was wrong and that hundreds of thousands of jobs had been overcounted financial markets were rattled, political tensions flared, and the head of the Bureau of Labour Statistics (BLS) was abruptly sacked.

Now, venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya claims that blockchain could have avoided the fiasco entirely. His proposal has sparked fierce debate among economists, tech experts, and politicians.

The Jobs Number Fiasco

In June, the BLS initially reported that the US economy had added around 147,000 non-farm jobs, a solid figure that suggested resilience in the labour market. But two months later, the agency issued unprecedented downward revisions.

May and June’s combined job count was slashed by 258,000, the steepest two-month drop since 1979 outside of the pandemic years. June’s gain shrank to just 14,000 jobs, and July data revealed only 73,000 new positions.

These revisions shocked economists and undermined confidence in the official numbers. President Donald Trump, calling the situation unacceptable, accused BLS commissioner Erika McEntarfer of “rigging” the figures and ordered her immediate removal.

“Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate; they can’t be manipulated for political purposes,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Chamath’s Blockchain Vision

Amid the political storm, billionaire Chamath Palihapitiya weighed in with a radical solution: put America’s employment data on the blockchain.

Palihapitiya argued that the current BLS process is outdated, “brittle” and “sloppy”. He said that while the agency is not deliberately conspiring, its sample-based surveys no longer work well for a large, fast-changing economy like the US. Frequent, large revisions, he claimed, erode trust and usefulness.

His proposal calls for:

1. Mandatory payroll uploads — All payroll providers, identified via tax withholding records, would be required to submit anonymised employment data to a central endpoint.
2. Error checks — The uploaded data would be automatically scanned for anomalies.
3. Real-time public feed — The verified numbers would be published instantly, funded by licence fees from users of the data.

Palihapitiya said blockchain’s immutable ledger would ensure that once data is recorded, it could not be altered without leaving a visible trace, eliminating accusations of political tampering.

Pushback from Critics

Not everyone is convinced. Investor and “Shark Tank” star Mark Cuban questioned the practicality of the plan.

“Are you suggesting a crypto-like oracle that outputs employment data, every month, on the same day, for every business?” Cuban asked. “Who is going to pay for the implementation? Do you really think the timing and quality will be better than the current surveys?”

Cuban argued that building and maintaining such a system would be costly and bureaucratically complex, especially as it would require both private companies and government agencies to participate.

Economists echoed part of Cuban’s criticism, pointing out that the main issue in the recent crisis was not manipulation, but falling survey response rates and reliance on outdated data collection methods. They say the BLS methodology is publicly documented and transparent, even if it occasionally produces large revisions.

Some critics accused Palihapitiya of political opportunism, noting that his comments aligned with Trump’s public attacks on the BLS. On X, one user called his plan “vacuous shill behaviour” and suggested he was “cozying up to Trump”.

Could Blockchain Actually Work Here?

In theory, blockchain could offer advantages over the current BLS model. A distributed ledger could:

• Increase transparency — Anyone could see when and how data was added or corrected.
• Reduce revision shocks — Real-time updates would make gradual changes more visible, avoiding dramatic statistical corrections.
• Eliminate manual surveys — Data would come directly from payroll records, not small samples, improving accuracy.

However, large-scale implementation faces hurdles. Integrating thousands of payroll systems into a standardised blockchain format would require significant investment and technical coordination. Privacy concerns would need careful handling, even with anonymised data. And as Cuban pointed out, the speed of reporting does not automatically guarantee better quality, error checks and verification would still be essential.

The BLS itself defends its current revision process as part of the scientific method. Downward revisions, officials say, are not signs of fraud but the result of more complete data becoming available over time.

Political Fallout and the Road Ahead

The data revision gave Trump fresh ammunition to attack the Biden administration, accusing it of “faking numbers before the election” to boost Vice President Kamala Harris’s chances. No evidence was provided for these claims.

Former Biden administration officials pushed back. Labour Secretary Julie Su praised the professionalism of BLS career staff. Labour Department Chief of Staff Daniel Koh emphasised that “downward revisions aren’t scandal, they’re science” and that the agency worked closely with commissioners appointed under both parties.

While Palihapitiya’s blockchain idea has not gained mainstream traction, the controversy has highlighted the fragility of public trust in official economic statistics. Whether through blockchain or other modernised data systems, the pressure is growing for the US to rethink how it measures and reports key indicators like employment.