pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25959 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 💻 cs.CR · cs.CY

Recognition: unknown

On the Centralization of Governance Power in Decentralized Autonomous Organizations

Vabuk Pahari , Balakrishnan Chandrasekaran , Johnnatan Messias , Krishna P. Gummadi , Abhisek Dash
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 02:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR cs.CY
keywords DAO governancevoting powercentralizationtoken stakingdelegationEthereumblockchaingovernance mechanisms
0
0 comments X

The pith

Governance mechanisms in DAOs concentrate voting power among few holders.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper studies the designs of 48 active DAOs with large capital on Ethereum to trace how their governance rules produce centralized control. It isolates three mechanisms—token registration, staking, and delegation—that were added to improve security and participation yet end up channeling influence to large token holders. A sympathetic reader sees this as evidence that decentralization is structurally undermined by the very features meant to support it. This matters because DAOs manage protocols and funds worth billions, so the drift toward concentrated power affects who actually decides protocol changes and resource allocation.

Core claim

In examining the governance contracts of 48 public and actively used DAOs on Ethereum, we find that the mechanisms of token registration, staking, and delegation systematically reinforce the concentration of voting power. These features, introduced to enhance security or boost participation, instead produce greater centralization of influence than would occur without them.

What carries the argument

The three governance mechanisms of token registration, staking, and delegation, which control how tokens translate into voting power and how that power can be exercised or transferred.

If this is right

  • Redesigning token registration, staking, or delegation rules could reduce the observed concentration of voting power.
  • DAO contracts must explicitly balance security and participation features against the risk of power centralization.
  • Centralization is a structural outcome of current token-based governance rather than an accident in individual DAOs.
  • Governance designers face an inherent trade-off between usability, security, and even distribution of decision rights.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar concentration patterns may appear in token-voting systems beyond the 48 Ethereum DAOs examined here.
  • Adding caps on delegation or staking thresholds could be tested as a way to limit dominance by large holders.
  • Achieving broader decentralization may require governance designs that move away from simple token-weighted voting.

Load-bearing premise

The 48 observed DAOs and their voting distributions represent typical DAO governance, and the mechanisms are the main cause of centralization rather than other factors like initial token holdings.

What would settle it

A set of DAOs that use token registration, staking, and delegation but display evenly distributed voting power across many participants, or data showing equivalent centralization in DAOs that lack these mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25959 by Abhisek Dash, Balakrishnan Chandrasekaran, Johnnatan Messias, Krishna P. Gummadi, Vabuk Pahari.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The figure shows the percentage of outstanding tokens registered to vote. The x-axis values are DAO IDs from Table I tracking platforms often rely on authorized or issued token counts, which can significantly inflate valuations — particu￾larly in young DAOs where most tokens remain in treasury [24], [25]. Table I shows that the median outstanding supply (excluding treasury and unvested tokens) is only 78.9… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) 39 DAOs (81.3%) have more than 50% of their voting power concentrated in top 10 token holders.(b) Difference in voting power among top 10 direct and delegated wallets; delegation concentrates voting power among a few wallet addresses. both DAOs, the elections take place off-chain and pick the top-k candidates with the most votes. Voters can divide their votes among as many candidates as they want [42],… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) is a governing entity that empowers its stakeholders (i.e., users who hold one or more of its tokens) to manage blockchain-based protocols (i.e., smart contracts) collaboratively. The governance of a DAO is explicitly encoded in the DAO's governance contract, which defines how stakeholders participate in governance and how much influence (or voting power) they have in any decision. While decentralization and autonomy are the fundamental tenets of a DAO's design, empirical evidence suggests that in practice governance is often highly centralized. In this work, we study the designs and implementations of 48 public and actively used DAOs, with substantially large capital, deployed on Ethereum. We identify how three key governance mechanisms--token registration, staking, and delegation--originally introduced to improve security or participation, contribute to the concentration of voting power. Unlike prior work on centralization of voting power in specific DAOs, our findings reveal that these governance mechanisms of DAOs themselves systematically reinforce centralization. By elucidating the relationship between governance design and voting centralization, this work advances the understanding of DAO governance structures and highlights the inherent trade-offs between decentralization, security, and usability of DAOs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes governance designs and implementations across 48 large-capital Ethereum DAOs and claims that the mechanisms of token registration, staking, and delegation—originally intended to improve security or participation—systematically reinforce the centralization of voting power, as evidenced by observed voting distributions.

Significance. If the causal attribution holds after addressing methodological gaps, the work would be significant for DAO research by moving beyond single-DAO case studies to identify design-level trade-offs between decentralization, security, and usability, with potential implications for protocol improvements.

major comments (2)
  1. [Empirical methodology / Results] The abstract and empirical sections provide no details on DAO selection criteria, exact metrics for measuring centralization (e.g., concentration ratios or Gini coefficients), statistical controls for initial token distributions, or potential confounds such as whale allocations predating the mechanisms. This leaves the central claim that the three mechanisms 'systematically reinforce centralization' unsupported by visible evidence and correlational at best.
  2. [Discussion / Conclusion] The attribution of concentration to registration, staking, and delegation requires a counterfactual or control (e.g., voting power distribution under identical token holdings but with delegation disabled, or comparison to DAOs using alternative governance). Without this, high concentration could stem primarily from token ownership patterns independent of the studied mechanisms, undermining the 'systematic' causal claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Background] Define 'token registration' more precisely with references to specific contract functions or standards used across the 48 DAOs.
  2. [Results] Include a table summarizing per-DAO metrics (e.g., number of voters, top-10 concentration) to allow readers to assess the strength of the observed patterns.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback, which has helped us improve the clarity and rigor of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Empirical methodology / Results] The abstract and empirical sections provide no details on DAO selection criteria, exact metrics for measuring centralization (e.g., concentration ratios or Gini coefficients), statistical controls for initial token distributions, or potential confounds such as whale allocations predating the mechanisms. This leaves the central claim that the three mechanisms 'systematically reinforce centralization' unsupported by visible evidence and correlational at best.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript could have presented these details more explicitly. In the revised version, we have added a new 'Data Collection and Metrics' subsection that specifies: DAO selection was based on the 48 largest Ethereum DAOs by total value locked (sourced from DefiLlama) with active governance (minimum 10 proposals in the prior 12 months, verified via Snapshot and Tally); centralization metrics include the Gini coefficient on voting power, the share held by the top 1/5/10% of holders, and a concentration ratio (top 10% share); we incorporate controls by cross-referencing token launch data and early distribution snapshots to isolate post-mechanism changes; and we discuss confounds such as pre-existing whale allocations with supporting examples from specific DAOs. These additions make the empirical basis for the observed patterns more transparent. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion / Conclusion] The attribution of concentration to registration, staking, and delegation requires a counterfactual or control (e.g., voting power distribution under identical token holdings but with delegation disabled, or comparison to DAOs using alternative governance). Without this, high concentration could stem primarily from token ownership patterns independent of the studied mechanisms, undermining the 'systematic' causal claim.

    Authors: We agree that establishing strict causal attribution is challenging without experimental controls and that initial token distributions are a major factor. Our analysis is observational and focuses on design-level patterns across implementations. In revision, we have added cross-DAO comparisons (e.g., DAOs with vs. without delegation enabled) and case studies tracing how enabling these mechanisms altered distributions beyond baseline holdings. We have also revised the abstract, discussion, and conclusion to use more precise language ('are associated with increased concentration' rather than 'systematically reinforce') and added an explicit limitations paragraph noting the absence of perfect counterfactuals and the role of token ownership. A full counterfactual would require new simulation or experimental work outside the paper's scope. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical observational study with no derivation chain or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper conducts an empirical analysis of governance mechanisms across 48 DAOs by measuring observed voting distributions and attributing concentration to token registration, staking, and delegation. No mathematical equations, fitted parameters, predictions derived from inputs, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided text. The central claim rests on direct observation rather than any definitional loop, uniqueness theorem from prior self-work, or ansatz smuggled via citation. This matches the default expectation for non-circular empirical papers; the correlational nature of the findings is a separate methodological concern, not a circularity issue.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the representativeness of the 48-DAOs sample and the assumption that the three mechanisms are the dominant drivers of observed centralization rather than other unmeasured factors.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The 48 public and actively used DAOs with large capital on Ethereum are representative of DAO governance designs in general.
    Generalization from the sample to all DAOs requires this assumption.
  • domain assumption Observed concentration of voting power is primarily attributable to the three governance mechanisms rather than external factors or selection effects.
    Causal language in the abstract depends on this attribution.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5527 in / 1288 out tokens · 36942 ms · 2026-05-08T02:32:43.364221+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Uniswap v3 core,

    H. Adams, N. Zinsmeister, M. Salem, R. Keefer, and D. Robinson, “Uniswap v3 core,” 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    Flash boys 2.0: Frontrunning in decentralized exchanges, miner extractable value, and consensus instability,

    P. Daian, S. Goldfeder, T. Kell, Y . Li, X. Zhao, I. Bentov, L. Brei- denbach, and A. Juels, “Flash boys 2.0: Frontrunning in decentralized exchanges, miner extractable value, and consensus instability,” in2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Attacking the DeFi Ecosystem with Flash Loans for Fun and Profit,

    K. Qin, L. Zhou, B. Livshits, and A. Gervais, “Attacking the DeFi Ecosystem with Flash Loans for Fun and Profit,” inFinancial Cryp- tography and Data Security, ser. FC ’21, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Liquidations: Defi on a knife-edge,

    D. Perez, S. M. Werner, J. Xu, and B. Livshits, “Liquidations: Defi on a knife-edge,” inFinancial Cryptography and Data Security, ser. FC ’21, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    DefiLlama, https://defillama.com, 2024, accessed on May 15, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Wyoming llc as a dao legal wrapper: What you need to know,

    Taras Zharun, “Wyoming llc as a dao legal wrapper: What you need to know,” https://legalnodes.com/article/wyoming-dao-llc, 2024, accessed on August 1, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    Cayman islands foundation as a dao le- gal wrapper,

    Nestor Dubnevych, “Cayman islands foundation as a dao le- gal wrapper,” https://legalnodes.com/article/caymanian-foundation-for- dao, 2024, accessed on August 1, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Welcome to the futuristic world of the decentralised autonomous organisation,

    ¨Oznur U ˘guz, “Welcome to the futuristic world of the decentralised autonomous organisation,” https://www.legalcheek.com/lc-journal- posts/welcome-to-the-futuristic-world-of-the-decentralised- autonomous-organisation, 2024, accessed on August 1, 2024

    2024

  9. [9]

    Understanding blockchain governance: Analyzing decen- tralized voting to amend defi smart contracts,

    J. Messias, V . Pahari, B. Chandrasekaran, K. P. Gummadi, and P. Loiseau, “Understanding blockchain governance: Analyzing decen- tralized voting to amend defi smart contracts,” 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    Analyzing voting power in decentralized governance: Who controls daos?

    R. Fritsch, M. M ¨uller, and R. Wattenhofer, “Analyzing voting power in decentralized governance: Who controls daos?” 2022

    2022

  11. [11]

    Unpacking how decentralized autonomous organizations (daos) work in practice,

    T. Sharma, Y . Kwon, K. Pongmala, H. Wang, A. Miller, D. Song, and Y . Wang, “Unpacking how decentralized autonomous organizations (daos) work in practice,” 2023

    2023

  12. [12]

    DeepDAO, https://deepdao.io, 2024, accessed on May 15, 2024

    2024

  13. [13]

    Graph Foundation, https://docs.thegraph.academy/official-docs/get- started, 2024, accessed on May 15, 2024

    2024

  14. [14]

    Snapshot,

    S. Labs, “Snapshot,” https://snapshot.org, 2023, accessed on February 2, 2023

    2023

  15. [15]

    Snapshot,

    ——, “Snapshot,” https://docs.snapshot.org/tools/api, 2023, accessed on August 2, 2023

    2023

  16. [16]

    Authorized Shares vs. Outstanding Shares: What’s the Difference?

    Melissa Horton, “Authorized Shares vs. Outstanding Shares: What’s the Difference?” https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/011315/what- difference-between-authorized-shares-and-outstanding-shares.asp, 2025

    2025

  17. [17]

    Capital Stock vs.Treasury Stock: What’s the Difference?

    The Investopedia Team, “Capital Stock vs.Treasury Stock: What’s the Difference?” https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/050115/ whats-difference-between-capital-stock-and-treasury-stock.asp, 2025

    2025

  18. [18]

    Issued Shares vs. Outstanding Shares: Definitions and Examples,

    James Chen, “Issued Shares vs. Outstanding Shares: Definitions and Examples,” https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/issuedshares.asp, 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    Common Stock: What It Is, Different Types, vs. Preferred Stock,

    ——, “Common Stock: What It Is, Different Types, vs. Preferred Stock,” https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commonstock.asp, 2025

    2025

  20. [20]

    How Shares Outstanding and Floating Stock Differ,

    Steven Nickolas, “How Shares Outstanding and Floating Stock Differ,” https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/062315/what-difference- between-shares-outstanding-and-floating-stock.asp, 2025

    2025

  21. [21]

    Etherscan (ETH) Blockchain Explorer,

    Etherscan, “Etherscan (ETH) Blockchain Explorer,” https://etherscan. io, 2023, accessed on May 25, 2023

    2023

  22. [22]

    Similar contracts search,

    “Similar contracts search,” https://etherscan.io/find-similar-contracts, 2025, accessed on August 1, 2025

    2025

  23. [23]

    Introducing veto.ensdao.eth,

    alextnetto.eth, “Introducing veto.ensdao.eth,” https://discuss.ens. domains/t/introducing-veto-ensdao-eth/19088/5, 2024, accessed on August 1, 2024

    2024

  24. [24]

    Towards verifiability of total value locked (tvl) in decentralized finance,

    P. Saggese, M. Fr ¨owis, S. Kitzler, B. Haslhofer, and R. Auer, “Towards verifiability of total value locked (tvl) in decentralized finance,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.14565

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    How Shares Outstanding and Floating Stock Differ,

    Zheng Jie and Cosmo Jiang, “How Shares Outstanding and Floating Stock Differ,” https://www.artemisanalytics.com/resources/ outstanding-supply, 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    Binance Becomes Second-Largest V oting En- tity on Uniswap DAO,

    Sam Kessler, “Binance Becomes Second-Largest V oting En- tity on Uniswap DAO,” https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2022/10/19/ binance-becomes-second-largest-voting-entity-on-uniswap-dao, 2022, accessed on April 2, 2023

    2022

  27. [27]

    Binance Denies Allegations It Intends to Use Users’ Uniswap Tokens for V oting,

    Shaurya Malwa, “Binance Denies Allegations It Intends to Use Users’ Uniswap Tokens for V oting,” https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2022/10/ 20/binance-denies-allegations-that-it-intends-to-use-users-uniswap- tokens-for-voting, 2022

    2022

  28. [28]

    Valuing crypto in the bankruptcy multiverse,

    Joseph Cioffi, Massimo Giugliano and Adam Levy, “Valuing crypto in the bankruptcy multiverse,” https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/ valuing-crypto-bankruptcy-multiverse-2024-07-30/, 2024

    2024

  29. [29]

    A Lingering Question at Coinbase: Who Re- ally Owns the Customers’ Crypto?

    Jonathan Weil, “A Lingering Question at Coinbase: Who Re- ally Owns the Customers’ Crypto?” https://www.wsj.com/finance/ currencies/coinbase-crypto-ownership-accounting-7c97b26a, 2025

    2025

  30. [30]

    How Shares Outstanding and Floating Stock Differ,

    Optimism, “How Shares Outstanding and Floating Stock Differ,” https: //specs.optimism.io/experimental/gov-token.html, 2025

    2025

  31. [31]

    Blackrock offers proxy voting to retail investors in snp 500 etf,

    L. Gibbons, “Blackrock offers proxy voting to retail investors in snp 500 etf,” https://www.etfstream.com/articles/blackrock-offers- proxy-voting-to-retail-investors-in-s-and-p-500-etf, 2024, accessed on November 2, 2024

    2024

  32. [32]

    Toomey: The index act will return voting power to a company’s true investors,

    H. United States Committee on Banking and U. Affairs, “Toomey: The index act will return voting power to a company’s true investors,” https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/minority/toomey-the- index-act-will-return-voting-power-to-a-companys-true-investors, 2024, accessed on November 2, 2024

    2024

  33. [33]

    The vulnerable nature of decentralized governance in defi,

    M. Dotan, A. Yaish, H.-C. Yin, E. Tsytkin, and A. Zohar, “The vulnerable nature of decentralized governance in defi,” inProceedings of the 2023 Workshop on Decentralized Finance and Security, ser. DeFi ’23, 2023, p. 25–31

    2023

  34. [34]

    SoK: Attacks on DAOs,

    R. Feichtinger, R. Fritsch, L. Heimbach, Y . V onlanthen, and R. Wat- tenhofer, “SoK: Attacks on DAOs,” in6th Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies (AFT 2024), 2024

    2024

  35. [35]

    Emergent outcomes of the vetoken model,

    T. Lloyd, D. O’Broin, and M. Harrigan, “Emergent outcomes of the vetoken model,” https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.17589, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Convex finance,

    “Convex finance,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www. convexfinance.com/

    2025

  37. [37]

    Stakedao,

    “Stakedao,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.stakedao.org/

    2025

  38. [38]

    Aura finance,

    “Aura finance,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://aura.finance/

    2025

  39. [39]

    Balancer, https://dune.com/balancer/vebal-wrappers, 2025, accessed on May 15, 2025

    2025

  40. [40]

    Blockworks Research, https://dune.com/stetze23/convex-finance- overview, 2025, accessed on May 15, 2025

    2025

  41. [41]

    Balancer, https://dune.com/tuta/sdtokens, 2025, accessed on May 15, 2025

    2025

  42. [42]

    Illuvium, https://illuvium.io/news/10-illuvinati-council-election, 2024, accessed on May 15, 2024

    2024

  43. [43]

    ParagonsDAO, https://discuss.paragonsdao.com/t/pdip-2-the-paragons- council-delegated-voting-power-for-pdt-holders/21, 2024, accessed on May 15, 2024

    2024

  44. [44]

    ——, https://docs.paragonsdao.com/docs/dao/council-elections/ nominations, 2024, accessed on May 15, 2024

    2024

  45. [45]

    ——, https://docs.paragonsdao.com/docs/dao/council-elections/voting- for-council-members, 2024, accessed on May 15, 2024

    2024

  46. [46]

    Austgen, A

    J. Austgen, A. F ´abrega, S. Allen, K. Babel, M. Kelkar, and A. Juels, “Dao decentralization: V oting-bloc entropy, bribery, and dark daos,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03530, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    Bitcoin Improvement Proposals,

    bip, “Bitcoin Improvement Proposals,” https://github.com/bitcoin/bips, accessed on January, 2025

    2025

  48. [48]

    Ethereum Improvement Proposals,

    eip, “Ethereum Improvement Proposals,” https://eips.ethereum.org/, ac- cessed on January, 2025

    2025

  49. [49]

    The one true bitcoin,

    T. Verge, “The one true bitcoin,” https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/12/ 17229796/bitcoin-cash-conflict-transactions-fight, 2018, accessed on May 12, 2024

    2018

  50. [50]

    Segwit goes live: Why bitcoin’s big upgrade is a blockchain game-changer,

    CoinDesk, “Segwit goes live: Why bitcoin’s big upgrade is a blockchain game-changer,” https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2017/ 08/23/segwit-goes-live-why-bitcoins-big-upgrade-is-a-blockchain- game-changer, 2017, accessed on May 12, 2024

    2017

  51. [51]

    Stick a fork in it: Analyzing the ethereum network partition,

    L. Kiffer, D. Levin, and A. Mislove, “Stick a fork in it: Analyzing the ethereum network partition,” inProceedings of the 16th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks, ser. HotNets ’17. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2017, p. 94–100. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3152434.3152449

    work page doi:10.1145/3152434.3152449 2017

  52. [52]

    Coindesk turns 10: 2016 - how the dao hack changed ethereum and crypto,

    CoinDesk, “Coindesk turns 10: 2016 - how the dao hack changed ethereum and crypto,” https://www.coindesk.com/consensus-magazine/ 2023/05/09/coindesk-turns-10-how-the-dao-hack-changed-ethereum- and-crypto, 2023, accessed on May 12, 2024

    2016

  53. [53]

    Decentralized crypto governance? transparency and concentration in ethereum decision-making,

    C. Fracassi, M. Khoja, and F. Sch ¨ar, “Decentralized crypto governance? transparency and concentration in ethereum decision-making,” 2024

    2024

  54. [54]

    Governance in blockchain technologies & social contract theories,

    W. Reijers, F. O’Brolch ´ain, and P. Haynes, “Governance in blockchain technologies & social contract theories,”Ledger, vol. 1, 2016

    2016

  55. [55]

    Decentralized governance of digital platforms,

    Y . Chen, J. I. Richter, and P. C. Patel, “Decentralized governance of digital platforms,”Journal of Management, vol. 47, no. 5, 2021

    2021

  56. [56]

    Blockchain governance: What we can learn from the economics of corporate governance,

    D. Allen and C. Berg, “Blockchain governance: What we can learn from the economics of corporate governance,”SSRN Electronic Jour- nal, 01 2020

    2020

  57. [57]

    Blockchain: The birth of decentral- ized governance,

    B. Arru ˜nada and L. Garicano, “Blockchain: The birth of decentral- ized governance,”Pompeu Fabra University, Economics and Business Working Paper Series, vol. 1608, 2018

    2018

  58. [58]

    Decentralized network governance: blockchain technology and the future of regulation,

    A. Zwitter and J. Hazenberg, “Decentralized network governance: blockchain technology and the future of regulation,”Frontiers in Blockchain, vol. 3, 2020

    2020

  59. [59]

    Incentives against power grabs or how to engineer the revolution in a pooled proof of stake system,

    A. Kiayias, E. Koutsoupias, and A.-P. Stouka, “Incentives against power grabs or how to engineer the revolution in a pooled proof of stake system,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Decentralized Applications and Infrastructures (DAPPS), 2021, pp. 1–10

    2021

  60. [60]

    Reward sharing schemes for stake pools,

    L. Brunjes, A. Kiayias, E. Koutsoupias, and A.-P. Stouka, “Reward sharing schemes for stake pools,” 09 2020, pp. 256–275

    2020

  61. [61]

    Balancing participation and decentralization in proof-of-stake cryp- tocurrencies,

    A. Kiayias, E. Koutsoupias, F. Marmolejo-Coss ´ıo, and A.-P. Stouka, “Balancing participation and decentralization in proof-of-stake cryp- tocurrencies,” inAlgorithmic Game Theory, G. Sch ¨afer and C. Ventre, Eds. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024, pp. 333–350

    2024

  62. [62]

    The hidden shortcomings of (d)aos – an empirical study of on-chain governance,

    R. Feichtinger, R. Fritsch, Y . V onlanthen, and R. Wattenhofer, “The hidden shortcomings of (d)aos – an empirical study of on-chain governance,” 2023

    2023

  63. [63]

    The governance of decentralized autonomous organizations: A study of contributors’ influence, networks, and shifts in voting power,

    S. Kitzler, S. Balietti, P. Saggese, B. Haslhofer, and M. Strohmaier, “The governance of decentralized autonomous organizations: A study of contributors’ influence, networks, and shifts in voting power,” 2023

    2023

  64. [64]

    Sok: Blockchain governance,

    A. Kiayias and P. Lazos, “Sok: Blockchain governance,” 2023

    2023

  65. [65]

    Open problems in daos,

    J. Z. Tan, T. Merk, S. Hubbard, E. R. Oak, J. Pirovich, E. Rennie, R. Hoefer, M. Zargham, J. Potts, C. Berget al., “Open problems in daos,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19201, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    Governance – Uniswap Protocol,

    Uniswap Labs, “Governance – Uniswap Protocol,” https://uniswap.org/ governance, 2023, accessed on April 2, 2023

    2023

  67. [67]

    Ens docs,

    ENS, “Ens docs,” https://docs.ens.domains/dao, 2024, accessed on May 15, 2024

    2024

  68. [68]

    Governance Module – Maker Protocol Technical Docs,

    MakerDAO, “Governance Module – Maker Protocol Technical Docs,” https://docs.makerdao.com/smart-contract-modules/governance- module, 2023, accessed on April 2, 2023

    2023

  69. [69]

    Lido governance process,

    Lido, “Lido governance process,” https://lido.fi/governance, 2024, ac- cessed on May 15, 2024

    2024

  70. [70]

    Frax governance overview,

    Frax Finance, “Frax governance overview,” https://docs.frax.finance/ frax-governance/frax-governance-overview, 2024, accessed on May 15, 2024

    2024

  71. [71]

    AA VE Economics – Governance,

    AA VE, “AA VE Economics – Governance,” https://docs.aave.com/ aavenomics/governance, 2023, accessed on May 25, 2023

    2023

  72. [72]

    Compound Governance,

    Compound Labs, Inc., “Compound Governance,” https: //docs.compound.finance/governance, 2022, accessed on Dec 10, 2022

    2022

  73. [73]

    How we work,

    Radicle, “How we work,” https://docs.radworks.org/community/ ecosystem, 2024, accessed on May 15, 2024

    2024

  74. [74]

    0x protocol governance,

    0x Protocol, “0x protocol governance,” https://governance.0xprotocol. org, 2024, accessed on May 15, 2024

    2024

  75. [75]

    Gitcoin,

    Gitcoin, “Gitcoin,” https://www.gitcoin.co, 2023, accessed on May 15, 2024

    2023

  76. [76]

    Governance,

    Silo Finance, “Governance,” https://silopedia.silo.finance/silodao/ governance, 2024, accessed on May 15, 2024

    2024

  77. [77]

    Governance,

    Lyra, “Governance,” https://docs.lyra.finance/docs/governance, 2024, accessed on May 15, 2024

    2024

  78. [78]

    Contracts,

    API3, “Contracts,” https://docs.api3.org/reference/dao-members, 2024, accessed on May 15, 2024

    2024

  79. [79]

    About forth governance,

    Ampleforth, “About forth governance,” https://docs.ampleforth.org/ learn/about-forth-governance, 2024, accessed on May 15, 2024

    2024

  80. [80]

    V oting and governance,

    Instadapp, “V oting and governance,” https://guides.instadapp.io/ governance/voting-and-governance, 2024, accessed on May 15, 2024

    2024

Showing first 80 references.