Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 67 references

Crypto-Economic Analysis of Web3 Funding Programs Using the Grant Maturity Framework

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The Grant Maturity Framework scores Web3 grant programs on a composite of 40 indicators and classifies them into four maturity stages, with Arbitrum's LTIPP ranking highest and Taiko lowest.

desk verdict Useful niche framework but the stage labels are sample-relative and the Mantle classification contradicts itself; worth a revision cycle, not a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06801 v1 pith:PEKREXKG submitted 2025-05-11 cs.SE cs.DC

Ben Biedermann , Victoria Kozlova , Fahima Gibrel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SEcs.DC
keywords maturitymodelWeb3governancegrantprogramsdecentralisedautonomousorganisationscrypto-economicsystemsmixed-methodscompositeindexEthereumlayer2
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper introduces the Grant Maturity Framework (GMF), a mixed-methods index that measures the maturity of Web3 grant programs across six rubric clusters: focus and objectives, program structure, governance, effectiveness and impact, transparency, and community engagement. The framework combines expert rubric scores with 40 quantitative indicators, normalises them, and aggregates them into a composite score between 0 and 1, with quartile thresholds corresponding to experimental, foundational, developmental, and advanced stages. Applying the GMF to six Ethereum layer-two grant programs, the paper finds that Arbitrum's Long-Term Incentive Pilot Program (LTIPP) scores highest at 67.55% and Taiko's program lowest at 23.34%, with the other programs spread across the foundational and developmental stages. The paper also reports that the diagnostic results directly informed the design of a Web3 grant platform prototype, including milestone-based funding and a streamlined proposal submission flow. For grant operators, the value is a replicable benchmarking tool that turns qualitative program reputation into a structured, comparable maturity profile.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Grant Maturity Framework (GMF) itself: a composite index built from six rubric clusters—Focus Areas and Objectives, Program Structure, Governance, Effectiveness and Impact, Transparency, and Community Engagement—each populated by indicators from public program data and expert scores. The carrying mechanism is a two-level equal-weight aggregation: first, the normalised indicators within each rubric are averaged into a composite rubric score; then the six rubric scores are normalised and averaged into a single GMF score in [0,1]. Min-max normalisation renders different indicator units comparable, and predefined quartile cutoffs translate the numeric score into a maturity stage (experimental, foundational, developmental, advanced). This design turns qualitative judgments about governance and community engagement into an auditable number, and the per-rubric breakdown tells operators which dimension is dragging their maturity down.

What would settle it

Recompute the GMF for the same six programs plus a larger sample of, say, twenty additional Web3 grant programs using the same 40 indicators and the same min-max normalisation, and test whether Taiko's normalised score remains below 0.25 and Mantle's above it; if adding programs flips a program's stage classification, the thresholds are sample-relative rather than absolute.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Web3 grant program effectiveness can be measured through the concept of maturity, and that the Grant Maturity Framework (GMF) provides a systematic, replicable way to do so. Concretely, the GMF assigns each program a composite score by averaging normalised rubric scores across six dimensions, where each rubric score is itself an equal-weight average of normalised indicators drawn from public program documentation and expert scoring. Applied to the six observed programs, the framework yields a clear ordering: ARB LTIPP at 0.6755 and Optimism Mission Rounds at 0.6105 fall in the developmental stage; ARB STIP and STIP Bridge at 0.4349 and 0.5251 fall in the foundational stage; Mantle at 0.2729 sits just above the experimental/foundational threshold; and Taiko at 0.2334 falls in the experimental stage. The paper further claims that these scores are actionable: low impact and transparency scores across programs motivated concrete platform features such as milestone-based payment releases and a one-step submission flow. The GMF is intended as a baseline and benchmark for program operators, not a final verdict on any individual grant's quality.

Load-bearing premise

The framework's maturity classifications assume that scoring a grant program as zero on indicators it does not document, and min-max normalising each indicator against just the six analysed programs, yields an absolute scale on which the quartile stage thresholds are meaningful for the whole population of Web3 grant programs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Web3 grant operators can use the GMF as a diagnostic benchmark, seeing which of the six rubric dimensions is dragging their program's maturity down.
  • Programs near a stage boundary, such as Mantle at 0.2729, can identify the specific indicators that would lift them into the next quartile.
  • The GMF's structure extends to grant programs outside Ethereum L2s and to retroactive funding, as long as the normalisation set and thresholds are recalibrated.
  • The platform prototype described in the paper shows that low scores in impact and transparency translate into concrete design features, such as milestone-based payment releases and a one-step submission flow.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors do not claim, but the equal-weighting choice means the maturity scores are a modelling decision; allowing rubric-specific weights could shift the stage boundaries for Mantle and Taiko.
  • The GMF's monotone 'more process and transparency is better' logic may not generalise to deliberately lightweight grant experiments; a maturity score could be paired with a separate measure of context-fit.
  • A straightforward reliability check, not run in the paper, would be to have two independent expert panels score the same six programs; if the assigned stages differ, the rubric's subjectivity is the binding constraint.
  • Because min-max normalisation is relative to the six observed programs, the stage labels ('experimental' etc.) are best read as rankings within this sample rather than absolute certificates of maturity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Grant Maturity Framework (GMF), a composite-indicator model for evaluating the maturity of Web3 grant programs across six rubric categories (FAO, PSO, GOV, EFI, TAC, COM). The framework is constructed through a Delphi-based rubric scoring exercise and applied to six observations drawn from four Ethereum L2 grant programs: Arbitrum STIP/Backfund, STIP Bridge, LTIPP, Optimism Mission Rounds, Mantle, and Taiko. The authors compute normalized composite scores, classify programs into four maturity stages (experimental, foundational, developmental, advanced), and use the results to inform features of a Web3 grant platform prototype. The central claim is that the GMF provides a systematic, replicable measure of grant program maturity and that the application shows ARB LTIPP and Optimism as more mature, while Taiko and Mantle are early-stage.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuinely underexplored topic—Web3 grant program evaluation—and proposes a structured, mixed-methods framework with a practical application to platform design. The explicit adaptation of the World Bank GTMI approach and the transparent use of equal weights are strengths. If the framework's methodological issues were resolved, the GMF could serve as a useful benchmarking and self-assessment tool for Web3 grant operators. However, as it stands, the sample-relative normalization and missing-data treatment undermine the validity of the absolute maturity classifications, and the internal contradiction in the reported results further reduces confidence in the findings.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.B, Table III] The claim that the GMF measures an absolute 'maturity' is undermined by the construction: indicators are min-max normalized using the six programs in the sample, and the maturity stages are defined as quartiles of this normalized composite. Because the min and max are sample-dependent, the boundaries 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 are relative to the composition of the analyzed set. Adding a program with higher scores than ARB LTIPP would shift the max and could move ARB LTIPP below the 0.75 boundary, while adding a lower-scoring program could move Taiko above 0.25. The paper provides no external anchor or justification that the six observations span the maturity range, so the absolute labels 'experimental' and 'developmental' are not supported.
  2. [Section IV-B, Table IV] There is a direct internal contradiction in the reported results. The introductory paragraph of Section IV-B states that Taiko and Mantle 'scored lower ... which places them in the experimental stage,' but Table IV lists Mantle's normalized composite as 0.2729, which falls in the foundational stage (0.25–0.5), and subsection IV-B.4 explicitly classifies Mantle as 'foundational.' The paper must resolve this inconsistency before the results can be considered reliable.
  3. [Section III.B, Table V] The treatment of missing or undocumented indicators as zero scores is a load-bearing methodological choice. Taiko receives zeros in GOV, EFI, and TAC, which appear to reflect the absence of publicly documented governance, impact, and transparency practices rather than verified nonexistence. Min-max normalization then sets Taiko's raw score to the minimum, artificially depressing its composite. Without a clear rule distinguishing zero maturity from missing data and without a sensitivity analysis, the rankings and stage assignments in Table IV are not robust.
  4. [Section III.B] The paper's replicability claim is not met. It states that 'public data was used to allow for the replicability of the construction of the framework,' but the manuscript does not provide the full list of 46 indicators, the subset of 40 used in the index, the raw data values per program, or the rubric scores from the Delphi study. An independent researcher cannot reproduce the normalized rubric scores in Table V or the composite scores in Table IV. The authors should include a data appendix or supplementary material with the indicator definitions, data, and calculation steps.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'little is known on about their effectiveness' contains a typo; it should read 'little is known about their effectiveness.'
  2. [Table V] The header 'F AO' should be 'FAO' (remove the extra space).
  3. [Section IV-B.3] The subsection title 'Taiko Labs Grants' is inconsistent with the program name 'Taiko's Incentivisation Grant Program' used elsewhere in Section IV-B; please unify the terminology.
  4. [References] Several references lack complete metadata, including page numbers or DOIs (e.g., [3], [45], [58]); please provide full citation details.
  5. [Figures] Figures 1 and 2 are referenced in the text but do not appear in the manuscript; if this is the full submission, the figures need to be included, or the references should be removed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Maturity stage labels are defined as quartiles of a sample-relative min-max normalized scale, so the central experimental/developmental classifications reduce to the normalization by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section III.B (Construction of the Grant Maturity Framework) and Table III / Section IV.B]
    "The data was normalised through the min-max normalisation function to ensure comparability across variables and construct validity of the composites... Based on this calculation, the maturity stages in Table I were defined as quartiles from zero to one."

    Min-max normalisation maps the sample minimum to 0 and the sample maximum to 1, so every program's normalised composite is a position relative to the six observed programs. Defining the maturity stages as quartiles of that 0-1 range makes each stage label equivalent to a sample-relative rank: 'Taiko is experimental' is true iff GMF_Taiko < 0.25, i.e. Taiko lies in the lowest quartile of these six programs; 'ARB LTIPP is developmental' is true iff its value lies in the 0.5-0.75 interval of the same sample. No independent, population-anchored threshold is supplied. Adding a weaker program would shift the minimum down and raise Taiko's score; adding a stronger program would shift the maximum up and lower ARB's score, potentially changing its stage.

full rationale

The GMF computation itself is transparent and reproducible, but the central claim of the paper — that ARB LTIPP is 'developmental' and Taiko is 'experimental' — is definitionally tied to the sample used for min-max normalisation. Because the stage boundaries in Table III are described as quartiles of the 0-1 range produced by that normalisation, the maturity label is a restatement of the program's position relative to the six chosen observations, not a measurement against an external maturity standard. This is a genuine self-definitional reduction of the paper's headline result. The Delphi-informed indicator selection and self-citations to prior papers by the same authors exist, but the framework is described in enough detail in this paper that those references are not separately load-bearing for the circularity finding. The missing-data-as-zero issue for Taiko (e.g. zero scores in GOV, EFI, TAC in Table V) further weakens the result, but it is an input-data assumption rather than a circularity in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on several domain assumptions: the six rubrics capture maturity, missing documentation means absence of capability, and min-max normalization against the sampled programs yields an absolute scale. These are not independently validated, and the small Delphi panel and undisclosed indicator subset add to the burden.

free parameters (3)
  • Equal indicator weights (w_jk = 1/n) = 1/n for each of the 40 indicators
    All non-zero indicators are aggregated with equal weights, a hand-chosen assumption explicitly acknowledged in Section III-B.3.
  • Equal rubric weights (w_k = 1/m) = 1/6 for each of the six rubric scores
    The composite GMF score aggregates the six rubrics with equal weights, acknowledged as an assumption.
  • Selection of 40 of 46 indicators = 0 weights for six excluded data points
    The paper states six data points are excluded from scoring but does not disclose which ones or the decision rule, making this an ad hoc parameter affecting scores.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The six rubric categories (FAO, PSO, GOV, EFI, TAC, COM) constitute a valid operationalization of Web3 grant program maturity.
    The rubrics were developed inductively and via Delphi, but no external validation is provided. Used throughout the GMF.
  • domain assumption Maturity stages are cumulative and higher-better; every program must pass through earlier stages.
    Stated in Section II-B as implicit and grounded in maturity model theory, but it imposes an ordering not proven for Web3 grants.
  • domain assumption Missing or absent public documentation for a program indicator is a valid zero score indicating low maturity.
    Table V shows multiple zero scores (e.g., Taiko in GOV, EFI, TAC) that appear to reflect absence of publicly documented data rather than measured absence of the underlying capability.
  • domain assumption Min-max normalization across the sampled programs is an appropriate scale for maturity quartiles.
    Section III-B normalizes each indicator to the sample's observed range, making the quartile thresholds sample-dependent.
  • domain assumption The five Delphi participants provide sufficient expert coverage to select valid indicators.
    Section III-A describes a Delphi study with five participants representing a small subset of Web3 ecosystems.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Crypto-Economic Analysis of Web3 Funding Programs Using the Grant Maturity Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PEKREXKG

@misc{pith2026250506801,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Crypto-Economic Analysis of Web3 Funding Programs Using the Grant Maturity Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PEKREXKG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06801}
}
read the original abstract

Web3 grant programs are evolving mechanisms aimed at supporting innovation within the blockchain ecosystem, yet little is known on about their effectiveness. This paper proposes the concept of maturity to fill this gap and introduces the Grant Maturity Framework (GMF), a mixed-methods model for evaluating the maturity of Web3 grant programs. The GMF provides a systematic approach to assessing the structure, governance, and impact of Web3 grants, applied here to four prominent Ethereum layer-two (L2) grant programs: Arbitrum, Optimism, Mantle, and Taiko. By evaluating these programs using the GMF, the study categorizes them into four maturity stages, ranging from experimental to advanced. The findings reveal that Arbitrum's Long-Term Incentive Pilot Program (LTIPP) and Optimism's Mission Rounds show higher maturity, while Mantle and Taiko are still in their early stages. The research concludes by discussing the user-centric development of a Web3 grant management platform aimed at improving the maturity and effectiveness of Web3 grant management processes based on the findings from the GMF. This work contributes to both practical and theoretical knowledge on Web3 grant program evaluation and tooling, providing a valuable resource for Web3 grant operators and stakeholders.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06801 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Optional KYB form in application flow. User profiles and dashboards were implemented to enhance transparency, usability, and create a place for community engagement. The absence of user profiles in earlier iterations led to concerns regarding information asymmetry. Finally, on-platform evaluation tools were also introduced to im￾prove grant assessment capabilities, so that funders manage milestone reviews, provide s… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. One step staking and submission flow. Following, overall low scores in TAC, a streamlined pro￾posal submission process was developed for the prototype of a Web3 grant platform, combining bid bond staking and pro￾posal submission into a single blockchain transaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    DeSci Based on Web3 and DAO: A Comprehensive Overview and Reference Model,

    W. Ding, J. Hou, J. Li, C. Guo, J. Qin, R. Kozma, and F.-Y . Wang, “DeSci Based on Web3 and DAO: A Comprehensive Overview and Reference Model,”IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1563–1573, Oct. 2022, conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/docum...

    work page arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    The Exchange Theory of Web3 Governance,

    D. W. E. Allen, C. Berg, A. M. Lane, T. MacDonald, and J. Potts, “The Exchange Theory of Web3 Governance,” Rochester, NY , Sep

    work page

  3. [3]

    Effects of grants from EU funds on business performance of non-financial corporations in Croatia,

    D. ˇSelebaj and M. Bule, “Effects of grants from EU funds on business performance of non-financial corporations in Croatia,”Public Sector Economics, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 177–207, Jun. 2021, publisher: Institut za javne financije. [Online]. Available: https://hrcak.srce.hr/clanak/375748

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    CAPITAL GRANTS UTILIZATION IN THE NIGERIAN EDUCATIONAL SECTOR: DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS,

    P. O. Odewole and M. K. Salawu, “CAPITAL GRANTS UTILIZATION IN THE NIGERIAN EDUCATIONAL SECTOR: DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS,”UNILAG Journal of Business, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 19–34, Nov. 2020, number: 2. [Online]. Available: http://ujb.unilag.edu.ng/article/view/1112

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Dener, H

    C. Dener, H. Nii-Aponsah, L. E. Ghunney, and K. D. Johns,Gov- Tech Maturity Index: The State of Public Sector Digital Transfor- mation. World Bank Publications, Oct. 2021, google-Books-ID: pvdIEAAAQBAJ

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    IMPACT OF PUBLIC FUNDING ON A FIRM’S INNOV ATION PERFORMANCE: ANALYSIS OF INTER- NAL AND EXTERNAL MODERATING FACTORS,

    J. Albors and R. Barrera, “IMPACT OF PUBLIC FUNDING ON A FIRM’S INNOV ATION PERFORMANCE: ANALYSIS OF INTER- NAL AND EXTERNAL MODERATING FACTORS,”International Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 15, pp. 1297–1322, Dec. 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    A review of state procurement and contracting,

    J. R. Bartle and R. L. Korosec, “A review of state procurement and contracting,”Journal of Public Procurement, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 192–214, Jan. 2003, publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1108/JOPP-03-02-2003-B003

    work page doi:10.1108/jopp-03-02-2003-b003 2003

  8. [8]

    Disrupting governance with blockchains and smart contracts,

    V . Shermin, “Disrupting governance with blockchains and smart contracts,”Strategic Change, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 499–509, Sep. 2017, publisher: Wiley. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2150

    doi:10.1002/jsc.2150 2017

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Sustainable Transition From Donor Grant Financing: What Could It Look Like?

    K. Gilbert, B. Tenni, and G. L ˆe, “Sustainable Transition From Donor Grant Financing: What Could It Look Like?”Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 485–498, Sep. 2019, publisher: SAGE Publications Inc. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1177/101053...

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Decentralised Autonomous Organisations for Public Procurement,

    F. Monteiro and M. Correia, “Decentralised Autonomous Organisations for Public Procurement,” inProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, ser. EASE ’23. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Jun. 20...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Self-Sovereign Identity in a Globalized World: Credentials-Based Identity Systems as a Driver for Economic Inclusion,

    F. Wang and P. De Filippi, “Self-Sovereign Identity in a Globalized World: Credentials-Based Identity Systems as a Driver for Economic Inclusion,” Rochester, NY , Jan. 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3524367

    2020

  4. [12]

    The dao: miljoni dollari ˜oppetund Blockchaini valitsemises,

    F. Santos, “The dao: miljoni dollari ˜oppetund Blockchaini valitsemises,” Ph.D. dissertation, Tallinn University of Technology, Jan. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://digikogu.taltech.ee/et/item/ 9a66d3af-25ca-4552-8a6d-de54d357ff58

    2018

  5. [13]

    A Novel DAO-Based Parallel Enterprise Management Framework in Web3 Era,

    G. Wang, R. Qin, J. Li, F.-Y . Wang, Y . Gan, and L. Yan, “A Novel DAO-Based Parallel Enterprise Management Framework in Web3 Era,”IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 839–848, Feb. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/docume...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Connecting demand and supply: The role of intermediation in public procurement of innovation,

    J. Edler and J. Yeow, “Connecting demand and supply: The role of intermediation in public procurement of innovation,”Research Policy, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 414–426, Mar. 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733315001638

    2016

  7. [15]

    Grants Definition,

    European Commission, “Grants Definition,” Mar. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/ funding-and-technical-assistance/looking-funding/grants en

    2023

  8. [16]

    Financing Innovation: Evidence from R&D Grants,

    S. T. Howell, “Financing Innovation: Evidence from R&D Grants,” American Economic Review, vol. 107, no. 4, pp. 1136–1164, Apr

  9. [17]

    The Government as Venture Capitalist: The Long-Run Impact of the SBIR Program,

    J. Lerner, “The Government as Venture Capitalist: The Long-Run Impact of the SBIR Program,”The Journal of Private Equity, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 55–78, 2000, publisher: Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC. [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43503172

    2000

  10. [18]

    Agency Costs and Innovation,

    B. Holmstr ¨om, “Agency Costs and Innovation,” IUI Working Paper, Working Paper 214, 1989. [Online]. Available: https://www.econstor. eu/handle/10419/94833

    1989

  11. [19]

    Development, Application, And Regulation of Web3.0,

    Z. Zuo, “Development, Application, And Regulation of Web3.0,”Fron- tiers in Business, Economics and Management, vol. 9, pp. 22–27, Jun. 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Web3: The Next Internet Revolution,

    S. Wan, H. Lin, W. Gan, J. Chen, and P. S. Yu, “Web3: The Next Internet Revolution,” Mar. 2023, arXiv:2304.06111 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.06111

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    State of Web3 Grants Report,

    E. Leventhal and M. Waqar, “State of Web3 Grants Report,” MetaGov, Tech. Rep., Sep. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/ 1CFD6ztSh2ggJSO-U3uEea92UVB1cRbvBlA1tfPxLKi8/

    2023

  14. [22]

    State of Web3 Grants Report 2024,

    E. Leventhal, M. Waqar, A. Liu, B. Biedermann, F. Gibrel, H. Devjani, LauNaMu, M. Grendel, S. Mori, and V . Elefante, “State of Web3 Grants Report 2024,” Metagovernance Project, Tech. Rep., Sep. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://drive.google.com/file/d/ 1JBbGos6Bjdvd1LRGDvIij...

    2024

  15. [23]

    DAO Decentralization: V oting-Bloc Entropy, Bribery, and Dark DAOs,

    J. Austgen, A. F ´abrega, S. Allen, K. Babel, M. Kelkar, and A. Juels, “DAO Decentralization: V oting-Bloc Entropy, Bribery, and Dark DAOs,” Nov. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.03530v1

    2023 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Hacker-engineers and Their Economies: The Political Economy of Decentralised Networks and ‘Cryptoeconomics’,

    J. K. Brekke, “Hacker-engineers and Their Economies: The Political Economy of Decentralised Networks and ‘Cryptoeconomics’,”New Political Economy, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 646–659, Jul. 2021, publisher: Routledge. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2020. 1806223

    2021

  17. [26]

    Gitcoin 2.0 Whitepaper. Grants = Growth,

    K. Owocki and M. Lister, “Gitcoin 2.0 Whitepaper. Grants = Growth,” Feb. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.gitcoin.co/whitepaper/read

    2024

  18. [27]

    Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.19201

    [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.19201

    arXiv

  19. [28]

    Assembling a population health management maturity index using a Delphi method,

    A. F. T. M. van Ede, K. V . Stein, and M. A. Bruijnzeels, “Assembling a population health management maturity index using a Delphi method,” BMC Health Services Research, vol. 24, no. 1, p. 110, Jan. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10572-5

    2024 doi

  20. [29]

    Research IT maturity models for academic health centers: Early development and initial evaluation,

    B. M. Knosp, W. K. Barnett, N. R. Anderson, and P. J. Embi, “Research IT maturity models for academic health centers: Early development and initial evaluation,”Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 289–294, Oct. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://do...

    2018 doi

  21. [30]

    Understanding the Fisher equation,

    Y . Sun and P. C. B. Phillips, “Understanding the Fisher equation,” Journal of Applied Econometrics, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 869–886, 2004, eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jae.760. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jae. 760

    2004 doi

  22. [31]

    Organizational maturity models: the leading research fields and opportunities for further studies,

    A. Kuci ´nska-Landw´ojtowicz, I. D. Czabak-G ´orska, P. Domingues, P. Sampaio, and C. Ferradaz de Carvalho, “Organizational maturity models: the leading research fields and opportunities for further studies,” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, vol. 41, ...

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    Integrated Supply Network Maturity Model: Water Scarcity Perspective,

    E. Yatskovskaya, J. S. Srai, and M. Kumar, “Integrated Supply Network Maturity Model: Water Scarcity Perspective,”Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 896, Mar. 2018, number: 3 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/ ...

    2018

  24. [33]

    Risk management maturity model,

    Queensland Audit Office, “Risk management maturity model,” Queensland Audit Office, Tech. Rep., Jun. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.qao.qld.gov.au/reports-resources/better-practice/ risk-management-maturity-model

    2023

  25. [34]

    A review of methods used on IT maturity models development: A systematic literature review and a critical analysis,

    R. Pereira and J. Serrano, “A review of methods used on IT maturity models development: A systematic literature review and a critical analysis,”Journal of Information Technology, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 161–178, Jun. 2020, publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd. [Online]. Available: htt...

    2020 doi

  26. [35]

    E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model,

    K. V . Andersen and H. Z. Henriksen, “E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model,”Government Information Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 236–248, Jan. 2006. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X05000973

    2006

  27. [36]

    Developing Maturity Models for IT Management,

    J. Becker, R. Knackstedt, and J. P ¨oppelbuß, “Developing Maturity Models for IT Management,”Business & Information Systems Engineering, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 213–222, Jun. 2009. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-009-0044-5

    2009 doi

  28. [37]

    Evaluating Progress in Web3 Grants: Introducing the Grant Maturity Index,

    B. Biedermann and F. Gibrel, “Evaluating Progress in Web3 Grants: Introducing the Grant Maturity Index,” Oct. 2024, arXiv:2410.19828. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.19828

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    J. W. Creswell and V . L. P. Clark,Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE Publications, Aug. 2017, google-Books-ID: eTwmDwAAQBAJ

    2017

  30. [39]

    Roadmap for a communication maturity index for organizations—Theorizing, analyzing and developing communication value,

    C. Johansson, C. Grandien, and K. Strandh, “Roadmap for a communication maturity index for organizations—Theorizing, analyzing and developing communication value,”Public Relations Review, vol. 45, no. 4, p. 101791, Nov. 2019. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com...

    2019

  31. [40]

    K. R. Popper,Objective Knwoledge an evolutionary approach. S.l.: Clarendon Press, 1973

    1973

  32. [41]

    Hutton,Abstraction and instance: The type-token relation in linguistic theory, ser

    C. Hutton,Abstraction and instance: The type-token relation in linguistic theory, ser. Language & communication library. Oxford: Pergamon, 1990, vol. V .11

    1990

  33. [42]

    Paradigm Wars: A Basis for Peaceful Coexistence and Beyond,

    L.-E. Datta, “Paradigm Wars: A Basis for Peaceful Coexistence and Beyond,” inMixed methods, A. Bryman, Ed. London [etc.]: SAGE, 2006, pp. 31–52

    2006

  34. [43]

    Governance in the Blockchain Economy: A Framework and Research Agenda,

    R. Beck, C. Mueller-Bloch, and J. King, “Governance in the Blockchain Economy: A Framework and Research Agenda,”Journal of the Associ- ation for Information Systems, vol. 19, pp. 1020–1034, Oct. 2018

    2018

  35. [44]

    Understanding Blockchain Governance: Analyzing Decentralized V oting to Amend DeFi Smart Contracts,

    J. Messias, V . Pahari, B. Chandrasekaran, K. P. Gummadi, and P. Loiseau, “Understanding Blockchain Governance: Analyzing Decentralized V oting to Amend DeFi Smart Contracts,” Jan. 2024, arXiv:2305.17655 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305. 17655

    2024 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Retroductive Theorizing: A Contribution of Critical Realism to Mixed Methods Research,

    F. C. Mukumbang, “Retroductive Theorizing: A Contribution of Critical Realism to Mixed Methods Research,”Journal of Mixed Methods Research, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 93–114, Jan. 2023, publisher: SAGE Publications. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898211049847

    2023 doi

  37. [46]

    Barriers to innovation through public procurement: A supplier perspective,

    E. Uyarra, J. Edler, J. Garcia-Estevez, L. Georghiou, and J. Yeow, “Barriers to innovation through public procurement: A supplier perspective,”Technovation, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 631–645, Oct. 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S016649...

    2014

  38. [47]

    Sailing Towards Digitalization When It Doesn’t Make Cents? Analysing the Faroe Islands’ New Digital Governance Trajectory,

    K. McBride, “Sailing Towards Digitalization When It Doesn’t Make Cents? Analysing the Faroe Islands’ New Digital Governance Trajectory,”Island Studies Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 193–214, Nov. 2019, publisher: Beewolf Press Limited. [Online]. Available: https://islandstudiesj...

    2019

  39. [48]

    Cryptocurrency Prices, Charts And Market Capitaliza- tions,

    Coinnarketcap, “Cryptocurrency Prices, Charts And Market Capitaliza- tions,” Sep. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://coinmarketcap.com/

    2024

  40. [49]

    When comparative advantage is not enough: business costs in small remote economies,

    L. A. Winters and P. M. G. Martins, “When comparative advantage is not enough: business costs in small remote economies,”World Trade Review, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 347–383, Nov. 2004. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745604001922

    2004 doi

  41. [50]

    Arbitrum’s Short-Term Incentive Program (Arbitrum Improvement Proposal),

    tnorm, “Arbitrum’s Short-Term Incentive Program (Arbitrum Improvement Proposal),” Sep. 2023, section: Proposals. [Online]. Available: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/16131

    2023

  42. [51]

    Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2008

    OECD,Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1787/ 9789264043466-en

    2008

  43. [52]

    Arbitrum Proposal to Backfund Successful STIP Proposals,

    Frisson, “Arbitrum Proposal to Backfund Successful STIP Proposals,” Nov. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/ proposals

    2023

  44. [53]

    STIP-Bridge Operational Budget - Proposals,

    A. Lumley, “STIP-Bridge Operational Budget - Proposals,” Aug. 2024, section: Proposals. [Online]. Available: https://forum.arbitrum. foundation/t/stip-bridge-operational-budget/26489

    2024

  45. [54]

    Arbitrum Short-term incentive Program,

    Arbitrum DAO, “Arbitrum Short-term incentive Program,” Sep

  46. [55]

    Arbitrum Long Term Incentives Pilot Program Proposal,

    M. Stein, “Arbitrum Long Term Incentives Pilot Program Proposal,” Jan. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/ long-term-incentives-pilot-program/20223/49

    2024

  47. [56]

    [PASSED] MIP-24: Mantle EcoFund,

    BitDAO, “[PASSED] MIP-24: Mantle EcoFund,” Feb. 2023, section: [Curated Archive] Mantle Ecosystem. [Online]. Available: https: //forum.mantle.xyz/t/passed-mip-24-mantle-ecofund/4692

    2023

  48. [57]

    What is the Optimism Collective? Get a Grant,

    The Optimism Collective, “What is the Optimism Collective? Get a Grant,” Jul. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://community.optimism.io/ docs/governance/get-a-grant.html

    2024

  49. [58]

    Double-Down on STIP Successes (STIP-Bridge),

    Seed Gov, “Double-Down on STIP Successes (STIP-Bridge),” Mar

  50. [59]

    Stockholder and Bondholder Wealth Effects of CEO Incentive Grants,

    M. T. Billett, D. C. Mauer, and Y . Zhang, “Stockholder and Bondholder Wealth Effects of CEO Incentive Grants,”Financial Management, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 463–487, 2010. [Online]. Available: https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1755-053X.2010.01080.x

    2010 arXiv

  51. [60]

    A Business Model for Multi-tiered Decentralized Software Frameworks: The Case of ONTOCHAIN,

    T. Papaioannou and G. Stamoulis, “A Business Model for Multi-tiered Decentralized Software Frameworks: The Case of ONTOCHAIN,” in Economics of Grids, Clouds, Systems, and Services, Mar. 2023, pp. 27– 40

    2023

  52. [61]

    A Trust-Centric Approach To Quantifying Maturity and Security in Internet V oting Protocols,

    S. Bara ´nski, B. Biedermann, and J. Ellul, “A Trust-Centric Approach To Quantifying Maturity and Security in Internet V oting Protocols,” Dec. 2024, arXiv:2412.10611 [cs] version: 1. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.10611

    2024

  53. [62]

    V oting Systems with Supervising Mechanisms,

    T. Lin and H. Pham, “V oting Systems with Supervising Mechanisms,” inApplications in Reliability and Statistical Computing, H. Pham, Ed. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2023, pp. 97–115. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21232-1 5

    2023 doi

  54. [63]

    Airdrops as a governance tool for DAOs? An empirical analysis of voting participation,

    M. Marz, “Airdrops as a governance tool for DAOs? An empirical analysis of voting participation,”Scientific Reports, vol. 4, pp. 1–8, 2024, place: Mittweida, Deutschland Publisher: Hochschule Mittweida. [Online]. Available: https://www. forschung.hs-mittweida.de/index.php?eID=...

    2024

  55. [64]

    Legitimacy,

    R. Suddaby, A. Bitektine, and P. Haack, “Legitimacy,”Academy of Management Annals, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 451–478, 2017

    2017

  56. [68]

    Does transparency strengthen legitimacy?

    D. Curtin and A. J. Meijer, “Does transparency strengthen legitimacy?” Information Polity, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 109–122, Jan. 2006, publisher: IOS Press. [Online]. Available: https://content.iospress.com/articles/ information-polity/ip000091

    2006

  57. [2017]

    Available: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/ aer.20150808

    [Online]. Available: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/ aer.20150808

  58. [2022]

    Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4209827

    [Online]. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4209827

  59. [2024]

    Available: https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation

    [Online]. Available: https://snapshot.box/#/s:arbitrumfoundation. eth/proposals/

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.