pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.29826 · v1 · pith:Q33JBYWBnew · submitted 2026-06-29 · 💻 cs.CR · cs.CE· cs.DC· cs.GT· cs.SI

Rethinking Collaborative Trust for Verifiably Decentralized Blockchain Systems

Yunqi Zhang , Shaileshh Bojja Venkatakrishnan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 05:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR cs.CEcs.DCcs.GTcs.SI
keywords blockchain decentralizationcollaborative interactionsShapley valueexpander graphsSybil resistancereward designverifiable decentralizationscalability
0
0 comments X

The pith

A reward mechanism using asymmetric Shapley values and expander graphs makes blockchain decentralization verifiable by incentivizing diverse user collaborations instead of uniform resources.

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

The paper establishes a general framework where the richness and diversity of collaborative interactions among users, rather than equal resource distribution, defines and measures decentralization in blockchains. Current systems lack incentives for users to collaborate across groups, leading to persistent centralization in practice. The proposed solution attributes rewards within groups using a Sybil-resistant asymmetric Shapley value and applies expander graph theory to promote and verify inter-group connectivity. This matters because it offers a verifiable way to reduce centralization that can extend to any blockchain layer or application. The authors also show the approach can resolve scalability limits by the same mechanism.

Core claim

The central claim is that decentralization in blockchains is captured by the extent of collaborative interactions between users, and a reward design combining Sybil-resistant asymmetric Shapley value attribution with expander graphs can incentivize users to form diverse, non-isolated collaboration groups. This makes decentralization both measurable and enforceable in a verifiable manner, and the resulting framework applies generally to any layer, decentralized application, or organization while also addressing scalability.

What carries the argument

Sybil-resistant asymmetric Shapley value for reward attribution within a collaboration group, combined with expander graphs for measuring and enforcing decentralization through connectivity properties.

If this is right

  • The framework can be adapted to alleviate centralization in any blockchain layer, application, or decentralized autonomous organization.
  • The same mechanism naturally addresses the blockchain scalability problem.
  • The approach identifies and enables a new class of decentralized collaborative applications previously unexplored in blockchains.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The focus on interaction patterns rather than node counts could change how decentralization is audited in practice across existing networks.
  • Similar reward structures might apply to non-blockchain decentralized systems such as peer-to-peer file sharing or open-source governance to reduce power concentration.
  • Implementation could be tested by simulating coalition formation under the new rewards to check if expander properties prevent isolation in small networks.

Load-bearing premise

The diversity and richness of collaborative interactions between users captures the true extent of decentralization, and the reward design will successfully incentivize cross-group collaboration without allowing isolated coalitions to form.

What would settle it

A deployed implementation of the reward mechanism on a test blockchain where users still form isolated coalitions, resulting in measurable centralization by standard metrics such as mining power concentration or validator distribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.29826 by Shaileshh Bojja Venkatakrishnan, Yunqi Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sellers in a market have a natural tendency to ossify over time due to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The collaboration graph in an ossified (left) and decentralized (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Example of a collaboration DAG. (b) Each node in the DAG transfers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A β fraction of importance is collected as tax from all the nodes at the beginning of a round. Nodes that are part of the maximal expander receive a tax refund at the end of the round, provided the total stake of the expander is at least 0.5. 5.4 Tax Refund The collector node collects a tax each round for a few reasons: (1) it removes importance out of idle or unused nodes, (2) it forces nodes to join a co… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Collaboration DAG D[t]. (b) Stake and importance of nodes initially after tax. (c) Node e transfers importance to all its ancestors in D[t]. 1. All edges in DQ(v) [t] are marked “unvisited”. The importance iu received by any node u in DQ(v) [t] from v is set to 0. 2. v pays an amount Iv[t](1 − β) αsV [t] ϵ to the root V [t], i.e., iV [t] ← Iv[t](1 − β) αsV [t] ϵ . 3. Consider any unvisited edge (u, u′ … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Despite the promise of decentralization, measurement studies have identified a conspicuous lack of decentralization in blockchains. Centralization has been observed in almost all layers of the blockchain, in decentralized applications, and in decentralized autonomous organizations. In many cases, it is practically impossible to definitively determine the extent of centralization in the system. While multiple works have proposed methods to decrease centralization, by and large blockchains continue to be significantly centralized. In this paper, we develop a general framework for building verifiably decentralized blockchain systems. Our framework is motivated by the core observation that the richness and diversity of collaborative interactions between users -- rather than resource uniformity -- captures the essence and extent of decentralization in a blockchain system. Existing blockchains do not have any incentive mechanisms to encourage inter-coalition collaboration, which directly contributes to centralization. We propose a novel reward design that incentivizes users to collaborate with other users without forming isolated coalitions. Technically, our method uses a Sybil-resistant asymmetric Shapley value for reward attribution within a collaboration group, and the theory of expander graphs for measuring and enforcing decentralization. Our framework is general and can be adapted to alleviate centralization in any layer, application, or decentralized organization. It also has important implications beyond the topic of centralization. For example, we show that our solution can naturally address the blockchain scalability problem. We also identify a new class of decentralized collaborative applications that have hitherto been unexplored in blockchains.

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 develops a general framework for building verifiably decentralized blockchain systems. It argues that decentralization is captured by the richness and diversity of collaborative interactions between users rather than resource uniformity. Existing systems lack incentives for inter-coalition collaboration, leading to centralization. The proposed solution uses a Sybil-resistant asymmetric Shapley value for reward attribution within collaboration groups and expander graphs for measuring and enforcing decentralization. The framework is claimed to be adaptable to any layer, application, or DAO, and to naturally address the blockchain scalability problem while enabling new classes of decentralized collaborative applications.

Significance. If the incentive properties of the asymmetric Shapley value combined with expander-graph enforcement hold and can be formally verified, the framework would provide a principled, game-theoretic approach to decentralization that goes beyond resource-based metrics. This could influence designs in blockchains, DAOs, and related systems, with the claimed scalability implications offering a potential bridge between decentralization and performance. The explicit focus on collaboration incentives is a distinguishing feature if the technical construction is made rigorous.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that 'our solution can naturally address the blockchain scalability problem' is presented without any derivation, model, or example showing how the reward attribution or expander-graph enforcement translates into improved throughput, reduced latency, or better sharding; this is load-bearing for the generality assertion but unsupported in the visible text.
  2. [Technical approach] Technical approach (as described in abstract): The core mechanism relies on a 'Sybil-resistant asymmetric Shapley value' whose Sybil resistance, asymmetry, and incentive compatibility for inter-coalition collaboration are asserted but not accompanied by a definition, proof, or counter-example analysis; without this, the reward design's ability to prevent isolated coalitions cannot be evaluated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract introduces several novel terms (Sybil-resistant asymmetric Shapley value, verifiably decentralized) without inline definitions or forward references to where they are formalized.
  2. [Motivation] The motivation section would benefit from explicit comparison to prior decentralization metrics (e.g., Nakamoto coefficient, Gini-based measures) to clarify the claimed advantage of the collaboration-richness metric.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address the major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that 'our solution can naturally address the blockchain scalability problem' is presented without any derivation, model, or example showing how the reward attribution or expander-graph enforcement translates into improved throughput, reduced latency, or better sharding; this is load-bearing for the generality assertion but unsupported in the visible text.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract asserts the scalability benefit without an explicit derivation or example in the sections referenced. The manuscript motivates the claim via reduced coalition isolation improving resource distribution, but we agree this requires formalization. We will add a dedicated subsection deriving the connection to throughput, latency, and sharding with a concrete example. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Technical approach] Technical approach (as described in abstract): The core mechanism relies on a 'Sybil-resistant asymmetric Shapley value' whose Sybil resistance, asymmetry, and incentive compatibility for inter-coalition collaboration are asserted but not accompanied by a definition, proof, or counter-example analysis; without this, the reward design's ability to prevent isolated coalitions cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that the abstract asserts these properties without the supporting definition or analysis. The manuscript introduces the asymmetric Shapley value but lacks the full formal treatment. We will include the precise definition, proofs of Sybil resistance and incentive compatibility, and counter-example discussion in the revised technical sections. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in framework proposal

full rationale

The paper advances a design framework whose central premise equates decentralization with richness of collaborative interactions and then proposes incentives (asymmetric Shapley value + expander graphs) to promote that property. This is a definitional modeling choice and a constructive proposal rather than a derivation in which a claimed prediction or uniqueness result is shown by the paper's own equations to be identical to its inputs. No load-bearing self-citations, fitted-parameter predictions, or ansatz smuggling are exhibited in the provided text. The generality and scalability statements are presented as natural consequences of the design, not as formally derived corollaries that close on themselves. The construction therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

Framework rests on game-theoretic properties of Shapley values and graph-theoretic properties of expanders applied to blockchain incentives; no free parameters or invented entities explicitly quantified in abstract.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Shapley value attribution extends to asymmetric Sybil-resistant setting for collaboration groups
    Used for reward attribution within collaboration group as stated in technical approach
  • domain assumption Expander graphs provide a valid measure and enforcement mechanism for decentralization
    Invoked for measuring and enforcing decentralization
invented entities (1)
  • Sybil-resistant asymmetric Shapley value no independent evidence
    purpose: Reward attribution that prevents fake identities while incentivizing cross-coalition work
    New variant introduced for the reward design

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5801 in / 1266 out tokens · 27097 ms · 2026-06-30T05:46:22.036959+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

112 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The Meaning of Decentralization (2017),https://medium.com/@VitalikButer in/the-meaning-of-decentralization-a0c92b76a274

    2017

  2. [2]

    Demis Hassabis Interview (2024),https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chem istry/2024/hassabis/interview/

    2024

  3. [3]

    Is Crypto’s Killer App Finally Here? (2024),https://www.forbes.com/sites/c hristiancatalini/2024/02/19/is-cryptos-killer-app-finally-here/

    2024

  4. [4]

    Stablecoins: the first ’killer app’ for Blockchain? (2025),https://www.kcl.ac.u k/news/stablecoins-the-first-killer-app-for-blockchain

    2025

  5. [5]

    AnubisDAO Investors Lose $60 Million in Alleged Rug Pull (2026),https://decr ypt.co/84924/anubisdao-investors-lose-60-million-in-alleged-rug-pull

    2026

  6. [6]

    Blockchain Adoption Statistics 2026 -Market Size & Trends) (2026),https://ww w.demandsage.com/blockchain-statistics/

    2026

  7. [7]

    DeFi Project bZx Exploited for Second Time in a Week, Loses $630K in Ether (2026),https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/02/18/defi-project-bzx-e xploited-for-second-time-in-a-week-loses-630k-in-ether

    2026

  8. [8]

    DePIN: Evaluating the Real-World Utility and Future of Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (2026),https://blockeden.xyz/blog/2026/03/21/de pin-march-2026-reality-check-650-projects-19b-market-cap-revenue/

    2026

  9. [9]

    Ethereum Apps (2026),https://ethereum.org/apps/

    2026

  10. [10]

    NINeS 2027: Statement of Purpose (2026),https://nines-conference.org/sop 30

    2027

  11. [11]

    Oracle Manipulation Attacks are Rising, Creating a Unique Concern for DeFi (2026),https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/oracle-manipulation-attacks-r ising/

    2026

  12. [12]

    Privacy emerges as crypto’s next ’killer app,’ with Arc, Canton and Tempo top- ping $1 billion in funding (2026),https://www.coindesk.com/business/2026/0 5/12/privacy-emerges-as-crypto-s-next-killer-app-with-arc-canton-a nd-tempo-topping-usd1-billion-in-funding

    2026

  13. [13]

    Revisiting Beanstalk Farms Exploit (2026),https://www.certik.com/blog/re visiting-beanstalk-farms-exploit

    2026

  14. [14]

    The Compound Finance Governance Attack: A Recap and Its Implications (2026),https://research.despread.io/compound-finance-governance-a ttack/

    2026

  15. [15]

    The Ultimate List of Cloud Computing Stats for 2026: Market Growth, Adoption & Security Trends (2026),https://softjourn.com/insights/cloud-computi ng-stats

    2026

  16. [16]

    Sanctuary Technologies

    Vitalik Buterin Urges Ethereum to Build “Sanctuary Technologies” Against Dig- ital Control (2026),https://www.mexc.com/news/850200

    2026

  17. [17]

    Remarks on the disproof of the unit distance conjecture

    Alon, N., Bloom, T.F., Gowers, W., Litt, D., Sawin, W., Shankar, A., Tsimer- man, J., Wang, V., Wood, M.M.: Remarks on the disproof of the unit distance conjecture. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.20695 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    The economic journal100(401), 464–477 (1990)

    Andreoni, J.: Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm- glow giving. The economic journal100(401), 464–477 (1990)

    1990

  19. [19]

    In: 2017 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP)

    Apostolaki, M., Zohar, A., Vanbever, L.: Hijacking bitcoin: Routing attacks on cryptocurrencies. In: 2017 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP). pp. 375–392. IEEE (2017)

    2017

  20. [20]

    Arvestad, I.: Near-linear time expander decomposition in practice (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    Atzori, M.: Blockchain technology and decentralized governance: Is the state still necessary? Available at SSRN 2709713 (2015)

    2015

  22. [22]

    The Quarterly journal of economics 135(2), 645–709 (2020)

    Autor, D., Dorn, D., Katz, L.F., Patterson, C., Van Reenen, J.: The fall of the labor share and the rise of superstar firms. The Quarterly journal of economics 135(2), 645–709 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    In: International conference on financial cryptography and data security

    Azouvi, S., Maller, M., Meiklejohn, S.: Egalitarian society or benevolent dicta- torship: The state of cryptocurrency governance. In: International conference on financial cryptography and data security. pp. 127–143. Springer (2018)

    2018

  24. [24]

    Journal of the association for information systems19(10), 1 (2018)

    Beck, R., Müller-Bloch, C., King, J.L.: Governance in the blockchain economy: A framework and research agenda. Journal of the association for information systems19(10), 1 (2018)

    2018

  25. [25]

    Journal of political economy82(6), 1063–1093 (1974)

    Becker, G.S.: A theory of social interactions. Journal of political economy82(6), 1063–1093 (1974)

    1974

  26. [26]

    In: 2015 IEEE/ACIS 16th international conference on software engineering, artifi- cial intelligence, networking and parallel/distributed computing (SNPD)

    Beikverdi, A., Song, J.: Trend of centralization in bitcoin’s distributed network. In: 2015 IEEE/ACIS 16th international conference on software engineering, artifi- cial intelligence, networking and parallel/distributed computing (SNPD). pp. 1–6. IEEE (2015)

    2015

  27. [27]

    Ieee Access8, 21127–21151 (2020)

    Bellini, E., Iraqi, Y., Damiani, E.: Blockchain-based distributed trust and repu- tation management systems: A survey. Ieee Access8, 21127–21151 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    Harper San Francisco (1999)

    Berners-Lee, T.: Weaving the Web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web by its inventor. Harper San Francisco (1999)

    1999

  29. [29]

    Journal of economic Perspectives29(2), 213–238 (2015) 31

    Böhme, R., Christin, N., Edelman, B., Moore, T.: Bitcoin: Economics, technology, and governance. Journal of economic Perspectives29(2), 213–238 (2015) 31

    2015

  30. [30]

    In: 2015 IEEE symposium on security and privacy

    Bonneau, J., Miller, A., Clark, J., Narayanan, A., Kroll, J.A., Felten, E.W.: Sok: Research perspectives and challenges for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. In: 2015 IEEE symposium on security and privacy. pp. 104–121. IEEE (2015)

    2015

  31. [31]

    Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization226, 106687 (2024)

    Bramoullé, Y., Kranton, R.E.: Altruism networks and economic relations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization226, 106687 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    In: 2020 IEEE european symposium on security and privacy (Eu- roS&p)

    Brünjes, L., Kiayias, A., Koutsoupias, E., Stouka, A.P.: Reward sharing schemes for stake pools. In: 2020 IEEE european symposium on security and privacy (Eu- roS&p). pp. 256–275. IEEE (2020)

    2020

  33. [33]

    American journal of sociology110(2), 349–399 (2004)

    Burt, R.S.: Structural holes and good ideas. American journal of sociology110(2), 349–399 (2004)

    2004

  34. [34]

    Applied Sciences11(16), 7572 (2021)

    Caldarelli, G., Ellul, J.: The blockchain oracle problem in decentralized finance—a multivocal approach. Applied Sciences11(16), 7572 (2021)

    2021

  35. [35]

    Algorand

    Chen, J., Micali, S.: Algorand. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.01341 (2016)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  36. [36]

    IEEE Access6, 66210–66222 (2018)

    Cho, H.: Asic-resistance of multi-hash proof-of-work mechanisms for blockchain consensus protocols. IEEE Access6, 66210–66222 (2018)

    2018

  37. [37]

    In: Cryptofinance: A new cur- rency for a new economy, pp

    Chohan, U.W.: Cryptocurrencies and inequality. In: Cryptofinance: A new cur- rency for a new economy, pp. 49–62. World Scientific (2022)

    2022

  38. [38]

    IEEE Access6, 22970–22975 (2018).https: //doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2814624

    Dai, M., Zhang, S., Wang, H., Jin, S.: A low storage room requirement framework for distributed ledger in blockchain. IEEE Access6, 22970–22975 (2018).https: //doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2814624

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2018.2814624 2018

  39. [39]

    In: 2015 10th International Conference for Internet Tech- nology and Secured Transactions (ICITST)

    Dennis, R., Owen, G.: Rep on the block: A next generation reputation system based on the blockchain. In: 2015 10th International Conference for Internet Tech- nology and Secured Transactions (ICITST). pp. 131–138. IEEE (2015)

    2015

  40. [40]

    Information13(6), 305 (2022)

    Dimitri, N.: Quadratic voting in blockchain governance. Information13(6), 305 (2022)

    2022

  41. [41]

    Issues in science and technology 36(3), 37–39 (2020)

    Doudna, J.: A viable path toward responsible use. Issues in science and technology 36(3), 37–39 (2020)

    2020

  42. [42]

    Harvard Business Review, Vol

    Eisenmann, T.R., Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M.W.: Strategies for two sided mar- kets. Harvard Business Review, Vol. October (2006)

    2006

  43. [43]

    2016 IEEE 1st International Workshops on Foundations and Applications of Self* Sys- tems(FAS*W)pp.18–23(2016),https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 17589942

    Ekblaw, A., Barabas, C., Harvey-Buschel, J., Lippman, A.: Bitcoin and the myth of decentralization: Socio-technical proposals for restoring network integrity. 2016 IEEE 1st International Workshops on Foundations and Applications of Self* Sys- tems(FAS*W)pp.18–23(2016),https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 17589942

    2016

  44. [44]

    In: International conference on financial cryptography and data security

    Fanti, G., Kogan, L., Oh, S., Ruan, K., Viswanath, P., Wang, G.: Compounding of wealth in proof-of-stake cryptocurrencies. In: International conference on financial cryptography and data security. pp. 42–61. Springer (2019)

    2019

  45. [45]

    Farmer, P.: Pathologies of power: Health, human rights, and the new war on the poor, vol. 4. Univ of California Press (2004)

    2004

  46. [46]

    Economics20, 49 (2005)

    Fehr, E., Schmidt, K.M.: The economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruism– experimental evidence and new theories. Economics20, 49 (2005)

    2005

  47. [47]

    Procedia Computer Science32, 1121–1126 (2014)

    Feld, S., Schönfeld, M., Werner, M.: Analyzing the deployment of bitcoin’s p2p network under an as-level perspective. Procedia Computer Science32, 1121–1126 (2014)

    2014

  48. [48]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09729 (2025)

    Fleischmann, H., Li, G.Z., Li, J.: Improved directed expander decompositions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09729 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    MIT Sloan Manage- ment Review (2007)

    Fleming, L.: Breakthroughs and the ‘long tail’of innovation. MIT Sloan Manage- ment Review (2007)

    2007

  50. [50]

    Random House (2010) 32

    Frank, R.H., Cook, P.J.: The winner-take-all society: Why the few at the top get so much more than the rest of us. Random House (2010) 32

    2010

  51. [51]

    In: International conference on financial cryp- tography and data security

    Gencer, A.E., Basu, S., Eyal, I., Van Renesse, R., Sirer, E.G.: Decentralization in bitcoin and ethereum networks. In: International conference on financial cryp- tography and data security. pp. 439–457. Springer (2018)

    2018

  52. [52]

    Gervais, A., Karame, G.O., Capkun, V., Capkun, S.: Is bitcoin a decentralized currency? IEEE security & privacy12(3), 54–60 (2014)

    2014

  53. [53]

    In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security

    Gervais, A., Karame, G.O., Wüst, K., Glykantzis, V., Ritzdorf, H., Capkun, S.: On the security and performance of proof of work blockchains. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security. pp. 3–16 (2016)

    2016

  54. [54]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00644 (2024)

    Gogol, K., Velner, Y., Kraner, B., Tessone, C.: Sok: liquid staking tokens (lsts) and emerging trends in restaking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00644 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Granovetter,M.S.:Thestrengthofweakties.Americanjournalofsociology78(6), 1360–1380 (1973)

    1973

  56. [56]

    IEEE Access7, 98546–98554 (2019).https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019

    Guo, Z., Gao, Z., Mei, H., Zhao, M., Yang, J.: Design and optimization for storage mechanism of the public blockchain based on redundant residual number system. IEEE Access7, 98546–98554 (2019).https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019. 2930125

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2019 2019

  57. [57]

    ACM Comput- ing Surveys (CSUR)55(2), 1–37 (2022)

    Hasan, O., Brunie, L., Bertino, E.: Privacy-preserving reputation systems based on blockchain and other cryptographic building blocks: A survey. ACM Comput- ing Surveys (CSUR)55(2), 1–37 (2022)

    2022

  58. [58]

    Haskel, J., Westlake, S.: Capitalism without capital: The rise of the intangible economy (2017)

    2017

  59. [59]

    Social and Rational (1957)

    Herbert, A.S.: Models of Man. Social and Rational (1957)

    1957

  60. [60]

    In: Bitcoin and beyond, pp

    Hsieh, Y.Y., Vergne, J.P.J., Wang, S.: The internal and external governance of blockchain-based organizations: Evidence from cryptocurrencies. In: Bitcoin and beyond, pp. 48–68. Routledge (2017)

    2017

  61. [61]

    Distributed Ledger Technologies: Research and Practice3(3), 1–28 (2024)

    Jiao, T., Xu, Z., Qi, M., Wen, S., Xiang, Y., Nan, G.: A survey of ethereum smart contract security: Attacks and detection. Distributed Ledger Technologies: Research and Practice3(3), 1–28 (2024)

    2024

  62. [62]

    (eds.) Data Privacy Management, Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology

    Judmayer, A., Zamyatin, A., Stifter, N., Voyiatzis, A.G., Weippl, E.: Merged mining:Curseorcure?In:Garcia-Alfaro,J.,Navarro-Arribas,G.,Hartenstein,H., Herrera-Joancomartí, J. (eds.) Data Privacy Management, Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology. pp. 316–333. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2017)

    2017

  63. [63]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04422 (2025)

    Kiayias, A., Koutsoupias, E., Markakis, E., Tsamopoulos, P.: Pool forma- tion in oceanic games: Shapley value and proportional sharing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04422 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Kiffer, L.C.: Centralization in Blockchains: Causes and Mitigations. Ph.D. thesis, Northeastern University (2022)

    2022

  65. [65]

    In: Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Confer- ence 2018

    Kim, S.K., Ma, Z., Murali, S., Mason, J., Miller, A., Bailey, M.: Measuring ethereum network peers. In: Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Confer- ence 2018. pp. 91–104 (2018)

    2018

  66. [66]

    In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies

    Kwon, Y., Liu, J., Kim, M., Song, D., Kim, Y.: Impossibility of full decentraliza- tion in permissionless blockchains. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies. pp. 110–123 (2019)

    2019

  67. [67]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems38, 162852–162870 (2026)

    Lee, K., Liu, Z., Tang, W., Zhang, Y.: Faithful group shapley value. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems38, 162852–162870 (2026)

    2026

  68. [68]

    In: Proceedings of the 2015 international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems

    Lewenberg, Y., Bachrach, Y., Sompolinsky, Y., Zohar, A., Rosenschein, J.S.: Bit- coin mining pools: A cooperative game theoretic analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2015 international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. pp. 919–927 (2015) 33

    2015

  69. [69]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23422 (2024)

    Li, L.: Mitigating challenges in ethereum’s proof-of-stake consensus: Evaluating the impact of eigenlayer and lido. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23422 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    Mathematics11(23), 4741 (2023)

    Mao, Y., Venkatakrishnan, S.B.: Less is more: Understanding network bias in proof-of-work blockchains. Mathematics11(23), 4741 (2023)

    2023

  71. [71]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17024 (2023)

    Mazorra, B., Della Penna, N.: Towards optimal prior-free permissionless rebate mechanisms, with applications to automated market makers & combinatorial or- derflow auctions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17024 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    Mill, J.S.: Principles of political economy. D. Appleton (1885)

  73. [73]

    In: Proceedings of the 22Nd acm sigsac con- ference on computer and communications security

    Miller, A., Kosba, A., Katz, J., Shi, E.: Nonoutsourceable scratch-off puzzles to discourage bitcoin mining coalitions. In: Proceedings of the 22Nd acm sigsac con- ference on computer and communications security. pp. 680–691 (2015)

    2015

  74. [74]

    IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management (2025)

    Motepalli, S., Jacobsen, H.A.: Decentralization in pos blockchain consensus: Quantification and advancement. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management (2025)

    2025

  75. [75]

    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2008)

    2008

  76. [76]

    IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials21(1), 838–857 (2018)

    Neudecker, T., Hartenstein, H.: Network layer aspects of permissionless blockchains. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials21(1), 838–857 (2018)

    2018

  77. [77]

    In: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems-Volume 2

    Ohta, N., Conitzer, V., Satoh, Y., Iwasaki, A., Yokoo, M.: Anonymity-proof shap- ley value: extending shapley value for coalitional games in open environments. In: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems-Volume 2. pp. 927–934 (2008)

    2008

  78. [78]

    In: AAAI

    Ohta, N., Iwasaki, A., Yokoo, M., Maruono, K., Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T.: A compact representation scheme for coalitional games in open anonymous environ- ments. In: AAAI. vol. 6, pp. 697–702 (2006)

    2006

  79. [79]

    Computer Networks179, 107367 (2020)

    de Oliveira, M.T., Reis, L.H., Medeiros, D.S., Carrano, R.C., Olabarriaga, S.D., Mattos, D.M.: Blockchain reputation-based consensus: A scalable and resilient mechanism for distributed mistrusting applications. Computer Networks179, 107367 (2020)

    2020

  80. [80]

    Park, D.H.M.: Altruistic Economics: Why this is a Sound Alternative to Neo- Classical Economic. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University (2010)

    2010

Showing first 80 references.