Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Unpacking How Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) Work in Practice

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2304.09822 v1 pith:NYZUP7WN submitted 2023-04-17 cs.CY cs.SI

classification cs.CYcs.SI
keywords daosdecentralizationdecentralizedpracticeworkautonomousautonomycontracts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) have emerged as a novel way to coordinate a group of (pseudonymous) entities towards a shared vision (e.g., promoting sustainability), utilizing self-executing smart contracts on blockchains to support decentralized governance and decision-making. In just a few years, over 4,000 DAOs have been launched in various domains, such as investment, education, health, and research. Despite such rapid growth and diversity, it is unclear how these DAOs actually work in practice and to what extent they are effective in achieving their goals. Given this, we aim to unpack how (well) DAOs work in practice. We conducted an in-depth analysis of a diverse set of 10 DAOs of various categories and smart contracts, leveraging on-chain (e.g., voting results) and off-chain data (e.g., community discussions) as well as our interviews with DAO organizers/members. Specifically, we defined metrics to characterize key aspects of DAOs, such as the degrees of decentralization and autonomy. We observed CompoundDAO, AssangeDAO, Bankless, and Krausehouse having poor decentralization in voting, while decentralization has improved over time for one-person-one-vote DAOs (e.g., Proof of Humanity). Moreover, the degree of autonomy varies among DAOs, with some (e.g., Compound and Krausehouse) relying more on third parties than others. Lastly, we offer a set of design implications for future DAO systems based on our findings.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Social Dynamics of DAOs: Power, Onboarding, and Inclusivity

    cs.CY 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    DAOs reproduce financial and cultural barriers to participation, so decentralization is a social process, not just a technical feature.

  2. Evaluating Voting Design Vulnerabilities for Retroactive Funding

    cs.GT 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Quadratic voting is more resistant than mean or median voting to coordinated manipulation in RetroPGF-style allocation, based on a proof-based analysis and a simulation.

Pith tools