Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Bitcoin, a DAO?

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that Bitcoin is a DAO, governed by BIP deliberation, miner voting, and user-activated forks.

desk verdict Plausible but under-evidenced mapping of Bitcoin onto a DAO framework; the load-bearing 'Voting' rating is undermined by the paper's own description. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20838 v1 pith:QYCLXPEL submitted 2025-04-29 cs.CY cs.ET

Mark C. Ballandies , Guangyao Li , Claudio J. Tessone This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.ET
keywords BitcoindecentralizedautonomousorganizationDAOgovernanceImprovementProposalhashpowervotinguser-activatedsoftforkcollectiveintelligence
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

This paper sets out to settle a classification dispute: is Bitcoin a decentralized autonomous organization? It argues yes, using the DAO viability framework. The framework treats a DAO as a self-organizing system requiring collective intelligence, digital democracy, and adaptation, and Bitcoin, the paper claims, achieves all three through open participation, BIP deliberation, hashpower and node signaling, and permissionless exit. This matters because if Bitcoin is a DAO, then the largest and longest-running decentralized network becomes a governance model for DAO design, not an obsolete precursor. The paper also shows that DAO research increasingly overlooks Bitcoin, with only 6% of papers discussing Bitcoin classifying it as a DAO, which it argues hides useful governance lessons.

What carries the argument

The central device is the DAO viability framework, an eight-principle checklist organized under three self-organization mechanisms: collective intelligence, digital democracy, and adaptation. The framework does the work of turning the yes/no question 'is Bitcoin a DAO?' into scores on observable mechanisms — BIPs for deliberation, version-bit hashpower signaling and user-activated soft forks for voting, permissionless entry for openness, and token price plus fork choice for feedback. It is the standard against which Bitcoin is measured and the source of the paper's improvement proposals.

What would settle it

A quantitative study of BIP outcomes showing that no proposal opposed by Bitcoin Core maintainers has ever been activated, or that version-bit signaling rarely changes with miner preferences, would undercut the claim that Bitcoin instantiates digital democracy. Alternatively, an independent rating exercise using a specified measurement protocol that scores Bitcoin's deliberation and voting as low or absent would falsify the central classification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a classification with evidence: Bitcoin is a decentralized autonomous organization in the sense of the DAO viability framework. Table 1 scores Bitcoin on eight principles, with high transparency, freedom of expression, autonomy, and feedback; medium-high openness and privacy; and medium deliberation and voting. The mechanisms behind these scores are the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal process, which structures deliberation; hashpower voting via version-bit signaling and user-activated soft forks, which constitutes voting; and the absence of a legal entity together with fork exit, which enables adaptation. The paper also documents a literature trend: Bitcoin's presence in DAO papers fell to 42% by 2024, and only 6% of papers discussing Bitcoin explicitly classify it as a DAO, which it argues is an oversight.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument assumes that the eight-point checklist used to judge whether something is a DAO is a fair test, and that the authors' qualitative scores for Bitcoin, such as 'Medium' for deliberation, are not subjective guesses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Bitcoin is accepted as a DAO, then DAO designers can study Bitcoin's permissionless, no-legal-entity structure as a viable governance archetype rather than treating it as an outlier.
  • Bitcoin's governance stack—BIP deliberation, version-bit miner signaling, and user-activated soft forks—provides a concrete vocabulary for building off-chain deliberation and on-chain signaling in other DAOs.
  • Bitcoin's governance risks, such as concentration of economic power among large holders and unclear identity of who actually votes, become general DAO risks that can be studied in the longest-running live example.
  • The paper's finding that Bitcoin's autonomy works without a legal entity expands the design space for future DAOs, challenging the assumption that legal personhood is necessary for coordinated collective action.
  • DAO research would need to reverse its current trend of excluding Bitcoin, since the mechanisms that make Bitcoin resilient would otherwise be absent from the evidence base for DAO viability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that Bitcoin's hashpower voting can be analyzed as a weighted voting game, where a formal measure of miner concentration could test whether the 'digital democracy' principle is actually satisfied.
  • A testable extension of the paper's framework would convert its qualitative Table 1 ratings into protocol-level metrics, such as BIP discussion duration, version-bit adoption curves, or fork participation rates, making DAO viability scores independently reproducible.
  • The same framework could be applied comparatively to other permissionless networks; a natural prediction of the paper's logic is that networks with stronger permissionlessness and exit options will show more adaptation capacity than networks with formal governance layers.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper asks whether Bitcoin can be regarded as a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). It combines a bibliometric analysis of DAO literature in Elsevier's ScienceDirect database with an LLM-based sentiment classification, and then applies a 'DAO viability framework' with eight principles to argue that Bitcoin instantiates collective intelligence, digital democracy, and adaptation. The paper concludes that Bitcoin should be considered a DAO, and it draws design lessons for the broader DAO ecosystem, including risks of economic concentration in voting and the implications of the absence of a legal entity.

Significance. If the classification claim were established, the paper would make a useful contribution by repositioning Bitcoin as a reference case for permissionless DAO governance and by cataloging mechanisms such as BIP deliberation, hashpower signaling, and user-activated soft forks. The qualitative description of Bitcoin's governance channels and the candid discussion of concentration risks are valuable. However, the demonstration rests on author-assigned ratings in Table 1 with no measurement protocol, and the literature analysis uses a single database and an unvalidated LLM sentiment prompt; these issues are acknowledged in §4.1 but they are load-bearing for the central claim rather than peripheral. The paper contains no machine-checked proofs or reproducibility artifacts, and its strength lies in conceptual synthesis rather than formal demonstration.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table 1; §2.2] The eight principle ratings in Table 1 are the evidentiary base for the central claim, but no scoring protocol, scale definition, threshold, inter-rater check, or external validation is provided. For example, 'Privacy' is rated Medium-High in Table 1, yet §3.1 states that 'no inherent privacy mechanisms exist' and that identities can be linked. Because these ratings are presented as the demonstration that Bitcoin instantiates the three mechanisms, the conclusion in §5 ('this work demonstrates...') is not supported as written. The authors should either provide an operationalized scoring scheme with explicit criteria and independent raters, or reframe the paper as a conceptual and interpretive application of the framework rather than a demonstration.
  2. [§3.2; §4; Table 1 (Voting row)] The 'Voting' rating of Medium is the linchpin of the Digital Democracy mechanism, but the paper's own evidence undercuts it. Hashpower voting weights influence by hashrate, and UASF/URSF delegate decisive power to the 'economic majority'—exchanges, payment processors, and large holders. The paper concedes in §4 that 'how to vote and who the deciding parties are in Bitcoin is not clearly defined' and that a major actor such as BlackRock could unilaterally determine the fork outcome. The framework requires 'fair voting,' which is never defined; absent a definition, a 'Medium' rating is an assertion. If Voting is not instantiated, the Digital Democracy mechanism is not instantiated and the central claim collapses. Please define 'fair voting' with reference to Bitcoin's mechanisms, justify the rating against that definition, or soften the conclusion accordingly.
  3. [§3.2; §3.3; Table 1] Two other Table 1 ratings sit in tension with the text. 'Autonomy' is rated High, but §3.2 states that Bitcoin Core developers have a veto right over code integration. 'Feedback' is rated High partly on the basis of the bitcoin price and Ethereum price stagnation, which are external market signals rather than organizational feedback mechanisms of the sort the framework describes. These inconsistencies do not necessarily refute the classification, but they show that the Table 1 ratings are not derived from the qualitative analysis in a traceable way. Each rating should be tied to the described evidence with explicit reasoning, and the paper should address the tension between the Core-developer veto and the High Autonomy rating.
  4. [§2.1; Appendix A] The quantitative literature analysis is a second contribution, but it rests on unvalidated LLM outputs. The paper reports ChatGPT classifications of whether authors consider 'Bitcoin is a DAO' and sentiment scores without releasing the underlying dataset, the prompt outputs, or any validation such as human agreement or error analysis. Since only ScienceDirect is used, and the discussion in §2.1 about 'bias' in papers that view Bitcoin as a DAO depends on these scores, the analysis should be treated as exploratory. Please provide reproducibility materials, a human-validation subsample, or explicitly label this part as preliminary evidence supporting the motivation rather than a measured result.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.1, Figure 1] The caption and legend mix 'Bitcoin in Abstract', 'Bitcoin in Introduction', etc.; it should be clarified whether these percentages are computed over all DAO papers or only over the subset of papers that mention Bitcoin.
  2. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typos and grammatical errors, including 'newtork', 'identieis', 'chaning', 'accomplishment', and 'no formal processes exist are in place'; these should be corrected in a thorough language edit.
  3. [Table 1] The column headers abbreviate principle names as 'Openess', 'Transp.', 'Delib.', etc.; the full names should be spelled out or a legend should be provided.
  4. [References] Reference [25] is listed as 'under submission' with the placeholder author name 'Name, A.'; this cannot be verified and should be updated or removed.
  5. [Appendix A] The ChatGPT prompt contains formatting artifacts and two consecutive items labeled '3'; the prompt should be cleaned and versioned so that the analysis is reproducible.
  6. [§4.1] The sentence 'Bitcoin seems to fulfill this differentiated view on the boundaries' is too compressed; the preceding discussion of Ostrom's commons boundaries is brief, and the connection to Table 1's Openness rating should be expanded or removed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The central DAO classification rests on the authors' own DAO viability framework and their self-assigned Table 1 ratings, but it also draws on independent earlier classifications, so circularity is partial rather than total.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2.2 (DAO viability framework), Table 1, Section 5 (Conclusion)]
    "The DAO viability framework [3] is rooted in Complexity Science and Digital Democracy literature and defines DAOs through three key concepts... This work demonstrates that Bitcoin can be regarded as a decentralized autonomous organization, instantiating the three self-organization mechanisms of the DAO viability framework—adaptation, digital democracy, and collective intelligence (Table 1)—through innovative methods such as decentralized node signaling for voting."

    The criterion used to establish that Bitcoin is a DAO is reference [3], the DAO viability framework, which is prior work by the lead author. The same authors then assign the Table 1 ratings (e.g., Voting: Medium, Autonomy: High) that are presented as instantiating the framework. The paper's central conclusion thus reduces to: the authors apply their own framework, score Bitcoin against it themselves, and conclude that Bitcoin satisfies it. No measurement protocol, inter-rater check, or external validation is provided for the scores, so the self-citation is load-bearing: if the framework or the ratings are questioned, the demonstration lacks an independent evidentiary base. However, earlier external classifications of Bitcoin as a DAO (Buterin 2013; Hsieh et al.

full rationale

The literature-analysis portion of the paper is self-contained and not circular: it counts DAO papers, measures Bitcoin mentions, and uses ChatGPT with a fixed prompt to classify sentiment. The main circularity concern is the classification step. The paper defines DAO status through the DAO viability framework of reference [3], authored by the lead author, and then the same authors rate Bitcoin against that framework in Table 1. The ratings are asserted without a protocol, thresholds, or inter-rater reliability, so the conclusion 'Bitcoin instantiates the three self-organization mechanisms of the DAO viability framework' is substantially a self-referential application of an unvalidated instrument. This is tempered by the paper's reliance on external, earlier identifications of Bitcoin as a DAO or decentralized corporation, and by the fact that the mechanisms it discusses (BIPs, miner signaling, forks) are observable and well documented. Thus the central claim is not forced by construction or by definition, but it does lean on the authors' own framework and self-assigned scores. Score 4 reflects that the self-citation is real and load-bearing while independent content remains.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on one hand-assigned set of qualitative scores (Table 1) and four domain assumptions about the validity of the framework, Bitcoin governance facts, and ChatGPT reliability. It introduces no new entities. This assumption load indicates the paper contributes an interpretive mapping rather than a measured result.

free parameters (1)
  • Table 1 principle accomplishment ratings = Qualitative: High, Medium-High, Medium
    The central classification conclusion depends on these author-chosen ratings across the eight viability principles; no measurement or inter-rater procedure is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The DAO viability framework's three mechanisms and eight principles are a valid basis for classifying an organization as a DAO.
    The framework is from the authors' own prior work (ref. [3]) and is applied here as an analytical test without independent validation.
  • domain assumption The Table 1 accomplishment ratings (High, Medium-High, Medium) accurately reflect Bitcoin's mechanisms.
    No measurement protocol, scoring rubric, or external validation is provided; the ratings are asserted as descriptions.
  • domain assumption Bitcoin core developers hold a veto right over protocol changes.
    This empirical governance fact is taken from reference [11], a non-academic report, and is not independently verified in this paper.
  • domain assumption ChatGPT responses reliably identify whether papers classify Bitcoin as a DAO and their sentiment toward Bitcoin.
    The paper reports no validation against human labels, no inter-rater reliability, and no error bars for the ChatGPT-based classification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bitcoin, a DAO?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QYCLXPEL

@misc{pith2026250420838,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bitcoin, a DAO?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QYCLXPEL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20838}
}
read the original abstract

This paper investigates whether Bitcoin can be regarded as a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), what insights it may offer for the broader DAO ecosystem, and how Bitcoin governance can be improved. First, a quantitative literature analysis reveals that Bitcoin is increasingly overlooked in DAO research, even though early works often classified it as a DAO. Next, the paper applies a DAO viability framework - centering on collective intelligence, digital democracy, and adaptation - to examine Bitcoin's organizational and governance mechanisms. Findings suggest that Bitcoin instantitates key DAO principles by enabling open participation, and employing decentralized decision-making through Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs), miner signaling, and user-activated soft forks. However, this governance carries potential risks, including reduced clarity on who truly 'votes' due to the concentration of economic power among large stakeholders. The paper concludes by highlighting opportunities to refine Bitcoin's deliberation process and reflecting on broader implications for DAO design, such as the absence of a legal entity. In doing so, it underscores Bitcoin's continued relevance as an archetype for decentralized governance, offering important findings for future DAO implementations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20838 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Total numbers of DAO papers published (bar chart), the proportion of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Proportion of academic papers discussing Bitcoin, and within that subset, the proportion considering Bitcoin as a DAO. Right: Average sentiment toward the statement ”Bitcoin has great potential” across papers discussing Bitcoin, comparing those that explicitly consider Bitcoin as a DAO (Bitcoin == DAO) and those that do not (Bitcoin == False). Figure 2b presents the average sentiment of authors toward the stat… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    under submission (2025) 16 Ballandies et al

    Name, A.: A conceptual framework on decentralized autonomous organizations. under submission (2025) 16 Ballandies et al

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Computer 36(1), 41–50 (2003)

    The vision of autonomic computing. Computer 36(1), 41–50 (2003)

    work page 2003

  3. [2]

    IEEE Access 10, 74111– 74130 (2022)

    Ballandies, M.C.: To incentivize or not: Impact of blockchain-based cryptoeco- nomic tokens on human information sharing behavior. IEEE Access 10, 74111– 74130 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01823 (2024)

    Ballandies, M.C., Carpentras, D., Pournaras, E.: Daos of collective intelligence? unraveling the complexity of blockchain governance in decentralized autonomous organizations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01823 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    Cluster com- puting 25(3), 1817–1838 (2022)

    Ballandies, M.C., Dapp, M.M., Pournaras, E.: Decrypting distributed ledger de- sign—taxonomy, classification and blockchain community evaluation. Cluster com- puting 25(3), 1817–1838 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    In: 2023 IEEE 9th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT)

    Ballandies, M.C., Wang, H., Law, A.C.C., Yang, J.C., G¨ osken, C., Andrew, M.: A taxonomy for blockchain-based decentralized physical infrastructure networks (depin). In: 2023 IEEE 9th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT). pp. 1–6. IEEE (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Boomer: A newcomer’s perspective on toxic bitcoin maximalism (2022), https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/ what-toxic-bitcoin-maximalism-means-to-onlookers

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Buterin, V.: Bootstrapping a decentralized autonomous cor- poration: Part i (2013), https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/ bootstrapping-a-decentralized-autonomous-corporation-part-i-1379644274 Bitcoin, a DAO? 15

    work page 2013

Show all 36 references
  1. [8]

    limo/general/2021/08/16/voting3.html

    Buterin, V.: Moving beyond coin voting governance (2021), https://vitalik.eth. limo/general/2021/08/16/voting3.html

    2021

  2. [9]

    Buterin, V.: In defense of bitcoin maximalism (2022), https://vitalik.eth.limo/ general/2022/04/01/maximalist.html

    2022

  3. [10]

    Coalition of Automated Legal Applications (2021)

    Choi, C., De Filippi, P., Dudley, R., Elrifai, S.N., Fannizadeh, F., Guillaume, F., Leiter, A., Mannan, M., McMullen, G., Riva, S., et al.: Model law for decentral- ized autonomous organizations (daos). Coalition of Automated Legal Applications (2021)

    2021

  4. [11]

    Crypto Fish, R., Lee, S., Alden, L.: Analyzing bitcoin consensus: Risks in protocol upgrades (2024), https://bitcoinnews.ch/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/bcap v1.0. pdf

    2024

  5. [12]

    Springer Nature (2021)

    Dapp, M.M., Helbing, D., Klauser, S.: Finance 4.0-Towards a Socio-Ecological Finance System: A Participatory Framework to Promote Sustainability. Springer Nature (2021)

    2021

  6. [13]

    Journal of Internet Services and Applications 12, 1–20 (2021)

    Faqir-Rhazoui, Y., Arroyo, J., Hassan, S.: A comparative analysis of the platforms for decentralized autonomous organizations in the ethereum blockchain. Journal of Internet Services and Applications 12, 1–20 (2021)

    2021

  7. [14]

    Idioma 6, 147–160 (1994)

    Frey, B.S., Bohnet, I.: The swiss experience with referenda and federalism. Idioma 6, 147–160 (1994)

    1994

  8. [15]

    Internet Policy Review 10(2) (2021)

    Hassan, S., De Filippi, P.: Decentralized autonomous organization. Internet Policy Review 10(2) (2021)

    2021

  9. [16]

    Journal of Computational Science 71, 102061 (2023)

    Helbing, D., Mahajan, S., Fricker, R.H., Musso, A., Hausladen, C.I., Carissimo, C., Carpentras, D., Stockinger, E., Sanchez-Vaquerizo, J.A., Yang, J.C., et al.: Democracy by design: Perspectives for digitally assisted, participatory upgrades of society. Journal of Computationa...

    2023

  10. [17]

    The encyclo- pedia of life support systems 5(3), 253–280 (2001)

    Heylighen, F., et al.: The science of self-organization and adaptivity. The encyclo- pedia of life support systems 5(3), 253–280 (2001)

    2001

  11. [18]

    Journal of Systems and Software 117, 245–257 (2016)

    Hoda, R., Murugesan, L.K.: Multi-level agile project management challenges: A self-organizing team perspective. Journal of Systems and Software 117, 245–257 (2016)

    2016

  12. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering-Volume

    Hoda, R., Noble, J., Marshall, S.: Organizing self-organizing teams. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering-Volume

  13. [20]

    Journal of Organization Design 7(1), 1–16 (2018)

    Hsieh, Y.Y., Vergne, J.P., Anderson, P., Lakhani, K., Reitzig, M.: Bitcoin and the rise of decentralized autonomous organizations. Journal of Organization Design 7(1), 1–16 (2018)

    2018

  14. [21]

    Project Leadership and Society 5, 100132 (2024)

    Hunhevicz, J.J., Hall, D.M., Brasey, P.A., Bonanomi, M.M., Fischer, M.: Decen- tralized project delivery on the crypto commons: Conceptualization, governance mechanisms, and future research directions. Project Leadership and Society 5, 100132 (2024)

    2024

  15. [22]

    social bitcoin

    Kleineberg, K.K., Helbing, D.: A “social bitcoin” could sustain a democratic digital world. In: Finance 4.0-Towards a Socio-Ecological Finance System: A Participatory Framework to Promote Sustainability, pp. 39–51. Springer International Publishing Cham (2021)

    2021

  16. [23]

    Laloux, F.: Reinventing organizations, vol. 58. Nelson Parker Brussels (2014)

    2014

  17. [24]

    In: Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, Optimization, and Data Science

    Majumdar, S., Pournaras, E.: Consensus-based participatory budgeting for le- gitimacy: Decision support via multi-agent reinforcement learning. In: Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, Optimization, and Data Science. pp. 1–14. Springer (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Cambridge university press (1990)

    Ostrom, E.: Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge university press (1990)

    1990

  19. [27]

    Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 145, 160–175 (2020)

    Pournaras, E.: Proof of witness presence: Blockchain consensus for augmented democracy in smart cities. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 145, 160–175 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Puranam, P., Alexy, O., Reitzig, M.: What’s “new” about new forms of organizing? Academy of management Review 39(2), 162–180 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Information Polity 24(4), 397–417 (2019)

    Rikken, O., Janssen, M., Kwee, Z.: Governance challenges of blockchain and de- centralized autonomous organizations. Information Polity 24(4), 397–417 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Tech- nological Forecasting and Social Change 182, 121806 (2022)

    Santana, C., Albareda, L.: Blockchain and the emergence of decentralized au- tonomous organizations (daos): An integrative model and research agenda. Tech- nological Forecasting and Social Change 182, 121806 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Project Leadership and Society 4, 100102 (2023)

    Spychiger, F., Lustenberger, M., Martignoni, J., Sch¨ adler, L., Lehner, P.: Orga- nizing projects with blockchain through a decentralized autonomous organization. Project Leadership and Society 4, 100102 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04345 (2023)

    Welling, T., Heravan, F.B., Sharma, A., Gelauff, L., Haenggli, R., Pournaras, E.: Fair and inclusive participatory budgeting: Voter experience with cumulative and quadratic voting interfaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04345 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Wright, A.J.: The rise of decentralized autonomous organizations: Opportunities and challenges (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Central European Management Journal 27(4), 124–141 (2019)

    Wyrzykowska, B.: Teal organizations: Literature reviewand future research direc- tions. Central European Management Journal 27(4), 124–141 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05017 (2025)

    Yang, J.C., Bachmann, F.: Bridging voting and deliberation with algorithms: Field insights from vtaiwan and kultur komitee. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05017 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03501 (2023)

    Yang, J.C., Hausladen, C.I., Peters, D., Pournaras, E., Fricker, R.H., Helbing, D.: Designing digital voting systems for citizens: Achieving fairness and legitimacy in digital participatory budgeting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03501 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.