Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Analyzing Voting Power in Decentralized Governance: Who controls DAOs?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

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 2204.01176 v1 pith:WUTDC3LF submitted 2022-04-03 cs.CY cs.CRcs.GT

Robin Fritsch , Marino Müller , Roger Wattenhofer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.CRcs.GT
keywords governancevotingpowersystemsanalyzeanalyzingblockchaincompound
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

We empirically study the state of three prominent DAO governance systems on the Ethereum blockchain: Compound, Uniswap and ENS. In particular, we examine how the voting power is distributed in these systems. Using a comprehensive dataset of all governance token holders, delegates, proposals and votes, we analyze who holds the voting rights and how they are used to influence governance decisions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Voting Biases in Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) Governance

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Author-selected Snapshot choices show a 58.8 pp higher voting-power share than non-author choices, exceeding approval (27.1 pp) and first-list (7.7 pp) associations.

  2. Concentration in Governance Control Across Decentralised Finance Protocols

    cs.CE 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A statistically validated network of shared DeFi governance token holdings reveals persistent, institution-dominated links between protocols.

  3. Enhancing Decentralization in Blockchain Decision-Making Through Quadratic Voting and Its Generalization

    cs.GT 2025-04 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    The authors prove that square-root and power-law stake weighting reduce Gini-measured voting inequality, though the claimed strict improvement in the Nakamoto coefficient is false in general.

  4. Decentralization in PoS Blockchain Consensus: Quantification and Advancement

    cs.DC 2025-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Square-root and logarithmic stake-weighting functions raise decentralization metrics by about 51% and 132% respectively across ten PoS blockchains, but the claims depend on an unresolved Sybil-cost assumption.

Pith tools