Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

The Hidden Shortcomings of (D)AOs -- An Empirical Study of On-Chain Governance

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 2302.12125 v2 pith:RLCHF2ID submitted 2023-02-23 cs.CY cs.CR

The Hidden Shortcomings of (D)AOs -- An Empirical Study of On-Chain Governance

Rainer Feichtinger , Robin Fritsch , Yann Vonlanthen , Roger Wattenhofer This is my paper
classification cs.CY cs.CR
keywords governancedaoson-chainactivitydecentralizedhiddenhighprotocols
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are a recent innovation in organizational structures, which are already widely used in the blockchain ecosystem. We empirically study the on-chain governance systems of 21 DAOs and open source the live dataset. The DAOs we study are of various size and activity, and govern a wide range of protocols and services, such as decentralized exchanges, lending protocols, infrastructure projects and common goods funding. Our analysis unveils a high concentration of voting rights, a significant hidden monetary costs of on-chain governance systems, as well as a remarkably high amount of pointless governance activity.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

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

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    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.