Reference : DeFi, Not So Decentralized: The Measured Distribution of Voting Rights |
Scientific congresses, symposiums and conference proceedings : Paper published in a book | |||
Law, criminology & political science : Multidisciplinary, general & others Social & behavioral sciences, psychology : Library & information sciences Engineering, computing & technology : Multidisciplinary, general & others | |||
http://hdl.handle.net/10993/48726 | |||
DeFi, Not So Decentralized: The Measured Distribution of Voting Rights | |
English | |
Barbereau, Tom Josua ![]() | |
Smethurst, Reilly ![]() | |
Papageorgiou, Orestis ![]() | |
Rieger, Alexander ![]() | |
Fridgen, Gilbert ![]() | |
Jan-2022 | |
Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2022 | |
10 | |
Yes | |
International | |
978-0-9981331-5-7 | |
55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences | |
from 03-01-22 to 07-01-22 | |
University of Hawaii | |
Maui, Hawaii | |
USA | |
[en] decentralized finance ; cryptocurrency ; blockchain governance ; decentralized autonomous organization ; financial regulation | |
[en] Bitcoin and Ethereum are frequently promoted as decentralized, but developers and academics question their actual decentralization. This motivates further experiments with public permissionless blockchains to achieve decentralization along technical, economic, and political lines. The distribution of tokenized voting rights aims for political decentralization. Tokenized voting rights achieved notoriety within the nascent field of decentralized finance (DeFi) in 2020. As an alternative to centralized crypto-asset exchanges and lending platforms (owned by companies like Coinbase and Celsius), DeFi developers typically create non-custodial projects that are not majority-owned or managed by legal entities. Holders of tokenized voting rights can instead govern DeFi projects. To scrutinize DeFi’s distributed governance strategies, we conducted a multiple-case study of non-custodial, Ethereum-based DeFi projects: Uniswap, Maker, SushiSwap, Yearn Finance, and UMA. Our findings are novel and surprising: quantitative evaluations of DeFi’s distributed governance strategies reveal a failure to achieve political decentralization. | |
Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SnT) > Other | |
Fonds National de la Recherche - FnR | |
Researchers ; Professionals ; General public | |
http://hdl.handle.net/10993/48726 | |
http://hdl.handle.net/10125/80074 | |
FnR ; FNR13342933 > Gilbert Fridgen > DFS > Paypal-fnr Pearl Chair In Digital Financial Services > 01/01/2020 > 31/12/2024 > 2019 |
File(s) associated to this reference | ||||||||||||||
Fulltext file(s):
| ||||||||||||||
All documents in ORBilu are protected by a user license.