Now the Code Runs Itself: On-Chain and Off-Chain Governance of Blockchain Technologies

Reijers, Wessel; Wuisman, Iris; Mannan, Morshed; Filippi, Primavera De; Wray, Christopher; Rae-Looi, Vienna; Vélez, Ángela Cubillos; Orgad, Liav

doi:10.1007/s11245-018-9626-5

Cited by 88 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The histories and ideas of governance forming through blockchain technology are particularly powerful for discussing the relevance of dissensus as a concept, because blockchain so explicitly came to be understood as a technology for resolving dissensus and settling differences by technical means-initially as a functional necessity of ensuring coherence in Bitcoin transactions, but then also expanded as an ideology to many other realms (Atzori 2017;Reijers et al, 2018). Blockchain emerged out of a longer history of peer-to-peer technologies with the promise of disintermediating digital payment networks and applications.…”

Section: Dissensus and The Evolutions Of Governance Ideas And Ideologies In Blockchainmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Dissensus Protocol: Governing Differences in Online Peer Communities

Brekke

Beecroft²,

Pick³

2021

Front. Hum. Dyn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer-to-peer networks and protocols have inspired new ideas and ideologies about governance, with the aim of using technology to enable horizontal and decentralized decision-making at scale. This article introduces the concept of “dissensus” from political theory to debates about peer governance in online communities. Dissensus describes the emergence of incompatible differences. Among peer-to-peer technologies, blockchain stands out as a set of ideas that explicitly seek to resolve dissensus through consensus protocols. In this article, we propose dissensus as a “protocol” for foregrounding the often sidelined yet productive aspects of incompatible differences. The concept highlights that there might not always be consensus about a consensus algorithm, and that indeed, dissensus is the precondition for new possibilities and perspectives to emerge. We discuss the concept in relation to the histories of governance ideas in blockchain, namely, a “materialist,” “design,” and “emergent” approach. We then describe moments of dissensus in practice through two cases of online communities, Genesis DAO and Ouishare, discussing their different ways of recognizing and navigating dissensus. Finally, we give a critical overview of consensus algorithms, voting, staking, and forking as the mechanisms that make out blockchain governance ideologies. In conclusion, we argue that dissensus can serve as a useful concept for pointing attention to governance as it is conducted in practice, as historically and culturally specific practices, rather than as a problem to be solved through supposedly universal mechanisms.

show abstract

Section: Dissensus and The Evolutions Of Governance Ideas And Ideologies In Blockchainmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2017, 134). This was most evident in the much discussed Bitcoin scaling conflict and the Ethereum DAO hack between 2016 and 17 (DuPont, 2018;Reijers et al, 2018;Azouvi et al, 2019). The DAO was an attempt at creating a venture fund organization, governed entirely by code.…”

Section: Materialist Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

The Dissensus Protocol: Governing Differences in Online Peer Communities

Brekke

Beecroft²,

Pick³

2021

Front. Hum. Dyn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In its ideal form, blockchain can resemble a liberal notion of a positivist legal order. In times of crises, as the DAO hack certainly represents, governance structures resorting to off-chain solutions might more closely resemble political governance outside of the legal order that the blockchain itself represents (Reijers et al, 2018). However, the off-chain solution is also a governance structure that is based on the design of the blockchain and thus represents a meta-governance structure.…”

Section: Mode 3-decentralized Network Governance and Blockchain Technmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decentralized Network Governance: Blockchain Technology and the Future of Regulation

Zwitter

Hazenberg

2020

Front. Blockchain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advancements in the digital domain, for example, in blockchain technology, big data, and machine learning, are increasingly shaping the lives of individuals, groups, organizations, and societies. These developments call for effective governance to protect the basic interests and needs of these actors. Simultaneously, the very nature of governance is also changing. Policy-making is increasingly moving away from top-down governance by the state toward more horizontal modes of governance. This paper reviews the literature on governance theory in order to conceptualize governance as a mode of decentralized, networked regulation. We argue that the current dominant modes of governance are inadequate in understanding governance in the digital domain and are poorly equipped to conceptualize novel forms of governance such as decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). Therefore, this study proposes a new mode of governance based on the regulation of new power relationships between the state and actors in the digital domain. This model further explores the role that blockchain technology can play in what we term decentralized network governance.

show abstract

“…Decentralizers would do well to consider past lessons of such accountable cen-tralization. For instance, rather than viewing technologies such as blockchains as a rude departure from all preceding political theory, they should enter into a conversation with legacies such as the separation of powers, theories of sovereignty, and antitrust law to glean strategies for employing appropriate centralization to protect decentralized activities (e.g., Reijers et al, 2018). The difference in kind between the politics of the past and of the imagined future may be smaller than some assume.…”

Section: Postredecentralization: Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decentralization: an incomplete ambition

Schneider

2019

Journal of Cultural Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decentralization is a term widely used in a variety of contexts, particularly in political science and discourses surrounding the Internet. It is popular today among advocates of blockchain technology. While frequently employed as if it were a technical term, decentralization more reliably appears to operate as a rhetorical strategy that directs attention toward some aspects of a proposed social order and away from others. It is called for far more than it is theorized or consistently defined. This non-specificity has served to draw diverse participants into common political and technological projects. Yet even the most apparently decentralized systems have shown the capacity to produce economically and structurally centralized outcomes. The rhetoric of decentralization thus obscures other aspects of the reordering it claims to describe. It steers attention from where concentrations of power are operating, deferring worthwhile debate about how such power should operate. For decentralization to be a reliable concept in formulating future social arrangements and related technologies, it should come with high standards of specificity. It also cannot substitute for anticipating centralization with appropriate mechanisms of accountability.

show abstract

Now the Code Runs Itself: On-Chain and Off-Chain Governance of Blockchain Technologies

Cited by 88 publications

References 16 publications

The Dissensus Protocol: Governing Differences in Online Peer Communities

The Dissensus Protocol: Governing Differences in Online Peer Communities

Decentralized Network Governance: Blockchain Technology and the Future of Regulation

Decentralization: an incomplete ambition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About