Disrupting governance with Blockchains and smart contracts
Abstract
Abstract Blockchain as an engine for auto‐enforceable smart contracts could disrupt traditional governance structures by reducing bureaucracy through lower transaction costs, solving principal–agent issues, and subsequent moral hazard. While machine consensus can radically reduce transaction costs and disrupt traditional governance structures, there is a gap between initial conceptualizations of blockchains and their first instantiations. First use cases show that as circumstances change, protocols can become inappropriate for the new environment and require modification. Modification of blockchain code happens through majority consensus, but reaching consensus in a distributed multi‐stakeholder network with sometimes unaligned interests is complex, potentially introducing new agency issues.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Trust between counterparties transacting over the Internet's TCP/IP network infrastructure was not initially assured.
“while the Internet facilitated organizational innovation (Shermin, 2017, p.501), trust between counterparties transacting over its TCP/IP network infrastructure was not initially assured.”
From Governance and control in distributed ledgers: Understanding the challenges facing blockchain technology in financial services (2019) · cites this paper as Shermin, 2017
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 238
- Authors
- Shermin, V.
- Affiliations
- BlockchainHub Berlin Germany
- Venue
- Strategic Change
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-09
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 499-509
- ISSN
- 1086-1718 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1697
- OpenAlex
- W2759849223
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 14
- FWCI
- 43.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Strategic Change (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Digital Transformation in Law
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology in Education and Learning
- Keywords
- blockchain, smart contracts, governance, principal-agent problem, moral hazard, transaction costs, consensus algorithms, multi-stakeholder networks
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
