CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 390

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations: Concept, Model, and Applications

Wang, Shuai, Ding, Wenwen, Li, Juanjuan, Yuan, Yong, Ouyang, Liwei, Wang, Fei-Yue·2019·IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems
DOI 10.1109/tcss.2019.2938190
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Decentralized autonomy is a long-standing research topic in information sciences and social sciences. The self-organization phenomenon in natural ecosystems, the Cyber Movement Organizations (CMOs) on the Internet, and the Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI), and so on, can all be regarded as its early manifestations. In recent years, the rapid development of blockchain technology has spawned the emergence of the so-called Decentralized Autonomous Organization [DAO, sometimes labeled as Decentralized Autonomous Corporation (DAC)], which is a new organization form that the management and operational rules are typically encoded on blockchain in the form of smart contracts, and can autonomously operate without centralized control or third-party intervention. DAO is expected to overturn the traditional hierarchical management model and significantly reduce organizations’ costs on communication, management, and collaboration. However, DAO still faces many challenges, such as security and privacy issue, unclear legal status, and so on. In this article, we strive to present a systematic introduction of DAO, including its concept and characteristics, research framework, typical implementations, challenges, and future trends. Especially, a novel reference model for DAO which employs a five-layer architecture is proposed. This article is aimed at providing helpful guidance and reference for future research efforts.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tcss.2019.2938190

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Decentralization can democratize access to scientific knowledge and resources, but often faces resistance from traditional systems entrenched in hierarchical governance and centralized funding.

    “Recent literature highlights both the promise and complexity of decentralization in science, emphasizing that decentralization can democratize access to scientific knowledge and resources, but often faces resistance from traditional systems entrenched in hierarchical governance and centralized funding (Wang et al., 2019).”

    From Exploring the decentralized science ecosystem: insights on organizational structures, technologies, and funding (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2019

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. 10.1109/TCSS.2018.2861423 · DOI
  2. 10.1109/IVS.2018.8500403 · DOI
  3. 10.1109/TCSS.2018.2878921 · DOI
  4. 10.1145/3054977.3055003 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1109/TCSS.2018.2813320 · DOI
  6. 10.1109/TCSS.2017.2777602 · DOI
  7. 10.1109/BigDataCongress.2017.85 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1109/TCSS.2016.2631473 · DOI
  9. 10.1109/TCSS.2017.2759188 · DOI
  10. bashir, 2018, Mastering Blockchain
  11. 10.1109/TCSS.2018.2878852 · DOI
  12. 10.1109/ICSA.2017.33 · DOI
  13. 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2905015 · DOI
  14. 10.1109/TCSS.2018.2881344 · DOI
  15. 10.1109/TSMC.2018.2854904 · DOI
  16. larimer, 2019, Overpaying for Security
  17. iansiti, 2017, The truth about blockchain, Harvard Bus Rev, 95, 118
  18. 10.1109/TCSS.2016.2596041 · DOI
  19. 10.1109/TCSS.2018.2861775 · DOI
  20. 10.1109/TSMC.2019.2895123 · DOI
  21. 2019, What is DAO?
  22. 10.1109/TCSS.2019.2918874 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/j.trit.2016.11.005 · DOI
  24. 10.1109/TCSS.2018.2797598 · DOI
  25. 10.1109/MC.2010.216 · DOI
  26. 10.3182/20140824-6-ZA-1003.01402 · DOI
  27. 10.1109/TCSS.2018.2890655 · DOI
  28. howe, 2006, The rise of crowdsourcing, Wired Mag, 14, 1
  29. 10.1109/TCSS.2017.2768325 · DOI
  30. rauff, 1999, Multi-Agent Systems An Introduction to Distributed Artificial Intelligence
  31. georgeff, 1998, The belief-desire-intention model of agency, Proc Fifth Int l Workshop Agent Theories Architectures and Language, 1
  32. ostrom, 1993, Institutional incentives and sustainable development infrastructure policies in perspective
  33. 10.1257/aer.100.3.641 · DOI · Paper page
  34. powell, 1990, Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization, Res Org Behav, 12, 295
  35. 10.1109/TCSS.2018.2797225 · DOI
  36. 10.1098/rspb.2009.1244 · DOI
  37. 10.1073/pnas.1619573114 · DOI
  38. 10.1109/TCSS.2018.2855047 · DOI
  39. 10.1109/TCSS.2017.2780270 · DOI
  40. 10.1109/TEVC.2007.896686 · DOI
  41. 10.1109/TCSS.2018.2832379 · DOI
  42. aragón, 2016, When a movement becomes a party: Computational assessment of new forms of political organization in social media, Proc of Intl AAAI Conf on Web and Social Media, 12
  43. 10.1007/978-3-662-53357-4_6 · DOI
  44. 10.1109/TCSS.2018.2861224 · DOI
  45. 10.1145/2993600.2993611 · DOI
  46. 2019, Aragon Whitepaper
  47. 10.1109/TCSS.2017.2782008 · DOI
  48. siegel, 2019, Understanding the dao attack

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wang, S., Ding, W., Li, J., Yuan, Y., Ouyang, L., & Wang, F.-Y.
ORCID
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
2019-10
Volume
6
Issue
5
Pages
870-878
ISSN
  • 2329-924X
  • 2373-7476
DOI
10.1109/tcss.2019.2938190
Cited by
390
References
2
Licence
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (61533019, 71702182)

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