跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+0已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-09 07:12 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-08 06:02各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-08 07:20 — 2026-11-09 07:20(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-09 07:12最近发现新增版本:2026-11-08 06:02库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,057 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-09 07:10(北京时间)
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2607.09435

Voting Biases in Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) Governance

Stefano Balietti, Pietro Saggese, Markus Strohmaier

原文摘要

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) replace formal managerial authority with collective decision-making, by handing both proposal rights and token-weighted votes directly to community members. Yet, as in corporate votes, where management sets the agenda and its proposals rarely fail, DAO votes are strikingly one-sided. Using 127 281 proposals and about 51 million votes cast on Snapshot, the leading off-chain DAO voting platform, between 2020 and 2023, we ask which features of the ballot are associated with this support. We relate each choice's voting-power share to three observable features: its position in the list, whether its stance expresses approval, and whether the proposal author selected it. Each identifies one voting bias: position bias, approval bias, and author-selected choice bias. Author-selected choices show the strongest and most robust association, receiving a voting-power share 58.8 percentage points higher than non-author-selected ones, compared with 27.1 percentage points for approving choices and 7.7 percentage points for first-listed ones. About one third of the author bias comes from the author's own voting power; that advantage is smaller in the largest protocols and in proposals with higher participation. The results are robust across alternative specifications and outcomes. Our findings suggest that the agenda power that management holds in corporate voting persists even without a formal hierarchy, and that ballot design and the visibility of proposers' preferences are governance choices rather than neutral implementation details.

cs.CY · cs.HC · econ.GN