×
Well done. You've clicked the tower. This would actually achieve something if you had logged in first. Use the key for that. The name takes you home. This is where all the applicables sit. And you can't apply any changes to my site unless you are logged in.

Our policy is best summarized as "we don't care about _you_, we care about _them_", no emails, so no forgetting your password. You have no rights. It's like you don't even exist. If you publish material, I reserve the right to remove it, or use it myself.

Don't impersonate. Don't name someone involuntarily. You can lose everything if you cross the line, and no, I won't cancel your automatic payments first, so you'll have to do it the hard way. See how serious this sounds? That's how serious you're meant to take these.

×
Register


Required. 150 characters or fewer. Letters, digits and @/./+/-/_ only.
  • Your password can’t be too similar to your other personal information.
  • Your password must contain at least 8 characters.
  • Your password can’t be a commonly used password.
  • Your password can’t be entirely numeric.
Enter the same password as before, for verification.
Login

Grow A Dic
Define A Word
Make Space
Set Task
Mark Post
Apply Votestyle
Create Votes
(From: saved spaces)
Exclude Votes
Apply Dic
Exclude Dic

Understanding Blockchain Governance: Analyzing Decentralized Voting to Amend DeFi Smart Contracts

Click here to flash read.

arXiv:2305.17655v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Smart contracts are contractual agreements between participants of a blockchain, who cannot implicitly trust one another. They are software programs that run on top of a blockchain, and we may need to change them from time to time (e.g., to fix bugs or address new use cases). Governance protocols define the means for amending or changing these smart contracts without any centralized authority. They distribute the decision-making power to every user of the smart contract: Users vote on accepting or rejecting every change.
In this work, we review and characterize decentralized governance in practice, using Compound and Uniswap -- two widely used governance protocols -- as a case study. We reveal a high concentration of voting power in both Compound and Uniswap: 10 voters hold together 57.86% and 44.72% of the voting power, respectively. Although proposals to change or amend the protocol receive, on average, a substantial number of votes (i.e., 89.39%) in favor within the Compound protocol, they require fewer than three voters to obtain 50% or more votes. We show that voting on Compound proposals can be unfairly expensive for small token holders, and we discover voting coalitions that can further marginalize these users.

Click here to read this post out
ID: 817347; Unique Viewers: 0
Unique Voters: 0
Total Votes: 0
Votes:
Latest Change: April 23, 2024, 7:32 a.m. Changes:
/u/anonymous
Dictionaries:
Words:
Spaces:
Views: 10
CC:
No creative common's license
Comments: