Unraveling the Status Quo of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations
Resumo
Research Context: Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAO) emerge as innovative structures operating on blockchain infrastructures, providing transparency, decentralization, and autonomy in digital governance and coordination processes. Scientific and/or Practical Problem: Despite their transformative potential, DAO face significant obstacles, such as scalability limitations, risks of power concentration, legal ambiguities, and complex incentive models. Proposed Solution and/or Analysis: This study investigates recent scientific literature on DAO, seeking to understand their current state, focusing on how they have been conceptualized, characterized, evaluated, and applied. Related IS Theory: The research draws on the wisdom of crowd theory, which explains how collective decision-making can overcome individual choices, and sociotechnical theory, which emphasizes the interaction between technological infrastructures and social structures. Together, these perspectives frame DAO as hybrid systems that integrate algorithmic processes with collective human governance. Research Method: A systematic mapping study was conducted, encompassing the collection, selection, and coding of 47 primary studies published in relevant scientific sources. Summary of Results: The results highlight the conceptual consensus on the decentralized and smart contract-based nature of DAO, propose categories of structural challenges, and map recurring application domains, such as decentralized finance (DeFi), open science, energy, and digital art. Furthermore, the results demonstrate the transition of DAO from algorithmic entities to sociotechnical hybrids, connected to emerging trends such as the metaverse, NFTs, and decentralized artificial intelligence. Contributions and Impact to IS area: This study provides an updated theoretical foundation for the IS area, mapping the state of the art of DAO, identifying structural challenges, and emphasizing their evolution toward hybrid models. Most importantly, it reveals the complexity and originality of uniting the three main pillars of information systems (code, governance, and automated processes), thus contributing to the design of more resilient, inclusive, and sustainable digital governance systems in emerging decentralized ecosystems.
Referências
Arroyo, J., Davó, D., Martínez-Vicente, E., Faqir-Rhazoui, Y. e Hassan, S. (2022). Dao-analyzer: Exploring activity and participation in blockchain organizations. In Companion Publication of the 2022 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, pages 193–196.
Basili, V. R. e Rombach, H. D. (2002). The tame project: Towards improvement-oriented software environments. IEEE Transactions on software engineering, 14(6):758–773.
Bonnet, S. e Teuteberg, F. (2024). Decentralized autonomous organizations: a systematic literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 21(04):2450026.
Boscarioli, C., de Araujo, R. M. e Maciel, R. S. P. (2017). I grandsi-br grand research challenges in information systems in brazil 2016-2026.
Buterin, V. et al. (2013). Ethereum white paper. GitHub repository, 1(22-23):5–7.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. sage.
Chueri, L. d. O. V. e Santos, R. P. (2019). Caracterização e gerenciamento de ecossistemas digitais de inovação social. In Simpósio Brasileiro de Sistemas de Informação (SBSI), pages 69–74. SBC.
Clegg, C. W. (2000). Sociotechnical principles for system design. Applied Ergonomics, 31(5):463–477.
Corbin, J. M. e Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13(1):3–21.
Dyba, T., Dingsoyr, T. e Hanssen, G. K. (2007). Applying systematic reviews to diverse study types: An experience report. In First international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement (ESEM 2007), pages 225–234. IEEE.
Frey, V. e Van de Rijt, A. (2021). Social influence undermines the wisdom of the crowd in sequential decision making. Management science, 67(7):4273–4286.
Hassan, S. e De Filippi, P. (2021). Decentralized autonomous organization.
Kitchenham, B., Charters, S. et al. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system.
Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S. e Mattsson, M. (2008). Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In 12th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering (EASE). BCS Learning & Development.
Santana, C. e Albareda, L. (2022). Blockchain and the emergence of decentralized autonomous organizations (daos): An integrative model and research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 182:121806.
Saurabh, K., Rani, N. e Upadhyay, P. (2022). Towards blockchain led decentralized autonomous organization (dao) business model innovations. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 30(2):475–502.
Sharma, T., Potter, Y., Pongmala, K., Wang, H., Miller, A., Song, D. e Wang, Y. (2024). Unpacking how decentralized autonomous organizations (daos) work in practice. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), pages 416–424. IEEE.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations. The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations. Doubleday & Co, New York, NY, US.
Szabo, N. (1996). Smart contracts: building blocks for digital markets. EXTROPY: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought,(16), 18(2):28.
Wegner, D., Zuquetto, R. D. e Grisi, F. C. (2024). Decentralized autonomous organizations (daos): field of research and avenues for future studies. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review, 21:e230183.
