IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jorgde/v13y2024i4d10.1007_s41469-024-00173-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

All DAOs are not the same: distinguishing DAOs across various layers

Author

Listed:
  • Ying-Ying Hsieh

    (Imperial College London)

Abstract

Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) represent a new form of organizing, offering novel solutions to the problems of decentralized coordination and control of transactions. Leveraging the power of blockchain technology, DAOs facilitate large-scale production and exchange activities without the need for a centralized authority. The DAO architecture consists of two layers: the Layer 1 (L1) infrastructure at the core and the outer layers such as Layer 2 (L2) and Layer 3 (L3) applications at the periphery. The L1 infrastructure establishes the design principles of the DAO, while the outer layer applications provide myriad possible use cases to end users. Building on the idea of layers, I discuss Dr Jirásek’s (J Org Des. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41469-023-00146-w2023 , 2023) case of Klima DAO, an outer layer L3 DAO that is both enabled and constrained by its underlying L1 base layer and L2 DAO infrastructure. It is crucial to distinguish between DAO layers to fully explore the broader implications, including the opportunities and challenges, of applying outer layer DAO designs.

Suggested Citation

  • Ying-Ying Hsieh, 2024. "All DAOs are not the same: distinguishing DAOs across various layers," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 13(4), pages 213-216, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jorgde:v:13:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s41469-024-00173-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s41469-024-00173-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41469-024-00173-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41469-024-00173-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yee, Andy, 2014. "Internet architecture and the layers principle: a conceptual framework for regulating Bitcoin," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 3(3), pages 1-9.
    2. Ying‐Ying Hsieh & Jean‐Philippe Vergne, 2023. "The future of the web? The coordination and early‐stage growth of decentralized platforms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 829-857, March.
    3. Øystein D. Fjeldstad & Charles C. Snow & Raymond E. Miles & Christopher Lettl, 2012. "The architecture of collaboration," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 734-750, June.
    4. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Kim B. Clark, 2000. "Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262024667, December.
    5. Ying-Ying Hsieh & Jean-Philippe Vergne & Philip Anderson & Karim Lakhani & Markus Reitzig, 2018. "Bitcoin and the rise of decentralized autonomous organizations," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Tobias Kretschmer & Aija Leiponen & Melissa Schilling & Gurneeta Vasudeva, 2022. "Platform ecosystems as meta‐organizations: Implications for platform strategies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 405-424, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jacobides, Michael G. & Cennamo, Carmelo & Gawer, Annabelle, 2024. "Externalities and complementarities in platforms and ecosystems: From structural solutions to endogenous failures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    2. Baldwin, Carliss Y. & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Kapoor, Rahul & West, Joel, 2024. "Focusing the ecosystem lens on innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    3. Eucman Lee & Ekin Ilseven & Phanish Puranam, 2023. "Scaling nonhierarchically: A theory of conflict‐free organizational growth with limited hierarchical growth," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(12), pages 3042-3064, December.
    4. Santana, Carlos & Albareda, Laura, 2022. "Blockchain and the emergence of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs): An integrative model and research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    5. Hou, Hong & Shi, Yongjiang, 2021. "Ecosystem-as-structure and ecosystem-as-coevolution: A constructive examination," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    6. Manning, Stephan & Reinecke, Juliane, 2016. "A modular governance architecture in-the-making: How transnational standard-setters govern sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 618-633.
    7. Zhu, Weijun & Xie, Jiaping & Xia, Yu & Wei, Lihong & Liang, Ling, 2023. "Getting more third-party participants on board: Optimal pricing and investment decisions in competitive platform ecosystems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(1), pages 177-192.
    8. Oliver Alexy & Joel West & Helge Klapper & Markus Reitzig, 2018. "Surrendering control to gain advantage: Reconciling openness and the resource‐based view of the firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1704-1727, June.
    9. Jan Frederic Nerbel & Markus Kreutzer, 2023. "Digital platform ecosystems in flux: From proprietary digital platforms to wide-spanning ecosystems," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-20, December.
    10. Filippo Carlo Wezel & Gino Cattani & Johannes M. Pennings, 2006. "Competitive Implications of Interfirm Mobility," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(6), pages 691-709, December.
    11. Srivardhini K. Jha & E. Richard Gold & Laurette Dubé, 2021. "Modular Interorganizational Network Governance: A Conceptual Framework for Addressing Complex Social Problems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-21, September.
    12. Singh, Anuraag & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2021. "Technological improvement rate predictions for all technologies: Use of patent data and an extended domain description," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    13. Seppo Kuula & Harri Haapasalo & Arto Tolonen, 2018. "Cost-efficient co-creation of knowledge intensive business services," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 12(4), pages 779-808, December.
    14. Changbyung Yoon & Keeeun Lee & Byungun Yoon & Omar Toulan, 2017. "Typology and Success Factors of Collaboration for Sustainable Growth in the IT Service Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-20, November.
    15. Gambardella, Alfonso & Conti, Raffaele & Novelli, Elena, 2018. "Specializing in Generality: Firm Strategies When Intermediate Markets Work," CEPR Discussion Papers 12782, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Morgan Dwyer & Bruce Cameron & Zoe Szajnfarber, 2015. "A Framework for Studying Cost Growth on Complex Acquisition Programs," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 568-583, November.
    17. Fei Li & Jin Chen & Ying Ying, 2019. "Innovation Search Scope, Technological Complexity, and Environmental Turbulence: A N-K Simulation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-12, August.
    18. Bruce Fallick & Charles A. Fleischman & James B. Rebitzer, 2006. "Job-Hopping in Silicon Valley: Some Evidence Concerning the Microfoundations of a High-Technology Cluster," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(3), pages 472-481, August.
    19. Markus Menz & Sven Kunisch & Julian Birkinshaw & David J. Collis & Nicolai J. Foss & Robert E. Hoskisson & John E. Prescott, 2021. "Corporate Strategy and the Theory of the Firm in the Digital Age," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(7), pages 1695-1720, November.
    20. Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier & Jong Seok Lee & Mark Keil & Daniel Lunn & Dirk W. Bester, 2022. "The Empirical Reality of IT Project Cost Overruns: Discovering A Power-Law Distribution," Papers 2210.01573, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jorgde:v:13:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s41469-024-00173-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.