Examining the Relationship between Coalition Voting and Knowledge Contribution in Decentralized Autonomous Organizations

Abstract

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) leverage blockchain technology to facilitate community governance and incentivize users to contribute more to the community through a fair distribution of rewards. However, the emergence of coalition voting–where groups of users collaborate to secure higher token rewards or other advantages–poses a double-edged sword. On one hand, coalition voting can compromise the fairness and integrity of the voting process. On the other hand, it may enhance user interactions, promote deeper collaboration, and facilitate the exchange of information, potentially leading to increased knowledge contributions within the community. This dual nature creates ambiguity regarding the overall impact of coalition voting on knowledge sharing in DAOs. Utilizing data from Steemit, this study employs complex network analysis and Panel Vector Autoregression (PVAR) models to investigate the interplay between coalition voting and user knowledge contributions. Theoretically, this research advances the knowledge management literature by highlighting the nuanced role of coalition voting in fostering user engagement despite its governance-related drawbacks. Practically, it offers valuable insights for DAO communities in developing effective monitoring systems and governance strategies that harmonize incentive structures with equitable community participation.

Keywords

Knowledge contribution / token incentives / coalition voting / blockchain

References

[1] AnuarS H H, TaminN, IbrahimN. Comparison between Louvain and Leiden algorithm for network structure: A review. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2021, 21291012040

[2] Arnold HarveyJ. Introduction to the practice of statistics. Introduction to the Practice of Statistics, 1990347348

[3] BaymN KTune in, Logon: Soaps, Fandom, and Online Oommunity, 20003

[4] BleiD M, NgA Y, JordanM I. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2003, 3: 993-1022

[5] BockG-W, ZmudR W, KimY-G, LeeJ-N. Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 200587111

[6] BohW F, EvaristoR, OuderkirkA. Balancing breadth and depth of expertise for innovation: A 3M story. Research Policy, 2014, 43(2): 349-366

[7] BurkeM, MarlowC, LentoT. Social network activity and social well-being. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in ComputingSystems, 201019091912

[8] CamilleriM A, KozakM. Interactive engagement through travel and tourism social media groups: A social facilitation theory perspective. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 2022, 42: 88-96

[9] CampbellK E, MarsdenP V, HurlbertJ S. Social resources and socioeconomic status. Social Networks, 1986, 8(1): 97-117

[10] ChaiS, KimM. A socio-technical approach to knowledge contribution behavior: An empirical investigation of social networking sites users. International Journal of Information Management, 2012, 32(2): 118-126

[11] ChenC-J, HungS-W. To give or to receive? Factors influencing members knowledge sharing and community promotion in professional virtual communities. Information & Management, 2010, 47(4): 226-236

[12] ChenL, BairdA, StraubD. Why do participants continue to contribute? Evaluation of usefulness voting and commenting motivational affordances within an online knowledge community. Decision Support Systems, 2019, 118: 21-32

[13] De MeoP, FerraraE, FiumaraG, ProvettiA. Generalized louvain method for community detection in large networks. 2011 11th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications, 20118893

[14] FengM, FengY, LiY. Online reviews, customer Q&As, and product sales: A PVAR approach. Plos One, 2023, 1811e0290674

[15] FengN, et al.. Online media coverage, consumer engagement and movie sales: A PVAR approach. Decision Support Systems, 2020, 131113267

[16] FisherR A. Statistical methods for research workers. Breakthroughs in Statistics: Methodology and Distribution, 19706670

[17] FreyB S, Oberholzer-GeeF. The cost of price incentives: An empirical analysis of motivation crowdingout. American Economic Review, 1997, 87(4): 746-755

[18] GneezyU, MeierS, Rey-BielP. When and why incentives (dont) work to modify behavior. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2011, 25(4): 191-210

[19] GranovetterM. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 1973, 78: 1360-1380

[20] GuanT, WangL, JinJ, et al.. Knowledge contribution behavior in online Q&A communities: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 2018, 81: 137-147

[21] HardinG. The tragedy of the commons. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 2009, 1(3): 243-253

[22] HeW, WeiK-K. What drives continued knowledge sharing? An investigation of knowledge-contribution and-seeking beliefs. Decision Support Systems, 2009, 46(4): 826-838

[23] HsuM-H, JuT L, YenC-H, ChangC-M. Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2007, 65(2): 153-169

[24] JabrF. How social interactions in communities promote users’ continuous contributions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2014, 10(3): 123-135

[25] Jang S, Newman G, Meyer M, Van Zandt S (2024). Social capital theory and quantitative approaches in measurements: Disaster literature focus. Natural Hazards Review 25(3).

[26] JinJ, LiY, ZhongX, ZhaiL. Why users contribute knowledge to online communities: An empirical study of an online social Q&A community. Information & Management, 2015, 52(7): 840-849

[27] KangM, RheeJ, KangD, LeeJ. Understanding users continuance intention towards smartphone augmented reality applications. Information Development, 2017, 33(2): 116-132

[28] Kiayias A, Livshits B, Mosteiro A M, Litos O S T (2018). A puff of steem: Security analysis of decentralized content curation. arXiv Preprint arXiv1810.01719.

[29] KnobenJ. Radical changes in inter-organizational network structures: The longitudinal gap. Firm Mobility and Organizational Networks, 20082946

[30] LevinD Z, CrossR. The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 2004, 50(11): 1477-1490

[31] LiC, PalanisamyB. Incentivized blockchain-based social media platforms: A case study of steemit. Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science, 2019145154

[32] LiC, ZhangL, LiL, YangL. Steemops: Extracting and analyzing key operations in Steemit blockchain-based social media platform. Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy, 2021114

[33] LiaoJ, DongX, GuoY. Examining knowledge contribution in firm-versus consumer-hosted virtual brand community. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 2020, 41100963

[34] LoveI, ZicchinoL. Financial development and dynamic investment behavior: Evidence from panel VAR. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 2006, 46(2): 190-210

[35] MooreD S, GeorgeP MIntroduction to the Practice of Statistics, 1989

[36] PanY, XuY, WangX, ZhangC, LingH, LinJ. Integrating social networking support for dyadic knowledge exchange: A study in a virtual community of practice. Information & Management, 2015, 52(1): 61-70

[37] RandD G, ArbesmanS, ChristakisN A. Dynamic social networks promote cooperation in experiments with humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2011, 108(48): 19193-19198

[38] Ranjbar-Sahraei B, Ammar H B, Bloembergen D, Tuyls K, Weiss G (2014). Theory of cooperation in complex social networks. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 28(1).

[39] RochaH O, GhoshalS. Beyond self-interest revisited. Journal of Management Studies, 2006, 43(3): 585-619

[40] ScottN, LarimerDSteem: An incentivized, blockchain-based, public content platform, 2017

[41] Sun X, Chen X, Stasinakis C, Sermpinis G (2022). Voter coalitions and democracy in decentralized finance: Evidence from MakerDAO. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11203.

[42] SwansonE, KimS, LeeS. The effect of leader competencies on knowledge sharing and job performance: Social capital theory. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 2020, 42: 88-96

[43] TangH, NiJ, ZhangY. Identification and evolutionary analysis of user collusion behavior in blockchain online social media. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 2022, 11(1): 522-530

[44] TsoukalasG, FalkB H. Token-weighted crowdsourcing. Management Science, 2020, 66(9): 3843-3859

[45] WangX, WuL, HittLM. Social media alleviates venture capital funding inequality for women and less connected entrepreneurs. Management Science, 2024, 70(2): 1093-1112

[46] WangY, FesenmaierD R. Towards understanding members general participation in and active contribution to an online travel community. Tourism Management, 2004, 25(6): 709-722

[47] WaskoM, FarajS. Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 20053557

[48] YunE. Review of trends in physics education research using topic modeling. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 2020, 19(3): 388-400

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Systems Engineering Society of China and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany