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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. 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.
    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. Patrick Nicolas Tinguely & Yash Raj Shrestha, 2024. "NFT-enabled organization design: prospects, promises and hurdles," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 13(1), pages 23-31, March.
    4. Hou, Hong & Shi, Yongjiang, 2021. "Ecosystem-as-structure and ecosystem-as-coevolution: A constructive examination," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    5. Oliver Baumann & Gerald F. Davis & Sven Kunisch & Jiao Luo & Brian Wu, 2023. "Organizing for good—using organization design to take on grand challenges," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 12(4), pages 165-176, December.
    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. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Katherine Tatarinov & Tina C. Ambos, 2025. "Technology-enabled organization designs for tackling the grand challenges: the case of Giga," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 14(1), pages 35-41, March.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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).
    13. Weking, Jörg & Desouza, Kevin C. & Fielt, Erwin & Kowalkiewicz, Marek, 2023. "Metaverse-enabled entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).
    14. Filippo Carlo Wezel & Gino Cattani & Johannes M. Pennings, 2006. "Competitive Implications of Interfirm Mobility," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(6), pages 691-709, December.
    15. 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.
    16. Ehrenhard, Michel & Kijl, Bjorn & Nieuwenhuis, Lambert, 2014. "Market adoption barriers of multi-stakeholder technology: Smart homes for the aging population," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 306-315.
    17. Vivianna Fang He & Phanish Puranam, 2023. "Some challenges for the “new DAOism”: a comment on Klima DAO," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 12(4), pages 293-295, December.
    18. Yuchen Zhang & Wei Yang, 2022. "Breakthrough invention and problem complexity: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2510-2544, December.
    19. Tian Heong Chan & Shi-Ying Lim, 2023. "The Emergence of Novel Product Uses: An Investigation of Exaptations in IKEA Hacks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(5), pages 2870-2892, May.
    20. 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).

    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.