Blockchain Papers

Óscar De los Reyes-Marín, Iria Paz Gil, José Torres-Pruñonosa, Raúl Gómez-Martínez

Urban inequality and the financialization of housing call for a reconsideration of centralized municipal finance. This study introduces Decentralized Behavioral Finance (DBF), a framework integrating behavioral economics, blockchain infrastructures, and participatory governance to realign individual incentives with collective urban outcomes. Grounded in Sen's capability approach, Nash equilibrium theory, and libertarian paternalism, DBF links tokenization and behavioral design to accessibility, capital efficiency, and cooperative stability. Using longitudinal data for Spain (2000–2024) and evidence from tokenized housing initiatives, the analysis shows that citizen participation and technological adoption are positively associated with governance stability and social housing outcomes, while capital concentration exhibits a negative relationship with stability. The paper advances a formal Cooperative Stability Condition, expressed as a structural inequality, under which decentralized governance remains stable when participation amplified by technological enforcement outweighs concentration pressures. By introducing a testable equilibrium condition rather than a descriptive governance model, the study offers an internationally transferable framework for participatory urban finance focused on transparency, inclusion, and institutional resilience. • Introduces a formal Cooperative Stability Condition for urban governance • Integrates behavioral economics and blockchain in municipal finance • Shows participation × technology offsets capital concentration • Provides longitudinal evidence (Spain, 2000–2024) • Proposes a transferable equilibrium framework for cities

Francesca Carapella, Edward J. Dumas, Jacob Gerszten, Nathan Swem · 5 authors

No abstract is available for this record.

Andrew Ifesinachi Daraojimba, Damodar Bihani, Grace Omotunde Osho, Julius Olatunde Omisola · 6 authors

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) represent a transformative innovation in financial governance, enabling community-owned and transparently operated structures through blockchain technology. This paper presents a conceptual model for integrating DAOs into the banking and financial services sector to promote equitable, trustless, and decentralized financial systems. Traditional banking frameworks often rely on centralized authorities, opaque governance, and profit-driven agendas that marginalize underserved populations. By contrast, DAOs offer a paradigm where smart contracts execute predefined rules without intermediaries, allowing stakeholders to participate directly in decision-making processes. The proposed model outlines a framework for community-owned banking, emphasizing the use of token-based governance, peer-to-peer lending mechanisms, automated interest rate adjustments, and decentralized reserve management. This system fosters financial inclusion by allowing unbanked and underbanked populations to access financial services through open and transparent digital platforms. Moreover, DAO-based financial governance ensures real-time auditability, accountability, and resistance to single points of failure—addressing critical vulnerabilities in conventional financial institutions. Through the conceptualization of a DAO-led Community Bank (DAO-CB), the paper demonstrates how decentralized finance (DeFi) primitives such as liquidity pools, stablecoins, and collateralized lending can be integrated with democratic governance models to create robust, community-led economic ecosystems. Legal, technical, and regulatory considerations are examined, with a focus on scalability, compliance, and user adoption challenges. The study argues that while DAO banking may not yet replace centralized financial institutions, it serves as a powerful complementary system, especially in regions with limited banking infrastructure or high levels of financial distrust. The research contributes to the growing discourse on decentralized finance and its real-world applications, offering insights into how DAOs can redefine ownership, control, and transparency in the financial sector. The conceptual model provides a foundation for future empirical studies and prototype development, encouraging stakeholders, developers, and policymakers to collaborate on building decentralized, equitable, and resilient financial ecosystems.

Nina-Birte Schirrmacher, Johannes Rude Jensen, Michel Avital, Omri Ross

Accountability is crucial for the success of organized social enterprises. In centralized organizations, hierarchical structures clearly define accountability. However, in decentralized organizations, which rely on technology for collaboration, accountability can be ambiguous because, in many cases, these organizations lack centralized planning, have no formally-identified leadership, and allow members to leave without obvious consequences. This study examines how decentralized organizations, specifically decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), enact accountability. We conducted a theory-building study using digital data from a DAO to explore the enacted accountability mechanisms. The findings revealed two main approaches. First, iterative public governance forums provide “soft” accountability, fostering answerability over time. Second, these forums often lead to “hard” accountability, where binary voting via digital tokens allows for immediate sanctioning when deemed appropriate by members. These insights advance knowledge on accountability in decentralized organizations, which constitute a fast-growing sector of technology-dependent work environments.

Matthieu Debief

In 2000, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation tackled an issue concerning the American education system: unsatisfactory high school graduation rates and college entry rates, especially in urban school districts (Ravitch, 2011). Between 2000 and 2008, this foundation donated more than $2 billion to 2600 schools across 45 US states. Bill and Melinda Gates's aim was clearly spelled out: they saw the K−121 education system as “obsolete”2 and in need of drastic reforms (Ravitch, 2011). The Gates Foundation's leaders observed that some schools in the United States could host up to 4000 or 5000 pupils, leading to the neglect of a portion of students who needed extra attention. Based on contemporary research and already-existing movements in civil society,3 they concluded that smaller schools were the key to students’ success. In a context of public budget cuts, not many school boards could refuse a multimillion-dollar philanthropic donation. Hence, the Gates Foundation started to distribute money all over the United States, tying its gifts to conditions that would promote an effectiveness-based conception of education. At first, schools were asked to restructure and split themselves into independent units of no more than 400 students. Later, performance-based pay for teachers and national-standards tests, serving as effectiveness yardsticks, became mandatory for funding. Although this system benefited some schools, it created more problems than it solved in the great majority of cases. For example, the fragmentation of large schools into small autonomous units increased conflict and competition for resources and deprived students of a significant range of activities that were only provided in larger institutions. Praised in the beginning, the Gates program was sharply criticized in 2005 when the first evaluations came out. In 2008, the foundation's directors recognized the bad start of their program and mostly put the blame on the lack of receptivity of the schools they helped or on teachers’ lack of competence. A few months later, the foundation decided to all but shut the program down. In a democracy, there are good reasons to believe that the making of collectively binding decisions about such public goods as school infrastructures, education programs, and teachers’ salary should be carried out by citizens or people who speak in their name. However, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's case shows a sense in which some people or organizations, by virtue of their private resources, have an additional and sometimes larger say on such questions. This raises the question whether the logics of democracy and philanthropy are compatible. The question is more pressing because philanthropic donations are generally tax subsidized, representing therefore a redirection of public money (Pevnick, 2013) toward aims likely to advance donors’ personal interests. Political philosophers have debated the role that philanthropy should have in liberal democratic states. On the one hand, a good amount of work argues that philanthropy should not assume a role in distributive justice, as private and voluntary redistribution of basic goods is too unreliable (Beerbohm, 2016), might affect egalitarian values (Cordelli, 2012), reinforces power asymmetries (Lechterman, 2021), and constitutes a paternalistic type of assistance (Saunders-Hastings, 2022). On the other hand, philanthropy may help promote social innovations (Reich, 2018), foster a vibrant cultural life (Pevnick, 2013), serve as a means for intergenerational justice (Cordelli & Reich, 2016), uphold public institutional action (Ceva, 2021), or supplement the provision of goods unrequired by justice (Lechterman, 2021). All in all, philanthropic actions have been praised for allowing a variety of interests to be included in collective decision-making while being criticized for the unequal manner by which it includes them (Saunders-Hastings, 2022). While many political philosophers have thus discussed the normative question of why philanthropy might or might not be desirable in a democracy, few have paused to address the prior and more fundamental analytical question of what, if anything, makes philanthropy inherently specific in such a way that it may raise issues of compatibility with democracy. I argue in this paper that, although philanthropy and democracy aim at the same goal, they instantiate two distinct forms of political authority. Political authority is the morally and legally legitimate power of an individual or institution to give direction to public In a democratic such a of is carried out by collectively binding I while democratic people to binding decisions philanthropic them to give direction to public decisions and actions on their on this basic I argue that philanthropic donations may be of and when they they a specific of authority that that the democratic of authority. This paper in the I start with a of democracy as a of authority I a of it be of as an authority I an of of the philanthropy and democracy I of philanthropy as an by the of first & and of The aim of this work is Hence, when I to a the democratic and philanthropic logics of I not one the as is the case in political analytical and work may serve to normative For example, that the analytical that philanthropy and democracy are decision-making which the normative question of a should that the would for or the of the in In this while in the paper is the I normative of the role of philanthropy in a democracy. This paper into philanthropy a of social and political democracy. a of I when I to a the democratic and philanthropic logics of I the I on and paper and the of which a of democracy. and the basic of the of democracy. not reasons why should democracy over other of political they themselves with democracy. aim is to making democratic decisions and decisions For and democracy is a social and political means that democratic are by a of that instantiate actions and that only means that who in the democratic are specific in the of normative power and in a way that is to this of & 2021). of the specific by democratic is that of of collectively binding decisions & 2021). the authority to decisions or by and decisions citizens to a specific of and and this authority other of decision-making power as or is the of that the of the democratic In and are democratic authority is & 2021). to the democratic authority is means that the democratic and the decisions that is by all that this is makes citizens of the and (Beerbohm, This for example, with the power of a who that people but not democratic are & 2021). The of to the of an that the reasons that is the that action is as in an because of the specific type of that are this are a who this of they are the specific the for example, that I an this specific type of and with a the to for a that by a to give at the of the I have the to and be the only to the to give The of democracy citizens in their of power in the same all democratic citizens are they are This means that, for example, when citizens on a it them the authority to collectively the of a and it citizens to the of the decided because of them a and a toward the by virtue of their in the democratic citizens the and of and This and to that democratic a a collective of in that and no other as the on their and the democratic authority is by all while the of for action and I a of democratic authority to and it the This an authority its I to the resources that the authority in the making of collectively binding is to about the of an authority as a In a democracy, citizens may only of one specific type of This which is at the of all democratic is the democratic citizens the democratic decision-making they are as the basic of a system: they are at the same and are because of their all are in the sense that they are the same amount of a a they no more authority than of their only have the democratic decision-making not prior or the democratic not have this type of authority over is this of authority by virtue of For example, it is not that a of in of a for other people in the to to the its binding on a only if carried out a institutional it is democratic when this other as they are in and I the of democracy in when I their of I that, I the of that the of this work been I with a of This to the conception of philanthropy as a social and political of philanthropy not such as and the action or context of For and this is because philanthropy is a and is because it is of being by that of its and in while its is by the the as as the competition that the normative of philanthropy of the many of philanthropy it as a voluntary of private resources but goods or for public and for which the not in the sense may or of other to voluntary may be by or as as by (Saunders-Hastings, philanthropy be as the voluntary of private for public as a social and political that is by and (Lechterman, 2021). this philanthropy private to have a say in is of public this I of philanthropic it only be by private or it be by the or its A philanthropic but it give money or goods in a philanthropic that, a to an money to their this the to extra the be that the people by this benefited the this money a with democratic they have a to which a for action by the This philanthropy actions by public such as as in this case the to resources public While be and of only private and philanthropic to be as an action aim at public For I this as a public many However, not be as to the way that a is to with the means to pay for a the way that are to all of a as as and would to In this or private would to their gifts one makes to one of or or donations to of which one is a The of is that philanthropic aims at the means that it should be to donations to research which may a of would as philanthropic this of may be in the context it is that philanthropy should an philanthropy be as not being be as philanthropy because the its power to citizens to pay they and they are to pay & philanthropy is with the of private money is the first type of that to when one about philanthropic it is being the only and may all be donated as While philanthropy is by the amount of money that such as 2021), is the of institutions. be provided on a large and may a of but their are not In philanthropy be of as a social and political as being only by private at a public being and being with the of private it is to a is that the philanthropy the for of This to the conception of philanthropy as a of or for the good of in or of a more (Saunders-Hastings, as as with they are However, I to argue that the as as are not to a political of have their reasons for in a they it because they it is morally because their are too to the that they are good or to is is that whether the is for or not the of power one when authority philanthropic In the case of the Gates it been that its to promote and in schools (Ravitch, 2011). all, it is that philanthropy not only but may be an of private political or (Reich, However, this of philanthropy should not be as in liberal The all, a conception of education that was by many other US citizens at that as citizens the are to for their conception of education. the by this case the way this specific conception of education was to the it is one to a for in the education and to democratic by and the political of a education because one the resources to as Bill and Melinda Gates the reasons one may have to the of authority that it the that the of philanthropy as a is that philanthropy and democracy to some public are to give direction to actions that may advance social justice, foster a vibrant cultural basic and democratic of a or Hence, philanthropy and democracy be as and decision-making for public way to the competition is that democratic in may of resources, and a may have to be public and private of goods and A the one I in the of philanthropy and democracy for the making of collectively binding For many the of philanthropy is that it to a of power that resources (Beerbohm, & Reich, & Reich, Reich, that of them argue that philanthropy is at in democratic decisions in be collectively and For philanthropy and in public life and over public and the to (Saunders-Hastings, to in a as they and of political for philanthropy is a of private power with have in a of normative However, the issue in the that the not about inherently philanthropy in a way that might raise its compatibility with democracy. is a analytical that the fundamental philanthropy and democracy concerning their in making collectively binding an in this In work and while the that philanthropy democratic in this is I to the philanthropy and democracy by a of the role philanthropy might in a (Pevnick, this by the role of philanthropy in two distinct of democracy and democratic democracy and democratic in fundamental liberal in their of individual and of the role philanthropy should assume democratic as a and justice toward to reasons of and (Pevnick, of democracy thus philanthropy as in and democratic individual citizens as in a a democracy, and justice by liberal While of this democratic might philanthropy it might the of a by argues that democratic should philanthropic for cultural This the to that although philanthropy and democracy may in democratic this not them The of compatibility on the specific type of democracy, such as its conception of or However, while this work the philanthropy and democracy it in a analytical of the This because on normative of democracy. to this issue could a that of democracy, the role philanthropy should in and might a of democracy by a analytical of and of democracy this and is therefore the for of a of philanthropy as an by of this analytical to philanthropy in its to sense of the philanthropic that For a that political might the and of this in the with the the of in more and This is especially they their of which the private foundation is the This is when that philanthropy be or in its (Saunders-Hastings, that while philanthropy generally with democracy, more issues in philanthropic donations to individual While I believe that that when may as many issues as is that of philanthropic action their basic democratic For to the of small and philanthropy is it is only because of the of the of authority that philanthropy In a in which the the more one the more one Bill and Melinda Gates's power is than that of a who to the only at who the power the of the democracy and The fundamental philanthropy and democracy and they give direction to political action and they authority is and in the of the of this authority be that which democratic which is and personal and in which is to the decision-making when one to a school one may power than one who in an this authority is democratic authority. In this although a small not the of of a they the of authority that them to give direction to is of public therefore to the of the in in a way that a democratic way of of analytical in its to two for making collectively binding which in are and for the tax for issue with such is that they to the public and private are by to to to money to specific or philanthropic in such they are to a portion or the of their donations would have been their tax The tax but political generally that are to a tax in to the of social goods and the of life by in its (Reich, it to argue that philanthropy a distinct of private power democratic when by public in democracy. However, tax which philanthropic are they not philanthropy more democratic in of an authority that is and is to the decision-making For an at be as an to or as a of not a of and two as is observed in by if philanthropic are by public they distinct democratic This to a of which is their of a by This their and the as as one of the of democracy, would the the In democracy its democratic only when the type of authority by and an philanthropic authority democratic authority in this I to the that the of philanthropic In the two I a of the of philanthropy and a of democracy as a with a of authority is In this I the of philanthropy as authority and by a of In this by the of the of philanthropy of the of democracy, I argue that the philanthropy and democracy is that they instantiate two logics for the making of collectively binding its authority is its of authority is at the same and and its its is to the of the first philanthropic authority is be as a specific of and as authority that is on a and at in the first one their authority in the of to with or the of who be to the to the Gates Foundation example, Bill and Melinda Gates a of decisions in a way that could have a democratic of For example, all by they the American education system and its aim should be and they would to than that, the foundation conditions that schools in to funding. In this Bill and Melinda Gates their authority. as the have been by not the of their their democratic is that the was in their this would have if the or However, as this paper aims at being I not whether the legitimate in to their provided that the aims were not the or on This is thus I by than being and decisions one individual or a of to This the of democracy, in which no of democratic authority their decisions on as the democratic collective is the are the in and when citizens they not an individual but their portion of normative that only to the in with the same of by other This is not to say that decisions a philanthropic context are For example, as as the Gates Foundation may have that that the decisions are the of an of power all of the Bill and Melinda Gates may have the same decision-making power as the who to the American school as to democratic as they may to the making their authority to that of a or a in the a of private at the making of collectively binding private and promote and in that their conception of about may with good but they However, this is an to as it to private public by for public However, that this good is by the small of who in and not by the public as a The of the of philanthropy is the and of its authority. to an of that is on and that are to normative reasons reasons that give reasons for for to way to it would be to to reasons that are to For example, could that on and that would to this This might and that should not be This is a in the sense that it to to whether to way would be to to reasons to or not For example, could a and to if not to because of is by a that is to it a this case a could to on have an on to In would give a to This is because it as a for In this the of is for action an but the and a of is and and that have a of the of to the philanthropic of authority. is and This authority two forms of and not the because the philanthropic is a type of the be as a to reasons when to for a public they are to reasons that are to reasons many education for people in of the and the or cultural is specific with reasons is that their a of is not to the of to have because are into the democratic this means that Bill and Melinda of authority is to be in their that they not because they were asked to would they decided to the American school system on their of the on their conception of the authority is it an of to who be to making one on their their of public should be money to put a conception of to the school Bill and Melinda Gates reasons for and students to in a The resources they to a of the conditions of in schools by to to and is for with the of for normative reasons that were to the by by the In that democracy means that citizens the authority to other citizens for is to Hence, the philanthropic of decision-making this of as the authority over their and this philanthropy is at the same and as a reasons for action in their reasons and as reasons for that not on their in the help to why of philanthropy such as by tax not philanthropic authority distinct democratic Although philanthropy to could be as a the of their authority and because of their reasons for in the sense that it is not a by is in the sense that the way give direction to public activities are not in a of of authority. This the type of that philanthropy a the to give direction to on the of their reasons for However, authority the of citizens for reasons that are to reasons for as in democratic may be because of their of and they citizens in a way than philanthropy citizens that and public action is for reasons with which they are The and and could be as should public are out of their for or all citizens a collective system on of on the of authority to in of the For example, one system on and one on voluntary donations not the same and social if the is In the first the resources who have benefited more social to who benefited is the that some citizens to In the are to the to their of to the more the of its authority. that by I to the resources that the authority to collectively binding In the case of its in donations the of and This is why philanthropy is generally as a of the of its authority is This makes which to its power social resources such as of and social democracy, philanthropy its prior to and its decision-making for example, is a that and they to in a philanthropic This is in a democracy. that of one citizens have unequal amount of as legitimate the authority resources, philanthropy a of as the of this or some have more of resources than the decisions of philanthropic resources prior to and the decision-making the may be with more than democratic of on or philanthropy might and I two for the a could money and it could resources to that are an of a cultural life and that the should The are not the as the first one would the with more decision-making power over the but the shows the of authority on In on philanthropic resources to public than on the democratic large and small philanthropic clearly in resources action is that the Bill and Melinda foundation of more resources to the American system than a smaller philanthropic However, it should not be that the political authority are more or distinct democratic authority on the they have on or public is democratic as as the of authority by at the same and its is the of resources at direction to public decisions and actions be the of instantiate by such democratic forms of In this I have that philanthropy a specific of authority. authority is allowing the to have a and individual say in public its a of and to reasons that are not to of the of its to the decision-making than being created as in a authority philanthropic is that democratic which is by the of and of of philanthropic authority is in at two it to clearly philanthropy for public decisions and it to democracy. This thus shows should be into when which of decision-making should be for public two logics of authority to it might be to philanthropy in a democracy for or the of by of philanthropy to its inherently political that philanthropy is not it be as a to affect the making of public that it is at the of A manner in which this is significant is that of making sense of the philanthropic that on the of authority that philanthropy to a of forms of philanthropy the to the by the This paper shows that is not and if the of two decision-making may be the or if their action power is the the of the by the an of or such as when philanthropy is tax that by them be by a the of that In this it is not to philanthropy more democratic by it a public or normative concerning philanthropy a democracy. the of philanthropic desirable or in a democratic be specific For the of philanthropy is on its democratic However, the normative reasons or of philanthropy in a democracy not the analytical of the authority is first and reasons for and its is to the collectively binding decision-making it the philanthropic authority and other forms of private might For a a and I to a of philanthropy to a The authority as a could that of decision-making to the and the in personal reasons for and with an on citizens the that philanthropic and activities but their in their public as to However, and actions was the of this I to a of that philanthropy and democracy two distinct forms of authority not inherently or philanthropic actions in public aim in philanthropy is to the of making collectively binding decisions this and its for democracy. is not to argue for or the normative values of as by the political in this on democratic some might the of philanthropy of this the of philanthropy over public might believe that by resources, a range of to the This with of the for philanthropic However, other may that the first and of philanthropy citizens to the of their I have that there is a philanthropy and democracy. as two for the making of collectively binding they instantiate two forms of authority by their of authority is and its citizens are and of philanthropic authority is in the sense of being on the of democratic authority is reasons for action in the they all In philanthropy is and that reasons for action are to themselves while an of in to who be to of authority is created the decision-making philanthropy its authority resources that are to the and This paper on philanthropy and democracy as forms of authority if they aim at the same public analytical of philanthropy of the should be into in normative of the of decision-making to for making collectively binding The of this work to a of forms of philanthropy the to the I to and for their The research for this paper was carried out the of the the of research by the Foundation is a in Political at the of research interests are in the normative political of philanthropy and organizations, with to issues of democracy and

Gailan Ismael Abdullah

The financial sector is going through a major transformation and evolution with the emergence of Decentralized Finance (DeFi). It is a modern concept that is reshaping the traditional financial landscape and thus changing traditional financial structures. This research delves into the term “Decentralized Finance” by exploring its various advantages, associated challenges, and future patterns and trends. Leveraging blockchain technology, DeFi offers new financial services without intermediaries that in turn enhance financial inclusion, autonomy, and economic empowerment of individuals, though this also entails enormous risks and challenges, including vulnerability to smart contract vulnerabilities, regulatory uncertainty, and market volatility. This research also attempts, through a systematic literature review, to identify the most significant opportunities for DeFi, such as democratized access to financial services, lower transaction fees, and increased liquidity. Additionally, this research highlights the key challenges facing the development of DeFi, such as limitations on its ability to handle large transactions, concerns about user data protection, and the need to adhere to regulatory standards. The paper concludes with a view and insights into the future of DeFi, emphasizing the importance of regulatory clarity, technological innovation, and community governance in shaping the trajectory of DeFi. This analysis contributes to gaining a deeper understanding of the potential and capabilities of DeFi, and provides stakeholders with indispensable insights to navigate the dynamics of DeFi.

Janardhana Anjanappa, Shridhar Samant, Barun Kumar Thakur

No abstract is available for this record.

Durba Dutta

DeFi is a new concept that disrupts the conventional finance industry by employing blockchain and decentralized structures. This critical evaluation aims to discuss how DeFi can disrupt the banking system and provide more transparency, efficiency, and inclusion. Based on the literature review of the works of leading scholars and the DeFi platform case analysis, the study reveals that DeFi has certain benefits compared to traditional financial systems, including lower fees for transactions and a more open financial system for the population. Nevertheless, the research also identifies some threats that may impact the adoption of DeFi including regulatory challenges and security threats. The study shows that despite the fact that DeFi is capable of revolutionizing the financial services industry, it will have to coexist with the traditional banking sector and one has to look at the regulatory and security issues. As shown above, there are several problems that deserve more attention and only more research and collaboration between various stakeholders will allow to unleash the full potential of DeFi. This paper helps to enrich the knowledge about DeFi and its role in the new financial paradigm and gives some ideas about the future of financial industry.

Daniel Liebau

No abstract is available for this record.

Wulf A. Kaal

Impact innovation has progressed through three phases: 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. Impact 1.0 introduced carbon credit trading, while Impact 2.0 added participatory grantmaking, impact measurement, and price competitions. Impact 3.0 incorporates Web3 community tools and impact certificate trading. This paper examines the evolution of these phases, focusing on Impact 3.0’s influence on philanthropic practices. Through an analysis of the literature and case studies, Web3 technologies and impact certificate markets are investigated for how these innovations affect transparency and efficiency in social impact initiatives. The information gathered indicates that Impact 3.0 facilitates decentralized impact verification and creates a marketplace aligning stakeholder interests. Consequently, leveraging the features of Web3 technologies can enable philanthropy to scale significantly and provide insights for impact-focused donors aiming to improve outcomes.

Kirti Sood, Vishal Sharma, Rajesh Kumar

The present study aims to map the existing intellectual structure on Decentralized Finance (DeFi) risks.The study utilizes the systematic literature review (SLR) method to identify DeFi risks and the Scopus database to retrieve the pertinent literature.Further, authors select 50 research articles through abstract and title scanning, complete text analysis, and citation chaining to perform content analysis.Using content analysis, the present study identifies 21 DeFi risks segregated into four categories, namely technical, macro-economic, legal and regulatory, and user-centric risks.Additionally, the study provides unique research directions for the future.Hence, the present study contributes to the DeFi literature and has practical implications for DeFi entrepreneurs, individuals, developers, programmers, and policymakers.The study is the first of its kind that consolidates pertinent risks related to DeFi using the SLR method and broadens the knowledge of stakeholders in the DeFi ecosystem.

Raluca Onufreiciuc, Lorena -Elena Stănescu

DeFi, a blockchain-based innovation, eliminates traditional financial intermediaries, offering direct peer-to-peer financial transactions and access to a wide array of financial services including lending, borrowing, insurance, and investment opportunities. This paper delves into how DeFi democratizes access to financial resources, particularly for the underserved and unbanked populations worldwide, by reducing transaction costs, enhancing transparency, and providing secure and equitable access to financial services. Through a citizen-centric lens, this article contributes to the ongoing dialogue on leveraging DeFi for global financial inclusion, suggesting pathways for integrating DeFi into the broader financial ecosystem in a manner that maximizes its inclusivity and benefits for all citizens.

Levon Blue, Congcong Xing, Phạm T.T., Kerry Bodle

ABSTRACT Indigenous peoples often invest in cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) despite limited research in this area. We undertook this research to identify the demographics of Indigenous Australians who own cryptocurrencies and/or NFTs and to understand the challenges and opportunities faced. In this paper, we provide an overview of how alternative finance is reportedly used in Indigenous communities globally. Next, we focus on 62 Indigenous Australians who own cryptocurrencies and/or NFTs and participated in our online survey. We found Indigenous Australians who had university degrees, worked full-time, and owned a home had significantly higher levels of NFT ownership. The reported challenges were mostly related to storage, and the opportunities were connected to the potential for cryptocurrencies and/or NFTs as a long-term investment. Implications from this research include a continued need for financial planners to offer advice in this area, as schools were the last place Indigenous Australians learned about these alternative financial products.

Espen Bjellerås

No abstract is available for this record.

Laura Berardi, Diego Valentinetti

Social impact accounting is a significant issue for social economy organizations (SEOs), such as associations, foundations, social enterprises, social cooperatives, and other nonprofit organizations that aim to be transparent and accountable. The academic accounting literature addresses theoretical and empirical contributions on the methods and tools of measurement, assessment, and reporting of social impact. However, there are few contributions on the emerging topic of the digitalization of the social impact accounting process. Preliminary research analyses consider digital tools such as distributed ledgers including blockchain, big data, artificial intelligence, and the Internet of Things as innovations that allow SEOs to be more accountable and transparent with their social impacts and value created. The increased attention to these technologies opens the way for new and multidisciplinary research questions on this topic.

Qinxu Ding, Weibiao Xu, Zhiguo Wang, David Kuo Chuen Lee

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the different voting schemes used in DAO governance. We will examine the various features of these schemes and compare their differences. We propose a new hypothetical voting mechanism specifically designed for decentralized and permissionless DAO governance. This new scheme, which incorporates incentive designs, is intended to be more efficient than existing schemes and can be easily adapted to a permissioned scenario. Through this examination and proposal, we hope to contribute to the ongoing discourse on how to govern decentralized autonomous organizations effectively.

Rosella Carè, Stella Carè, Rabia Fatima

Abstract As blockchain and DLTs technology makes its presence felt strongly in many industries like finance and banking,<br> this study investigates the business case for the application to social impact bonds (SIBs). Technological innovation in<br> general, and distributed ledger technology (DLT) in particular, could become a game changer in the development of new<br> social impact bonds sector. This paper discusses the potential impact of DLT on SIBs market and the potential scenarios of<br> DLT adoption. Alongside presenting strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis (SWOT), the study exhibits<br> the requirements for and steps toward a SIBs structure facilitated by blockchain technology.

Raphael Auer

The emergence of so-called "decentralized finance" (DeFi) and a shadow financial system of cryptocurrency exchanges and stablecoin issuers raises the challenge of how to apply technology-neutral regulation so that similar risks are subject to the same rules. This paper makes the case for embedded supervision, i.e., a regulatory framework that provides for compliance in decentralized markets to be automatically monitored by reading the market's ledger. This reduces the need for firms to actively collect, verify and deliver data. The paper explores the conditions under which distributed ledger data may be used to monitor compliance. To this end, a decentralized market is modeled that replaces today's intermediary-based verification of legal data with blockchain-enabled credibility based on economic consensus. The key results set out the conditions under which the market's economic consensus would be strong enough to guarantee that transactions are economically final, so that supervisors can trust the distributed ledger's data. The paper concludes with a discussion of the legislative and operational requirements that would promote low-cost supervision and a level playing field for small and large firms.

Eray Arda Akartuna, Shane D. Johnson, Amy Thornton

No abstract is available for this record.

Joe Moran

You are a humanities scholar and you are worried. You fear that the humanities are increasingly seen as irrelevant, unnecessary and quaint. You may even have begun to internalise this view. In the face of intractable contemporary problems – global pandemics, economic crisis and a climate emergency – how can your work seem like anything other than an indulgence? You hear the constant, ambient noise of public and political hostility aimed at what you do. In January 2020 the prime minister’s chief adviser, Dominic Cummings (a humanities graduate, like the prime minister), wrote a long blog post calling for ‘weirdos and misfits with odd skills’ to apply for new jobs at No. 10 Downing Street. He made it clear that he was looking for data scientists, software developers, economists and policy experts, not ‘Oxbridge English graduates who chat about Lacan at dinner parties with TV producers’.11 Dominic Cummings, ‘Two Hands are a Lot’, at https://dominiccummings.com/2020/01/02/two-hands-are-a-lot-were-hiring-data-scientists-project-managers-policy-experts-assorted-weirdos/ (2 January 2020, accessed 1 May 2020). Later that month the University of Sunderland announced that it would be shutting down its history, languages and politics courses, and replacing them with more ‘career-focused and professions-facing’ alternatives. In February the University of Portsmouth revealed plans to make more than half its English department redundant, citing the declining number of applications in this subject. In June 2020 the Australian education minister, Dan Tehan, announced that his government wanted to double student fees for courses in the arts and humanities while cutting them for nursing, agriculture, maths, science and information technology. The aim was ‘to power our post-Covid economic recovery’ by sending out a ‘price signal’ to encourage people to study in areas of growth.22 ‘Job-Ready Graduates to Power Economic Recovery’, at https://ministers.dese.gov.au/tehan/job-ready-graduates-power-economic-recovery (accessed 25 June 2020). The UK government made similar noises about pricing mechanisms and ending funding for humanities courses considered poor value for money. In August 2020 the A-level marking controversy, and the subsequent scramble for university places, inspired much media comment about the glut of worthless degrees in second-rate institutions, again focusing on humanities subjects. ‘The universities are churning out far more graduates than our society requires,’ wrote one columnist, ‘particularly in subjects like the creative arts and communications that have little relevance to the workplace.’33 Leo McKinstry, ‘We Must End This Absurd Obsession to Gain a Degree’, Daily Express, 20 August 2020. See also Emma Duncan, ‘Many Degrees are a Waste of Time and Money’, The Times, 15 August 2020. The current right-wing critique of universities as indoctrination camps where students are ‘factory-farmed to have the same boring and malevolent views’ has focused its ire on humanities subjects.44 Douglas Murray, ‘Our Universities Have Become Indoctrination Camps’, Sunday Telegraph, 16 August 2020. No wonder that, after reading these signs and portents, you feel beleaguered and dispirited. You crave some encouragement and cheer, and a reminder of why you first fell in love with the texts you spend your life examining. You need a story that will convince others, and yourself, of the worth of your work. You may take heart from the knowledge that, while this particular crisis is new, the issues are old. ‘The humanities are at the cross-roads, at a crisis in their existence,’ the historian J.H. Plumb wrote in the introduction to his Pelican edited collection, Crisis in the Humanities, in 1964. ‘They must either change the image that they present, adapt themselves to the needs of a society dominated by science and technology, or retreat into social triviality.’55 J.H. Plumb, ‘Introduction’, in Plumb (ed.), Crisis in the Humanities (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1964), 8. This permanent crisis of identity and legitimacy in the humanities arises partly out of definitional fuzziness. The humanities have often been defined against something else – and against which they can be found wanting. In the Renaissance the studia humanitatis were the secular subjects, such as rhetoric, philosophy and ancient Greek and Latin, and thus the opposite of the highest form of study, divinity. Then, from the mid-nineteenth century onwards, the humanities began to be defined in opposition to the physical sciences. At first they were the senior partner. Charles Darwin’s frequent biblical and literary allusions, and the elegance of his own writing, show how influenced he was by the humanities. But in the century after Darwin’s death, the sciences grew in confidence and prestige. The main character in Saul Bellow’s 1987 novel More Die of Heartbreak, a Russian literature specialist, feels as if he has been confined to ‘the nursery games of humankind, which had to be left behind when the age of science began’. The humanities, he thinks gloomily, ‘would be called upon to choose a wallpaper for the crypt, as the end drew near’.66 Saul Bellow, More Die of Heartbreak (London: Penguin, [1987] 2004), 239. More recently, the humanities have come to seem like the poor relation of STEM. STEM is an acronym now routinely repurposed as both noun and adjective (STEM skills, STEM subjects, STEM jobs). We forget how new the acronym is and sometimes even what it stands for (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). The OED gives its earliest mention in print as 1968 but notes that it is ‘rare before 21st cent.’ In fact it began to be used widely in the US in the late 1990s, in debates about skills shortages in high-tech jobs and access to work visas for immigrants skilled in these fields. In Britain it has become an article of faith among policy makers that investing in STEM is vital to economic growth, especially in areas like life sciences, pharmaceuticals, computer coding and electronic engineering. The embattled scholar of the humanities may be tempted to lash out defensively at this more glamorous sibling, STEM, who gets all the attention and In a and creative that ‘the humanities are The are The of is to the even if the the aim of science is to some in ‘The January from such We need a of the humanities that this of the sciences as and must with a that the humanities and sciences are of and of what the humanities is to how are not by but by as to make other the of STEM as an – of which is but all of which are a story about the The first is that are with other in a and are The is that the sciences and humanities are in a of if STEM is other subjects must be The is that a university is not of ‘the but a of students for that has value if it can be into something now on university courses value for with the main must be with on this of the university by the of a ‘the The was a of a of from the was that its main was for or The began as a it to to the in the of the century universities to be called University were increasingly to the of and began to be of in the the was to be one where behind ‘The The of a of and its for the of In the the as a as universities and more with the the when a of the a universities or university had a but in In Britain had the end of the with the of the the and the the number had to of The in the University In a that ‘the of universities to be and to their and more for were now for from the The for as a for before English and creative at the University of in that he in The is an more than a out that in his on he had had with on people from and people in some he ‘the university is a far more than The and on and The that universities need to students for a of which they are not is an of what the humanities the to make The humanities study the of and But their is this to make out of our study, in its – that with which all for has long considered the of the social sciences – that the economists in about how the In has been dominated by the story that are little of and This story has as a of the after the The was by the of which out to be that were themselves about how the The that the is in an a of such as and In the age of and other it be than that is a a for value than value a story – at faith in and how it is on the of The has with the of and of his that they were the of he were and not to a of or that and often become by their own in the like can and and and the and the of at (accessed of is – a of The humanities, the of which be to and of (London: The of the from our to these of made of and The for this is that these same become and other as are in their their of We their for are to make such even more – such as and – will to about where the and will more and more with and science will as and value as of the data are the about The humanities show how to these with and by out the it to be in a and is it to that can our as is economic and has it become an end in than a to an is work as a is the and why must to its a In a more than the has been a for in The of he that, if the were by our would have one of their the humanities. he from thus apply in the of who who have from of may be of of in which our would not be to them much they The of would these is the humanities, ‘the of and our and The of the of The humanities the how in that and from its and study in all its and for that to the into its – into into into it and them to science that the of the is a for it to the of is sometimes of – often by humanities for a of a is one that its into a But in is by from its which are as much of but not to that particular the of this more they clear it for that some can be down with it its own of the for the of an – the that will a with as little as not the humanities, is the of Bellow’s the humanities will be is especially about The and they may be But if looking for be number will you that what them is the for a of all and also to that the first of an is that it be and are the to the to to See Must be in (ed.), Must be of (London: You can that of from a the form like But more the texts study in the humanities are as and as the who made that, as and value to the of the other are against our the and its in on and University The humanities the work not of inspired but of their in these feel like but Humanities also work these a of our work can be or study reading and This the humanities to to who that universities for the they on that are of that people can and But in the humanities that these skills are more and than are The of and has public and with our and it and for to be our with the you even into the you would be by how little was of the would be one in their with students in their one the social with of their was to and to be much than it was is for and a of a the to this new in which the main is See The of in and and University The or of a is than its to the data value is to its value as of the of the noun that to anything a that can be that and other the often the and In The of the of noise as this of its that it on have become signs that something is out of the of noise and at the he The noise to – as if it were that it if it were not to be the of The of they are used more has little in the power of its to and change how are seen as a for out something for their of – as were a of on the of and not that The humanities scholar that are not a but the that the of that the is partly This them to be of current of and of other life can be it can be We have come to of reading as a a of a and the take something to something in its first the English to or the of The humanities reading in but a ‘The of an June in the humanities to come with our own and reading of a reading is it can be a but must be inspired by and into other and be to its In the humanities is a number of by from its to of the or that can be or at that can be the of to from its in of what called a University in the one first of with began to an to that of and a of to his of with a he not the that in He to the story of The of to the of the and the of the had the for but the was not had to his with the he is to the of the of the in (ed.), of the to that the of is an the power of it on of and had the of the to a work with that of a the the widely of his he had one of the in He was an in and But he also in and and in the of and all his and left behind he had the for life and work are now of to humanities the and of the The with its of and to first has feels especially worth when much public to and and often into people take feel like and critique like an how to from our own and in a as the at it it by our The in Plumb, Crisis in the Humanities, The humanities to a of can the from their they study the of to their as science they that are all from the in the the The a as to The of in (ed.), for University of The same be of or in the humanities. to to will be a has begun to the power of the But it has come to the the for both and all at it the in The humanities with this of Humanities now often in arts literature This from the sciences is to make humanities and has a long a of his a is he not from his in of The for was not a but in which about are to of University of humanities a may be a but it is a that a of confidence about what the humanities do. needs it by the of and other that the The humanities and in this they and of and they and In the humanities, and the about what our of a a humanities scholar needs a that in of either physical or the or the they are – in and by to make their own of humanities their or is a historian of of their is to the of in a that the and of of public The humanities scholar that the is and for to with the little about how to the into our current with the of the gives as to what life will be like after the humanities scholar the to make of have not and other to that have ‘The is not of but of of as were by the of is a at which the for an from can be The from to the (London: and the humanities as an to the of of such is how often policy makers as an of the of the humanities to the In May the education Charles to have been when he was to have an at University some for But is for the to for that he had to an of the university as ‘the of a of He that this was a poor for and May Charles the of May In May of University was not when he the need a who is a he who has the to society than a of at Telegraph, May In January the of the on called for student fees for degrees in subjects that skills shortages in engineering or where are to history, all the from government and on to areas the needs and will it More for a that you into The Times, January these that the a in his that is but much he that in and were as a into long of society with and – a used against and have this that the against that in the what now was than other of such as and the to – the face of the and a to the and to the of – in from the late century was as a and and in the of as something that in for and the of as is a of how the humanities can the of of to some from this the the that our were and to ‘The for the as the for in The of this for the The of and is in the current its now more and and The of is one of of change and of to the of as ‘the which its own by ‘Introduction’, in to (London: The humanities scholar that are as and that have been that, than into the on that of creative – not much to that are in the as to that is into the by its cutting but the humanities are not to other and by more they than on and by on the begun of of when into to on the This long for in life is it is at with the from a that much a life to in the of a which of for one of the people to a is a of it of how is the in the that from other or that that for and of their their and had than and now that the has revealed in must our of our own and as is more that are like for like and that other have that seem as as our own were to them has an more than and a of in the of the and life at as as and ‘The of that that the – – is in that of a The of and show that our of the may the and the has that all the have and other to our – of like and – are and a are worth more or than other of We are of into for a can a on a can the value of the and and you a for the to a is more in its can the value of a to a or to for a or a of public if the value of a life is a that would one life must more than The value of a life in like life current and number of has a more than a The has a more life than from But this how to the of or how feel when love have been when he that were on the of a in of the In our the of the to the of of that he not how much of the was have to be a or a to to he Times, of the of may as more but such a But are to and all to the the humanities to this need to as – as what with in it of the on a in on (London: a new to in English is a they would or his is This much about our current that texts be and our own The humanities scholar students to the – to texts that may and even them with their and texts will them about other and from their that or as and as The humanities are an in in the and of is and as as its is the – than – of ‘The or in and (London: Penguin, in the humanities both the of and and the of that This of the – that are and social – is the of and of the humanities. In In the of about in the a who themselves from that they would be by the were seen as than even with and they were not or other than the from the on to study English and at the University of In Charles and and they a new of about the of and that the and that of in both his new and We were all as had had an on the people In the of a a (London: This that life is both in and of a is in and the of all that some than the of a on a or found in a or by to its and for on the We it on some these as than the to for some more or even than on of the if your is not as your life was worth The of and (London: The out of the of – a that are or of and that when in it is as if who has been has in with The Humanities and University that the of the humanities is to the into where have it – ‘to to the where not to in its and at the of its to make We forget the when become to of The humanities that can be as as that they can as as or they We some that on and not how they other people into or – or them out of the story ‘We but often to love or to to or to be what to and it The (London: of work has how power gets to its own story in a that other We have that the can seem – is a or a and what The to such is to people in the for what now But be not to of the same for in the and the to the humanities scholar that all of are In this to our and the humanities to the of – the of and – has become the of is the of a that as a in a and a to be this anything can be and can be No one who what to or or the In to seem and it it and it can make the seem by it in such as or This to is what people in public life and hear a political or of our a wrote in his in August at for which He called these (London: – an to how out and feel and to The humanities of the behind the by with a that also our by as data or This with from that for or that our is or to that are not a now take at of what was from to is to and media as data to be and to be by a by computer The humanities to the that this one – and to the fact that these are themselves This not that humanities will make more or or more than a about life in all its by that the of their work them to this is by the of they that they are all that of and our life for to its in double students often a for the they work a of the of life and the and of as science a on our own it and our and their about our in the is an end and in it can a of our own such as when the of and or the of But science the one that the humanities show that in all their and are In is an in of he has The of that of our seem to The humanities are both and are they that is by the make and the to be and more knowledge and to from it our to and to the and of all and our to be and by the the humanities are also that, even these are and The humanities began in the creative of the with its of the secular of The studia humanitatis were a to the of The humanities show that the highest when people in their own skills, and when they as if their and the of The humanities a and about funding and student are But as the humanities are the university and they have in the – of and has how political the a university of the humanities behind with other in by or their that they study other the of from languages by with to a their some of these of English wrote his on for in The of in (ed.), The of from to The love of the arts was a of their and in a to The humanities and to more than be on to skills have need to it can be when it has been will that this is a and of education and to the But that is story they have themselves – as all its own of drew you to the humanities in the first was that you were not on that that it you all you about You are not on that you are a humanities you like it or

Tamara Coger, Sarah Corry, R. Gregorowski

Locally led adaptation recognizes that people closest to the effects of climate change, especially those facing structural marginalization, require the financing and decision-making power to ensure that adaptation investments reflect their priorities. Supporters of locally led adaptation can leverage monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) processes to balance power, promote mutual accountability, elevate local knowledge and priorities, and create value for local actors. This paper recommends a systemic shift toward MEL that is locally led, context-aware, and itself adaptive. It provides steps throughout the MEL cycle and specific approaches, methods and tools that promote local agency in the interest of more effective and equitable locally led adaptation interventions. It builds on the recommendations of the Global Commission on Adaptation to increase decentralization of adaptation finance to the local level, and aims to support implementation of the eight Principles for Locally Led Adaptation that were developed for the Commission.

Daniel Hellwig, Goran Karlic, Arnd Huchzermeier

Decentralized finance has evolved as a major contender for traditional banking systems over the last few years. Evolution in blockchain and cryptography technologies are the driving forces for decentralized finance’s growth. The emergence of Bitcoin in the finance system was a major driving force toward the tremendous growth of decentralized finance. However, with various platforms merging every day, the decentralized finance sector is still in its early, unorganized stages. The current decentralized finance market is chaotic. With a new “coin” being introduced almost every month, standardization is highly lacking in the system. DeFi already has several different applications available. For instance, one can purchase stable coins, or assets pegged to a national currency, on decentralized exchanges, move the assets to a lending platform that is also decentralized to earn interest, and then add the interest-earning instruments to a decentralized liquidity pool or an on-chain investment fund. DeFi enterprises frequently aim at decentralized decision-making, or governance, in everything from the user fees to the products they provide. A decentralized program may be started by one person or a small number of individuals, but as the project gathers traction, its leaders frequently try to step down and cede control to the user base. A decentralized autonomous organization that has its rules and regulations written into computer code and that may issue governance tokens, which allow its holders a voice in decisions rather than allowing the decision-making to a centralized government authority as in case of traditional finance, could represent this transition. While on one side, world governments are still trying to grasp and regulate the sector, on the other side, the technology’s reach has been very limited. Undoubtedly, the emergence of blockchain-based decentralized finance is massively influencing our current finance technology industry. In this chapter, we discuss the current growth in the FinTech industry and the blockchain-based decentralized finance sector. Furthermore, we discuss how decentralized finance can be used in the current FinTech industry.

John Butcher

Abstract Externalised service provision is now an embedded feature of Australia's service delivery architecture. However, the lessons drawn from two decades of contracted service delivery suggest that “competition” is an imperfect platform for the delivery of public services, especially where issues of trust in government come into play. Could the concept of a “social license to operate” (SLO), which has been in use in the natural resources sector for over two decades, help to facilitate the conferral of greater trust, credibility and legitimacy upon governments, and externalised service providers in social policy spaces?

Camille Meyer, Marek Hudon

No abstract is available for this record.