In recent years, Web3 somehow became a buzzword vaguely used by both disruptors and incumbents to describe their innovations.a This confusion can lead to misguided financial, political, and research-scientific choices. When wrongly approached, Web3’s misinterpretation could result in actions that are unethical or even illegal. Therefore, it is critical to develop a reviewed and comprehensive concept of Web3 to guide its development and implementation with coherence.<br/>This chapter attempts to provide that framework. While it does not claim to offer the only valid interpretation of Web3, it aims to shed new light on the concept and explore its broader implications through an interdisciplinary lens. The approach is informed by the author’s extensive background, which spans over two decades of academic research and industry practice in fields such as Information Theory, Communication Science, Anthropology and Sociology, Digital Economy and Finance, Blockchain Technologies and Foundational Knowledge, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Quantum Computing.<br/>The chapter begins by reviewing current concepts and frameworks related to Web3, highlighting inconsistencies and gaps in the literature. Following this, it expands on the history of the Internet, tracing its origins back to the mid-20th century through the lens of Information Theory and Political Economy. This historical context allows for a clearer understanding of Web3’s place within the broader Internet evolution. By considering Web3 through the lens of Information Theory, the chapter argues that Web3 represents a decentralized infrastructure that enables direct P2P communication of information, which further encourages decentralized governance and the creation and ownership of digital assets. This decentralized infrastructure is what distinguishes Web3 from previous iterations of the Internet.<br/>Furthermore, this chapter incorporates the political economy of communication to examine how the ownership of Web3’s decentralized infrastructure could redistribute power in the digital economy. Historically, control over the Internet’s infrastructure has rested with either the state or corporate entities. Web3, however, shifts control to individual users, offering the potential for a more inclusive and democratic digital economy. This is also a nod to its human-centric focus in the age of AI. Taking into account new emerging technologies, such as AI and quantum computing, this chapter presents them as part of the Web3 Tech Stack and contrasts the decentralized Web3 technologies with the centralized Internet architecture for clarity. Importantly, the presented technologies are seen only as tools supporting the overall objectives of Web3.<br/>This chapter concludes by situating Web3 as a new means of production for the digital age—enabling direct P2P value creation and exchange, with the potential to foster a more equitable and sustainable stakeholder-driven capitalism. In doing so, Web3 offers an advanced form of direct democracy. As AI continues to evolve, Web3’s decentralized infrastructure may also represent humanity’s best hope for safeguarding personal autonomy and preventing the monopolization of powerful technologies.
In this paper, we examine the discourses and ideologies that underpin trust in Bitcoin (BTC) as an algorithm-driven socio-technical system, raising critical questions about how trust is established and sustained in complex socio-technical assemblages. Through a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of three significant events in the cryptocurrency, we identify two interconnected, yet sometimes contradictory, ideologies enacted through four discourses that construct specific subject positions to produce and maintain trust in Bitcoin. The first, technical sovereignty , reflects adherence to notions of technical utopianism. The second, which we term peer-to-peer neoliberalism , frames BTC as a political experiment rooted in the individualization of responsibility and risk. Our paper contributes to the existing literature by arguing that algorithm-driven technologies like BTC neither establish trust solely through their apparent technical neutrality and security nor simply replace traditional institutional mechanisms of governance, control, and interaction. Instead, they are enacted through discourses and material arrangements that require continuous maintenance. This maintenance relies on power relations enabled by these ideologies yet remains contingent upon the ongoing reinforcement of the ideologies themselves—rendering trust inherently precarious and always at risk. This insight shifts the analytical focus from the dominant emphasis in the literature on technical features, social arrangements, and user perceptions to the underlying ideological frameworks that shape these elements, as such. • We propose an alternative ideological perspective on trust in algorithms. • The methodology is based on critical discourse analysis. • There cannot be trust without the productive force of ideology shaping and maintaining trust. • We identify two ideologies of technical sovereignty and peer-to-peer neoliberalism.
Abstract We develop an economic model to compare equilibrium security of Proof-of-Work (PoW) versus Proof-of-Stake (PoS) blockchains. We derive general conditions to determine when PoW blockchains are more secure than otherwise equivalent PoS blockchains and vice versa. Applying real-world parameter values to these conditions, we demonstrate that PoS blockchains are more secure than otherwise equivalent PoW blockchains. Furthermore, we demonstrate that PoS’s security advantage over PoW is particularly salient for high-scale blockchains.
Ana Alačovska, Christian Fieseler, Victor Renza Avellaneda
This article investigates – based on semi-structured interviews and conversations on cryptoart forums – how digital artists experience the blockchain-enabled assetization of their work through non-fungible tokens, including the transformation of digital artworks (which previously had negligible if any economic value) into assets capable of increasing in price value over time and generating future income from resale provisions. We show how this assetization of digital artworks has kindled artists’ financialized imagination and incentivized them to perform speculative labour – that is, to speculate on the potential capture of future financial proceeds from present-day underpaid or uncompensated activities, while mobilizing fictional expectations of imagined rentiership futures. We suggest that the commodification thesis, which has traditionally explained the future orientation of creative work as tied to commodity exchange, may be insufficient to account for artists’ speculative, asset-based imaginations of the future under financialized capitalism. Therefore, it may be beneficial to complement it with an assetization lens.
This dissertation examines the evolving landscape of non-fungible token (NFT) markets, primarily in the arts, focusing on the experiences of artists and the role of intermediaries in shaping market dynamics. Through three interconnected research papers, it challenges the techno-utopian narratives of decentralization and democratization associated with blockchain technology. The first paper presents an analysis of how NFT marketplaces have become decisive arbiters of value, particularly in royalty enforcement, which reveals the paradoxical coexistence of technological decentralization and organizational recentralization. The second paper presents a novel typology that demonstrates how NFT marketplaces actively construct value and shape participant behaviour through governance mechanisms and curatorial strategies. The third paper foregrounds artists’ lived experiences and unveils how the digital nature of NFT markets intensifies competitive pressure and necessitates constant “visibility labour” on social media platforms. Collectively, the findings unveil how NFT markets, despite the decentralization rhetoric, often reproduce and amplify traditional art market hierarchies while introducing the challenges of cryptocurrency volatility, algorithmic visibility, limited legal and social protections and other forms of digital vulnerability. This dissertation highlights the complexities of an evolving ecosystem in which technological innovation intersects with established power structures and market practices and thereby contributes to the Information Systems literature. It also offers critical insights into the intricate interplay between technological innovation, market configurations, and creative labour in the digital age, which not only advance our understanding of NFT markets but also provide a framework for analysing future developments in digital creative economies.
Emerging evidence suggests a declining labor share alongside rising markups, profits, and rents in parts of advanced economies, and artificial intelligence (AI) may intensify these dynamics by increasing the importance of capital and intangible assets. This paper examines whether broad employee ownership can help workers share in AI related surplus and mitigate distributional risks. First, it synthesizes competing perspectives on factor share measurement and the roles of technology and market structure, and it reviews evidence on employee ownership and profit sharing for wages, productivity, and firm performance. Second, it develops transparent simulation exercises in which AI adoption shifts surplus toward profits under alternative ownership trajectories. In a stylized high adoption scenario with no institutional change, the combined wage plus capital income accruing to workers falls by roughly 5% points of value added. Under expanded employee ownership, workers receive additional capital income on the order of 5% points, largely offsetting the decline in their overall claim on output. The paper concludes by assessing legal and financial architectures, including tokenization and institutional decentralized finance, that could reduce frictions in scaling employee ownership.
The aim of the paper is to present a series of organizational and technical solutions that ensure the preservation of the integrity of cold supply chains. The implications of these technologies on the economic and health aspects of society are more than visible. With the help of the Internet of Things and new sensor technologies, it is possible to automate the monitoring of cold supply chains using smart contract technologies and thus preserve the quality of the goods that are the subject of this type of logistics.
Blockchain technology, though conceptualized in the early 1990s, only gained practical relevance with Bitcoin's launch in 2009. Recent advancements have demonstrated its transformative potential, particularly in the digital art and global payment sectors. Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have redefined digital ownership, while financial institutions use blockchain to enhance cross-border transactions, reducing costs and settlement times. Using the Diamond-Mortensen-Pissarides (DMP) model, this paper examines blockchain's impact on labor markets by improving job-matching efficiency, thereby reducing unemployment. However, high research costs and competition with incumbent technologies hinder early-stage blockchain adoption. We extend the DMP model to analyze the role of government intervention through tax and wage policies in mitigating these barriers. Our findings suggest that lowering firm tax rates can accelerate blockchain innovation, enhance labor market efficiency, and promote employment growth, highlighting the critical balance between technological progress and economic policy in fostering blockchain-driven economic transformation.
Ethereum is a multifaceted ecosystem shaped by diverse commitments and aspirations. This dissertation focuses on a relatively understudied micro-culture within Ethereum, known as “public goods” represented by a subcultural group known as “Regens”. Unlike the dominant financial use cases of blockchain, Regens aim to harness blockchain technologies for communal and participatory purposes, often through blockchain operated digital institutions known as decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). I focus on Giveth - a well-known public goods DAO within the Ethereum ecosystem. Using an empirical approach grounded in ethnography, I map its culture, governance practices, and labour dynamics. Through this analysis, I examine how blockchain mediated infrastructures can both enable and constrain political life. In particular, I trace how blockchain infrastructures challenge traditional conceptions of democracy through the concept of ‘coordination,’ a central organizing principle that characterizes DAO governance. Examining how Giveth’s governance mechanisms operate in practice, I argue that while Giveth and similar public goods DAOs endeavor to address the problems inherent in existing traditional political systems, they often end up producing the same plutocratic outcomes. Drawing on Marxist theory of labour and value, I also demonstrate that despite Giveth’s noble intentions to reimagine non-profit work through blockchain, the reality is that members continue to sacrifice significant time and resources in pursuit of the project’s mission. This reveals a fundamental contradiction within such initiatives: while projects like Giveth aim to dismantle hegemonic neoliberal structures, they paradoxically reproduce and extend many of the same conditions they seek to overcome by embedding market computational logics and game-theoretic principles at the core of their operational design. Nevertheless, I emphasize on the potential of DAOs to foster alternative world-building practices, serving as spaces for the development of creative political imaginaries that can advance collective organizational efforts and greater participation when designed with intention.
Shahbaz Siddiqui, Sufian Hameed, Muhammad Rafi, Syed Attique Shah · 5 authors
The development of blockchain consensus mechanisms has put sustainability, scalability, and efficiency first in the list of cryptocurrency studies. As Bitcoin still uses the energy-intensive Proof-of-Work (PoW) algorithm, Ethereum is in the process of switching from PoW to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) with the Ethereum Merge in September 2022. The cause of this change was the rising energy prices, bottlenecks in scalability, and increased concerns among the global population regarding the environmental effects of PoW-based mining. Our study provides a rationale for the Ethereum transition by comparing and contrasting the volume of transactions, network performance through hash rate, and electricity consumption of Bitcoin and Ethereum in their PoW stages.With the help of both historical trend and predictive modelling in the form of the ARIMA framework, the obtained results showed that Bitcoin and Ethereum had different dynamics of growth under PoW, which was increased hash and energy expenditures but limited throughput. The ARIMA-based analysis achieved a mean absolute error (MAE) of 27.76, a root mean square error (RMSE) of 31.16, and a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 26.08, which provided an overall forecast accuracy of 73.9%. These measures show that there is a medium predictive reliability, and volatility is mainly caused by sudden changes in mining intensity and market forces. The predictions further indicated that under PoW, Ethereum would have experienced a steep rise in operational energy consumption and congestion of its network transactions, which would have weakened network sustainability.Results thus confirm that the switch of Ethereum to PoS was not only an environmental need but also a strategic optimization of a transaction to scale higher, operational overhead reduction, and alignment with sustainable and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) goals on a global scale. This piece leads to a better comprehension of the trade-offs between PoW and PoS, as well as the Ethereum consensus shift as the turning point in the evolution of blockchains—establishing a precedent of other cryptocurrencies that can select a balance between performance, security, and sustainability.
Giacomo Vella, Valeria Portale, Daniel Trabucchi, Luca Gastaldi
This study investigates how blockchain-based platforms redefine traditional innovation platform models by analyzing Ethereum as a paradigmatic case.While classical platforms are characterized by centralized governance and selective openness, Ethereum introduces a decentralized architecture that structurally embeds openness, composability, and permissionless participation into its protocol.Drawing on a qualitative single-case study based on over 100 secondary sources, this research explores three dimensions: governance and orchestration, complementor engagement, and architectural modularity.Findings highlight that Ethereum operates through multi-actor orchestration, where governance is distributed among core developers, the Ethereum Foundation, decentralized autonomous organizations, and community contributors.Complementors engage directly with the platform, leveraging smart contracts and token-based incentives to build interoperable applications without the need for approval from a central authority.Moreover, Ethereum extends composability beyond core-periphery dynamics, enabling peer-level recombination of complements through public, reusable smart contracts.A comparative analysis with traditional platforms and open-source ecosystems positions Ethereum as a novel archetype of innovation platform, blending open-source governance with blockchain-enabled modularity and decentralized economic coordination.The study advances platform theory by proposing new conceptualizations of openness, modularity, and governance in decentralized digital ecosystems.
This chapter positions political geography as a critical lens through which to investigate the rise of cyberlibertarian post-Westphalianism—a phenomenon shaped by Web3 infrastructures, GenAI systems, and decentralized techno-politics. Building on sustained fieldwork in Silicon Valley since August 2022 and prior research, the chapter interrogates how libertarian ideologies embedded in Web3 are reconfiguring notions of sovereignty, governance, and socioeconomic coordination. It compares three paradigmatic formations: Network States (Srinivasan), rooted in crypto-libertarianism; Network Sovereignties (De Filippi), grounded in commons-based governance; and Algorithmic Nations (Calzada), emphasizing cultural self-determination and data sovereignty. Engaging with critical voices such as Jarrad Hope and David Golumbia, the chapter reveals the ideological tensions at the core of cyberlibertarianism, particularly its propensity to reinforce elitism and obscure structural inequalities. It argues that while decentralization promises new affordances for digital citizenship, it risks consolidating power in technocratic enclaves unless governed through pluralistic and inclusive frameworks. Drawing on theories of innovation systems and AI economics, the chapter calls for hybrid governance models that prioritize solidarity, transparency, and institutional reflexivity. Ultimately, it proposes that political geography must play a central role in reimagining post-Westphalian digital orders that are democratic, accountable, and socially just.
This chapter explores the technopolitical dynamics underpinning the monopolistic rise of data-opolies—dominant tech corporations such as GAFAM—and their implications for democracy in the age of AI. Drawing on Calzada’s conceptual framework and action research, it investigates how algorithmic governance in smart cities displaces democratic deliberation, eroding civic trust and transparency. The chapter critically engages with Web3 technologies—blockchain, DAOs, and data cooperatives—as possible countermeasures to platform capitalism, while remaining attentive to their ideological tensions, especially the crypto-libertarian vision of “Network States” à la Srinivasan. By linking the governance of AI systems with Richard R. Nelson’s “Moon and Ghetto” metaphor, the chapter underscores a key paradox: technological innovation soars, yet foundational democratic deficits remain unresolved. Through a multidisciplinary lens, it interrogates how decentralized infrastructures might reclaim digital sovereignty and foster more equitable innovation systems. The chapter concludes by proposing a pluralistic governance model rooted in algorithmic transparency, data ethics by design, and multistakeholder engagement—critical steps toward re-democratizing the datafied city.