Johnnatan Messias

Johnnatan Messias, Ayae Ide

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) aim to enable participatory governance, but in practice face challenges of voter apathy, concentration of voting power, and misaligned delegation. Existing delegation mechanisms often reinforce visibility biases, where a small set of highly ranked delegates accumulate disproportionate influence regardless of their alignment with the broader community. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study of delegation in DAO governance off-chain discussions from 14 DAO forums. We develop a methodology to link forum participants to on-chain addresses, extract governance interests using large language models, and compare these interests against delegates' historical behavior. Our analysis reveals that delegations are frequently misaligned with token holders' expressed priorities and that current ranking-based interfaces exacerbate power concentration. We argue that incorporating interest alignment into delegation processes could mitigate these imbalances and improve the representativeness of DAO decision-making. To support future research, we will release our dataset and code in a public repository.

Vabuk Pahari, Balakrishnan Chandrasekaran, Johnnatan Messias et al.

A decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) is a governing entity that empowers its stakeholders (i.e., users who hold one or more of its tokens) to manage blockchain-based protocols (i.e., smart contracts) collaboratively. The governance of a DAO is explicitly encoded in the DAO's governance contract, which defines how stakeholders participate in governance and how much influence (or voting power) they have in any decision. While decentralization and autonomy are the fundamental tenets of a DAO's design, empirical evidence suggests that in practice governance is often highly centralized. In this work, we study the designs and implementations of 48 public and actively used DAOs, with substantially large capital, deployed on Ethereum. We identify how three key governance mechanisms--token registration, staking, and delegation--originally introduced to improve security or participation, contribute to the concentration of voting power. Unlike prior work on centralization of voting power in specific DAOs, our findings reveal that these governance mechanisms of DAOs themselves systematically reinforce centralization. By elucidating the relationship between governance design and voting centralization, this work advances the understanding of DAO governance structures and highlights the inherent trade-offs between decentralization, security, and usability of DAOs.

Johnnatan Messias, Mohamed Alzayat, Balakrishnan Chandrasekaran et al.

Most public blockchain protocols, including the popular Bitcoin and Ethereum blockchains, do not formally specify the order in which miners should select transactions from the pool of pending (or uncommitted) transactions for inclusion in the blockchain. Over the years, informal conventions or "norms" for transaction ordering have, however, emerged via the use of shared software by miners, e.g., the GetBlockTemplate (GBT) mining protocol in Bitcoin Core. Today, a widely held view is that Bitcoin miners prioritize transactions based on their offered "transaction fee-per-byte." Bitcoin users are, consequently, encouraged to increase the fees to accelerate the commitment of their transactions, particularly during periods of congestion. In this paper, we audit the Bitcoin blockchain and present statistically significant evidence of mining pools deviating from the norms to accelerate the commitment of transactions for which they have (i) a selfish or vested interest, or (ii) received dark-fee payments via opaque (non-public) side-channels. As blockchains are increasingly being used as a record-keeping substrate for a variety of decentralized (financial technology) systems, our findings call for an urgent discussion on defining neutrality norms that miners must adhere to when ordering transactions in the chains. Finally, we make our data sets and scripts publicly available.

Mohamed Alzayat, Johnnatan Messias, Balakrishnan Chandrasekaran et al.

We study efficiency in a proof-of-work blockchain with non-zero latencies, focusing in particular on the (inequality in) individual miners' efficiencies. Prior work attributed differences in miners' efficiencies mostly to attacks, but we pursue a different question: Can inequality in miners' efficiencies be explained by delays, even when all miners are honest? Traditionally, such efficiency-related questions were tackled only at the level of the overall system, and in a peer-to-peer (P2P) setting where miners directly connect to one another. Despite it being common today for miners to pool compute capacities in a mining pool managed by a centralized coordinator, efficiency in such a coordinated setting has barely been studied. In this paper, we propose a simple model of a proof-of-work blockchain with latencies for both the P2P and the coordinated settings. We derive a closed-form expression for the efficiency in the coordinated setting with an arbitrary number of miners and arbitrary latencies, both for the overall system and for each individual miner. We leverage this result to show that inequalities arise from variability in the delays, but that if all miners are equidistant from the coordinator, they have equal efficiency irrespective of their compute capacities. We then prove that, under a natural consistency condition, the overall system efficiency in the P2P setting is higher than that in the coordinated setting. Finally, we perform a simulation-based study to demonstrate that even in the P2P setting delays between miners introduce inequalities, and that there is a more complex interplay between delays and compute capacities.

Johnnatan Messias

Social media is considered a democratic space in which people connect and interact with each other regardless of their gender, race, or any other demographic aspect. Despite numerous efforts that explore demographic aspects in social media, it is still unclear whether social media perpetuates old inequalities from the offline world. In this dissertation, we attempt to identify gender and race of Twitter users located in the United States using advanced image processing algorithms from Face++. We investigate how different demographic groups connect with each other and differentiate them regarding linguistic styles and also their interests. We quantify to what extent one group follows and interacts with each other and the extent to which these connections and interactions reflect in inequalities in Twitter. We also extract linguistic features from six categories (affective attributes, cognitive attributes, lexical density and awareness, temporal references, social and personal concerns, and interpersonal focus) in order to identify the similarities and the differences in the messages they share in Twitter. Furthermore, we extract the absolute ranking difference of top phrases between demographic groups. As a dimension of diversity, we use the topics of interest that we retrieve from each user. Our analysis shows that users identified as white and male tend to attain higher positions, in terms of the number of followers and number of times in another user's lists, in Twitter. There are clear differences in the way of writing across different demographic groups in both gender and race domains as well as in the topic of interest. We hope our effort can stimulate the development of new theories of demographic information in the online space. Finally, we developed a Web-based system that leverages the demographic aspects of users to provide transparency to the Twitter trending topics system.

Juhi Kulshrestha, Motahhare Eslami, Johnnatan Messias et al.

Search systems in online social media sites are frequently used to find information about ongoing events and people. For topics with multiple competing perspectives, such as political events or political candidates, bias in the top ranked results significantly shapes public opinion. However, bias does not emerge from an algorithm alone. It is important to distinguish between the bias that arises from the data that serves as the input to the ranking system and the bias that arises from the ranking system itself. In this paper, we propose a framework to quantify these distinct biases and apply this framework to politics-related queries on Twitter. We found that both the input data and the ranking system contribute significantly to produce varying amounts of bias in the search results and in different ways. We discuss the consequences of these biases and possible mechanisms to signal this bias in social media search systems' interfaces.