Michael Lustenberger
Sabrina Wollenschläger1
Lukas Küng
95% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
- 1Institute for Organizational Viability, School of Management and Law, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland
- 2Institute for the Future, School of Business, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus
This paper explores the promise of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) as a digital governance tool for collaborative housing initiatives. Based on existing literature around the collaborative housing initiative no1s1, we explore the research question: How can DAOs help govern collaborative housing initiatives? To address this, we employ conceptual research methods, synthesizing theories from the field of collaborative housing and DAOs to propose a new framework for the governance of such initiatives. Our analysis identifies five key benefits of DAOs in collaborative housing governance: a transparent crypto-accounting system, scalable decision-making, global jurisdiction and rule enforcement, automated rights and incentives system, and flexible polycentric governance. These benefits align with Elinor Ostrom’s “Governing the Commons” principles and highlight the potential of DAOs to enable scalability and autonomy in geographically dispersed communities. While theoretical, our study provides insights into the transformative potential of blockchain-based DAOs in collaborative housing governance, laying the groundwork for further research and real-world and empirical validation.
1 Introduction
In 2018, the Swiss think tank “Dezentrum” introduced no1s1 (no one’s one) as a futuristic concept of a self-owned and self-managed house.1 They declared it a “future experiment” (Zukunftsexperiment) to explore new approaches in dealing with collective goods made possible by technologies such as blockchain. While most empirical experiments explore causal connections in the context of social reality, future experiments ask about social possibilities. In this way, future experiments should not only think about the future but also consider the practical implications. Over the years, initial prototypes of no1s1 have been developed at ETH Zurich (Hunhevicz et al., 2021; Hunhevicz, 2022), focusing on the feasibility of the technical architecture of a blockchain-based autonomous space.
Since then, similar initiatives have been established to merge the concepts of collaborative housing (CH) and blockchain technology. Interesting examples are CityDAO, where a community collectively owns a piece of land in the United States and can vote on its use, and DOMA, a blockchain-based housing platform with an organizational structure jointly owned and run by its members (Crandall, 2023). Further similar projects include Cabin2 and Build3, both of which seek to build a community that uses blockchain to manage living spaces such as land and/or houses. No1s1 is, therefore, no longer an isolated phenomenon but rather the expression of a new form of collaboration around communal owning and living based on blockchain technology–a technology with the promise of organizing collaboration in a new way that differs from traditional governance models (Davidson et al., 2018; Lumineau et al., 2021). However, most of these initiatives struggle to create a sustainable governance model (e.g., CityDAO), and many have already become inactive (e.g., DOMA).
In recent years, scholars have increasingly recognized that communal owning and living can effectively address the changing housing needs of society (Vestbro, 2010; Labit, 2015; Tummers, 2015; Czischke, 2018; Czischke et al., 2020; Lang et al., 2020). An aging population and the diversification of household compositions are cited as reasons for the growing demand for adaptable housing models, concepts, and infrastructures to accommodate different living situations. Even though conceptualization presents a challenge as there is no consistent terminology across housing sectors and academic disciplines, scholars commonly use collaborative housing (CH) as an umbrella term encompassing the broad range of housing forms, including cooperatives, co-housing communities, and community land trusts, all of which are characterized by their self-organizing features (Vestbro, 2010; Fromm, 2012; Czischke, 2018).
Literature and concepts relating to blockchain in collaborative housing are very scarce. One of the few with a specific focus on the impact of blockchain on the collaborative housing market, Nasarre-Aznar (2018) concludes in his aprioristic analysis that blockchain has the potential to facilitate access to housing by reducing costs, time, and the influence of intermediaries. However, the author falls short of explaining how collective action in collaborative housing activities such as shared financing, construction, housing, or ownership can be implemented and governed by a blockchain. Additionally, some studies analyze how blockchain could affect the traditional housing activities of financing (Mohamed, 2021; Proskurovska and Dörry, 2022; Utkarsh et al., 2022), construction (Wang et al., 2017; Hunhevicz and Hall, 2020; Li et al., 2021), and renting (Qi-Long et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2022). However, these studies cannot provide further insights into governance models and tools for collective action in collaborative housing initiatives. Furthermore, the literature has frequently underscored the need for applicable governance models and tools to support community housing projects and communities (Moore, 2011; Tummers, 2016; Fitzpatrick, 2018; Lang et al., 2020).
By conceptually considering the implications of applying a decentralized autonomous organization for governance to collaborative housing initiatives such as no1s1, we aim to answer the following research question:
RQ: How can decentralized autonomous organizations help govern collaborative housing initiatives?
To address this question, we outline the research design applied in this conceptual study in Section 2. Section 3 then develops the theoretical concepts around collaborative housing and DAOs individually, while Section 4 presents the synthesized theoretical concept of DAOs governing collaborative housing initiatives. Section 5 discusses and interprets the idea, after which Section 6 concludes by answering the research question and offering suggestions for further research.
2 Research design
The research design for this study refers to the conceptual methods put forward by Meredith (1993) and Jaakkola (2020). Both authors suggest that conceptual research methods can create valid theories by synthesizing previous research. Gilson and Goldberg (2015) further argue that rather than relying on empirical data, conceptual studies should seek to expand the scope of our thinking by integrating and linking existing theories in interesting new ways. This is supported by Weick’s (1989) claim that conceptual research is mainly about designing, conducting, and interpreting imaginary experiments.
Meredith (1993) proposes seven different types of conceptual methods, mainly focusing on research output–i.e., models, frameworks, or theories–and less on the practical process of achieving these results. This may not be surprising since, as Fulmer (2012) explained (based on a review of award-winning articles from the Academy of Management), there is no one best way to structure a conceptual paper. Nevertheless, to establish a methodological structure for our research process, we will follow explanations by Meredith (1993) and Jaakkola (2020).
Attempting to synthesize various works on the same subject, we employ the three steps from inductive philosophical conceptualization by Meredith (1993): (i) summarizing common elements of different works, (ii) contrasting their differences, and (iii) expanding the current conceptual knowledge. In turn, we take up the suggestion from Jaakkola (2020), p. 21 regarding theory synthesis that “seeks to achieve conceptual integration across multiple theories or literature streams.” To better understand how DAOs can contribute to the governance of collaborative housing initiatives at a conceptual level, we synthesize the previously unconnected domains of DAOs and collaborative housing, presenting them as complementary research domains in a novel way.
In line with the terminology and methodological explanation by Jaakkola (2020), our focal phenomenon is no1s1 – a collaborative housing DAO. Jaakkola (2020) highlights that such a focal phenomenon is observable but not adequately addressed empirically in the existing literature. To address the observed shortcomings at the intersection of DAOs and collaborative housing, we will combine the two research domains and provide new insights into the focal phenomenon.
In developing our conceptual arguments, we specifically ensure that the line of argument is coherent and transparent to the reader. As shown in Figure 1 and in line with Meredith (1992) and Jaakkola (2020), we first summarize the literature regarding DAOs and collaborative housing that can address some aspects of the focal phenomenon of no1s1 – a collaborative housing DAO. In the second step, we synthesize these previous concepts with the help of an imaginary experiment (Weick, 1989) into a novel concept for our focal phenomenon, no1s1. Finally, we conceptualize our findings from the imaginary experiment to provide an answer to our research question about how DAOs can help govern collaborative housing initiatives.
Figure 1
Figure 1. Sequence of activities within the conceptual research design.
3 Review of theoretical concepts
3.1 Governing commons as a model for the governance of collaborative housing
Collaborative housing (CH) initiatives aim to address systemic inequalities that lead to housing instability and exclusion by questioning the traditional view of housing as a commodity and advocating for its recognition as a basic human need (Tummers, 2016). An examination of CH literature reveals a diverse and multi-faceted field of housing research, as highlighted by Lang et al. (2020), who analyzed 190 studies published between 1990 and 2017. They found that distinctions between different CH models were more blurred and intertwined than previously thought, and specific contextual factors strongly influenced some significant overlaps and differences.
Researchers such as Durrett and McCamant (2011), Cooper (2000), and Williams (2005) focus on the architectural and design elements of community housing, while scholars such as Vestbro and Horelli (2012), Jarvis (2015), Brenton (2013), and Labit (2015) examine the social dimensions of CH. In addition, Bossuyt (2021) and Aalbers (2008) address the property rights and financialization of CH, illustrating the broad range of topics within CH research. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to explain each individual form of CH, it is valuable to provide a brief overview of the various models explored in research to demonstrate the broad spectrum of research underscoring the multi-faceted nature of CH.
In Fromm (1991), Lang et al. (2019), and Vestbro (2010), we find models such as co-housing, cooperatives, and self-build initiatives, which are characterized by promoting a balanced integration of private and communal living spaces to improve the quality of community life. In addition, Aernouts and Ryckewaert (2019) and Czischke et al. (2020) draw attention to the diversity in how affordability, collective decision-making, and community control are addressed within co-housing and cooperative housing models. With a unique look at promoting affordable housing, community ownership, and collective control, Diacon et al. (2005) put forward the model of community land trusts (CLTs), while Balmer and Gerber (2018) highlight the role of housing cooperatives. In addition, Williams (2005) examines housing communities seeking to promote a communal lifestyle and interdependence between residents in terms of density, design, and location. Other scholars, such as Ferreri and Vidal (2022), explore theoretical frameworks tailored to specific CH concepts and develop a framework for public cooperatives. However, as noted by Czischke et al. (2020), challenges arise when trying to generalize these context-specific models owing to the different tenure, legal, and organizational characteristics of CH projects.
Ultimately, Lang et al. (2020) conclude that the literature about these models is scattered across various disciplines, resulting in a lack of a cohesive conceptual and methodological framework. This fragmentation contributes to a disjointed academic landscape surrounding collaborative housing. As a result, it is difficult to create a generally applicable theoretical framework because individual communities rely on individualized governance solutions based on their needs and circumstances.
One way of structuring the concepts of collaborative housing would be to place them in the broader context of known economic theories. A good example of such an attempt is Fitzpatrick (2018), who analyzed the concept of CH4 from the perspective of the economic theories governing the commons put forward by Hardin (1968) and later especially by Ostrom (1990). The author notes that CH shares important similarities with common-pool resources (CPR), particularly the subtractability of the resource and the difficulty of excluding non-contributors, so it poses similar challenges to governance and collective action. However, as Ostrom and Hess (2007) point out, it is crucial to distinguish between common-pool resources and common property regimes, as the former refers to the economic characteristics of a resource–where use by one person reduces availability for others, and exclusion is problematic–while the latter describes a governance arrangement in which a defined group has collective control over a resource. Furthermore, common property should not be confused with open-access regimes, where no exclusion mechanisms exist, often leading to overuse and degradation.
In contrast, common property regimes involve structured governance by a defined community to regulate access and prevent resource depletion. In later research, Ostrom (2010) emphasizes how the successful governance of common-pool resources often involves active participation from local user communities. She found this localized approach could be effectively scaled by applying polycentric frameworks–systems with multiple independent decision-making centers rather than a single centralized authority. Building on Ostrom’s eight design principles of stable CPR management5 and her later polycentric concepts, Fitzpatrick (2018) proposes a theoretical framework based on a set of key principles for designing and crafting governance models for collaborative housing. With the help of this framework, he examines different CH initiatives to explore how the projects overcome challenges like finding land, financing the project, and developing unique internal management structures. However, the study does not explain how these proposed principles could be implemented nor how they can help design governance for collaborative housing initiatives to make management more stable and efficient.
3.2 DAO as a tool for governing the commons
The idea of DAOs was brought into public and academic discussions in 2013 by Larimer (2013) and Buterin (2013). Since then, several DAOs have emerged, and many scholars have tried to establish a standard definition. Buterin (2014), for example, calls DAOs “an entity that lives on the internet and exists autonomously, but also heavily relies on hiring individuals to perform certain tasks that the automation itself cannot do.” Ho, Hassan and De Filippi (2021), p.2) define DAO as “a blockchain-based system that enables people to coordinate and govern themselves mediated by a set of self-executing rules deployed on a public blockchain, and whose governance is decentralized (i.e., independent from central control).” Spychiger et al. (2025) further emphasize that DAOs typically manage some sort of asset that holds value to the community. While these while these assets are traditionally manifested as virtual cryptocurrency, more recently, DAOs have also been established to provide services (e.g., currency exchanges, project financing), curate collections (e.g., art collections based on NFTs), or own and manage physical assets (e.g., real estate).
Early research examined the impact of the influence of blockchain on economic theories, mainly by exploring whether DAOs could be an alternative governance institution to markets, hierarchies, and relational contracts in the sense of Williamson’s (1985) new institutional economics (e.g., Catalini and Gans, 2020; Davidson et al., 2016; Lumineau et al., 2021). Davidson et al. (2018), p. 654 describe a DAO as “a self-governing organisation with the coordination properties of a market, the governance properties of a commons and the constitutional, legal and monetary properties of a nation state.” Catalini and Gans (2020) and Lumineau et al. (2021) further argue that with blockchain technology, costs for transactions like searching, networking, monitoring, verification, and enforcement can be reduced.
Despite their transformative potential, DAOs face significant governance challenges (Lustenberger et al., 2024a), whereas centralization remains a critical issue, as decision-making control is often concentrated among a few influential actors centralization remains a critical issue because decision-making and control are often concentrated among a few players (Axelsen et al., 2022). At the same time, voting power is disproportionately weighted in favor of wealthier participants, leading to a system that more closely resembles a plutocracy rather than a democracy (Feichtinger et al., 2023). Low participation rates further exacerbate these issues, with only a tiny fraction of token holders actively engaging in decision-making processes (Rikken et al., 2023). Additionally, DAOs are vulnerable to governance attacks, as demonstrated by incidents such as the Beanstalk and Tornado Cash breaches (Spychiger et al., 2025). To overcome these obstacles, DAOs require more sophisticated designs that balance decentralization, efficiency, and security while fostering mechanisms that encourage active participation and equitable decision-making (Lustenberger et al., 2024b). In spite of these challenges, DAO governance represents a paradigm shift in organizational structures, offering a new governance model independent of central control and potential benefits to digital self-organization (Bellavitis et al., 2023). For this reason, a growing body of literature has emerged analyzing whether blockchain-enabled, self-organized structures have the potential to support the management of CPRs.
An initial attempt to explore how DAOs could support the principles designed by Ostrom dates to Calcaterra (2018), who outlined the first design principles for a blockchain-enabled governance system for CPRs. In a second attempt to explore the possibilities of using blockchain technology for the governance of CPRs, Cila et al. (2020) critically explore the design challenges and limitations of the technology. Here, the authors argue that while blockchain technology has the potential to enhance CPR governance by providing transparency, the open and immutable data records also raise concerns regarding privacy and the potential for over-reliance on quantified values. In this sense, Cila et al. (2020) recognize the possibilities provided by blockchain-based systems to empower communities to manage CPRs. However, they are wary of uncritically designing technological solutions with far-reaching social consequences.
At the same time, Poux et al. (2020) published a conceptual paper analyzing blockchain technology as support for the governance of CPRs. In it, they especially emphasize the aspect of community regulation through blockchain, which follows a novel approach involving proactive automation and retrospective verification rather than the conventional methods of monitoring and sanctioning. Without empirical data, they conclude that further research is needed to define the most promising use cases and implement solution strategies. In this sense, Rozas et al. (2021a); Rozas et al. (2021b) explore the potential of blockchain technology as an administration layer for CPRs. Indeed, their work sheds light on the complex and multi-faceted relationship between blockchain and CPR governance and has been highly influential in the remaining discussion involving blockchain and commons. Their study establishes six specific affordances and aims to provide a foundation for developing blockchain-based tools that align with the CPR management principles. Nevertheless, exactly how these six affordances – (i) tokenization, (ii) self-enforcement and formalization of rules, (iii) autonomous automatization, (iv) decentralization of power over the infrastructure, (v) increasing transparency, and (vi) codification of trust–can be implemented remains unclear and unanswered.
Hunhevicz et al. (2022) offer a systematic starting point for the practical scenario of how the blockchain can support governance, in their study involving a construction project involving multiple parties. Here, they synthesize the literature on blockchain as an institutional innovation (Davidson et al., 2018) with a theoretical understanding of integrated project delivery (IPD) and the collective action theory (Ostrom, 1990) with respect to the six affordances in designing blockchain governance (Rozas et al., 2021a). As such, their paper suggests new construction project delivery models and provides a comprehensive understanding of the possibilities for blockchain, specifically in the application in IPD and other future forms of project delivery, as well as the challenges of governance design in the construction industry.
Drawing on Rozas et al. (2021a) and adding an extensive literature review, Van Vulpen and Jansen (2023) seek to close the research gap by describing a common DAO and its use in a conceptual playground scenario. The authors argue that there is no clear understanding of how a DAO for CPR governance should be designed. Hence, they create a conceptual prototype of a DAO governing a simple CPR and provide several requirements concerning governance areas that a DAO needs to fulfill, to enable collective action and unite a community in a shared goal. Although Van Vulpen and Jansen (2023) provide an extensive governance structure for their common DAO, they avoid defining what kind of resources and communities can benefit from the blockchain-based governance using a DAO and leave their framework’s applicability open. Furthermore, scaling a common DAO with decentralized decision-making up to a global digital organization appears unlikely.
Building on the principles of polycentric governance and the dynamic interaction between local and global opinion formation and decision-making (Ostrom, 2010), the creators of DAOstack developed a scalable voting mechanism for DAOs called holographic consensus. This system allows decisions to be made locally with limited participation as long as the decisions align with the organization’s global viewpoint (Field, 2018; Field and Weller, 2019). This approach supports scalability in decentralized governance systems, enabling decisions to be made efficiently even as the number of participants grows. Additionally, it enables the formation of local sub-DAOs, allowing individual communities to make decisions that affect them directly while still adhering to the global consensus. This structure enhances decision-making scalability by enabling decentralized governance across both local and global levels. Moreover, implementing Layer-2 solutions and off-chain voting mechanisms can optimize scalability by reducing on-chain transaction costs and improving transaction speed (Zhao et al., 2022). In summary, this rich academic discussion highlights the possibility of a DAO that offers new ways to create governance structures, including global CPRs. However, where and how these types of blockchain-based governance structures can be utilized is still an open question requiring further investigation (Tan et al., 2023).
4 Synthesizing CH and DAO concepts: a novel governance concept for No1s1
Our collaborative housing DAO, no1s1, was initially motivated by the technological possibilities of blockchain and established around the idea of a blockchain-powered, self-managed house, autonomously determining its usage via smart contracts. Unlike other DAOs, which are mainly built for decentralized finance experiments managing digital assets, no1s1 emphasizes the physical space, making it the focal point of participation and involvement. Building on the characteristics of a DAO, no1s1 can therefore establish and sustain an alternative model for self-organized living spaces.
While the real-world no1s1 initiative currently functions as a small-scale experimental space rather than a fully-fledged housing model (Spychiger et al., 2024), this conceptual research expands its scope to a decentralized collaborative housing DAO managing multiple housing units across different locations. This imaginary experiment assumes that no1s1 evolves into a global network of DAO-governed houses collectively maintained by its members. In doing so, we consider the governance challenges that arise when managing not just a single experimental space but an interconnected system of housing units, each requiring a range of services such as maintenance, security, and resource management.
To guide our imaginary experiment, we synthesized different concepts from the CH and DAO literature to develop a novel governance concept for no1s1 as follows. First, we adapted the key principles from Fitzpatrick’s (2018) framework, integrating insights from the DAO literature to establish a robust and efficient governance structure for collaborative housing. By applying recognized DAO concepts to the initial design principles of collaborative housing, we derived eight key design principles for governing a collaborative housing DAO, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Eight key design principles for governing a collaborative housing DAO based on Fitzpatrick (2018).
Second, we applied these eight key concepts to our imaginary experiment of no1s1 as a globally coordinated and operated collaborative housing initiative organized as a DAO. The no1s1 community collectively owns and manages a network of houses around the globe, prioritizing the generation of shared benefits and reinvesting any profits back into no11’s houses. At its inception, people across the world donated the first few houses to the DAO, thereby granting them membership in the DAO community. Thereafter, members were encouraged to use and contribute to the upkeep of the houses through a blockchain-based incentive system. They had a voice in the future of the DAO and the houses but were also held accountable for their actions within the community.
In summary, no1s1 relies on a combination of pre-programmed rules and blockchain-based community voting to govern itself, and ultimately, the viability of no1s1 depends on the continued member participation and use of the houses.
Figure 3 below presents the application of the CPR-management design principles for the governance of a collaborative housing DAO from Figure 2 to our imaginary no1s1 experiment. Here, we describe each principle in more detail.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Eight key design principles for governing a collective housing DAO as implemented in no1s1.
4.1 Defined boundaries and responsibilities
During the initiation of no1s1, members must implement a system that merges traditional social norms with blockchain technology to manage their collaborative housing initiative. Accordingly, the community establishes a social contract that describes the criteria that must be met to join (or leave) the DAO and defines the rights and obligations of members (Van Vulpen and Jansen, 2023). To implement this social contract in the blockchain-based governance system, no1s1 utilizes a token-based access and incentive system (Rozas et al., 2021a). This restricts access to any DAO activity to authorized individuals who hold a specific token in their crypto wallet. Members must comply with predefined criteria to gain these governance tokens, such as “donating” a house to no1s1. Over time, further specific tokens can be introduced to the token model and issued by no1s1 for renting and using the houses, performing maintenance duties, or supporting the decision-making and conflict-resolution process to incentivize (new) members to participate, interact, and use the DAO and its houses. Smart contracts on the blockchain can automatically distribute and verify these tokens, granting access to approved token holders and unlock specific benefits connected to no1s1 (Hunhevicz et al., 2022). Hence, utilizing tokens at different levels, which describes the entry model of no1s1 and is linked to the requirements of the house usage and the voting, establishes the basis for an effective incentive system.
4.2 Proportional costs
The No1s1's economic models revolves around affordable housing within a globally distributed network of properties. To ensure fairness, all costs related to this network must be proportional and linked to the usage benefits (Fitzpatrick, 2018). A DAO can best achieve this by introducing a “utility” token to use the house (Hunhevicz et al., 2022). Hence, to rent any of the houses, community members need to buy utility tokens from no1s1, whereby the revenue directly flows into the no1s1 treasury, a community-controlled “bank account” dedicated to the maintenance and upkeep of all the houses. A fund could also be kept for each house separately, ensuring each house is an independent sub-DAO of the global no1s1 community. Depending on the maintenance costs and demand for a specific house, the rental cost (and, therefore, the number of utility tokens) for a given period can be dynamic and vary from house to house. In this way, the DAO automatically links the rental cost of a property to both maintenance costs and its perceived value by users.
4.3 Inclusive and adaptive decision-making
A fundamental commitment to inclusive decision-making characterizes the operational framework of no1s1. However, this does not mean everyone has the same voting rights (Spychiger et al., 2025). Depending on the roles and responsibilities the different tokens represent, no1s1 members can participate in decision-making processes at various levels. For example, members who have donated a house to no1s1 in exchange for “governance tokens” have other decision rights than members renting, utilizing, or maintaining the houses and the DAO. Governance tokens are exclusively earned through house donations and cannot be bought on the market, mitigating the risk of hostile takeovers commonly observed in token-based DAOs. Over time, governance participation can also be earned through reputation, ensuring that decision-making authority is based on community contributions rather than financial muscle. Governance tokens remain non-transferable and can only be obtained through beneficial community actions such as donations or active participation, thus preventing a concentration of power based on wealth and ensuring a more equitable governance structure. The key here is that all DAO members affected by a decision can actively participate in the decision-making process (Ostrom, 1990). In this sense, forming sub-DAOs around each house, based on local communities would be beneficial. Beyond this inclusive structure, members can also adapt the rules and role of the group to the evolving needs of the community as well as to the environment and conditions of the housing and other shared resources. The decentralized architecture of blockchain technology facilitates such adaptable, self-managed, and community-driven decision-making (Spychiger et al., 2025).
4.4 Shared knowledge and responsibility
Within no1s1, there is a need for some form of communication platform that acts as a central hub for all aspects of community management (Beck et al., 2018). DAO members can address problems, make suggestions, discuss rules, share information, and even resolve conflicts, thereby promoting transparency and shared knowledge within the community. To encourage active participation, no1s1 offers rewards in the form of tokens for valuable contributions such as sharing knowledge, monitoring the rules, supporting the development of proposals, and participating in decisions (Zhao et al., 2022). Communication is facilitated globally and locally, with separate channels for discussion and potential decision-making based on holographic consensus, allowing members to focus on specific local topics (Field, 2018). The platform forgoes a reputation system to prevent centralization and ensure equal participation. However, as outlined in the previous section, a reputation-based voting system could be introduced to ensure that decision-making power is based on active participation rather than financial wealth, fostering a more equitable governance structure and avoiding the centralization of power. Additionally, to incentivize greater responsibility within the community, increased voting rights for active members might be considered beneficial, possibly alongside delegated roles with specific responsibilities based on trust or reputation within the community.
4.5 Gradual accountability
Accountability in no1s1 can be challenging due to the anonymity and distributed nature of DAOs. Nevertheless, the physical part of no1s1, in the form of real estate, also provides the possibility to implement a variation of “proof-of-personhood” as in the case of specific cryptocurrencies (Borge et al., 2017). This requires members to obtain verified proof of identity before being granted access to the DAO. This mechanism of proof-of-personhood might also be limited to local sub-DAOs, enabling the no1s1 community to use its blockchain-based infrastructure to resolve anonymity issues. Additionally, graduated sanctions for rule violations–from warnings, access restrictions, and withdrawal of tokens to complete exclusion from the DAO–can be programmed into smart contracts, allowing for automated enforcement (Rozas et al., 2021b). This creates a transparent, tamper-proof, graduated accountability system with sanctions appropriate to the offense.
4.6 Community conflict resolution
A key element of no1s1 is a transparent monitoring and sanction system that allows conflicts to be resolved rapidly. Therefore, a form of community court system with clear communication channels for members to report problems would be required. Monitoring could be carried out with the help of sensor technology and through the active involvement of members using digital tools such as mobile apps. At the local sub-DAO level, with just a few members, each person could be part of the conflict resolution court. In contrast, at the global level, the no1s1 community would have to delegate conflict resolution to specially elected members. This conflict resolution court would determine penalties (fines, penalties, exclusion, etc.) based on progressive accountability and trigger execution via smart contracts. However, it is still the community that continuously develops the rules and defines the accountability measures.
4.7 Autonomous governance
The emphasis on autonomous governance and self-management through technological capabilities reflects the no1s1 community’s desire for self-determination and control over shared living space. The legal status of DAOs is currently unclear, which has even led to blockchain-based systems being labeled “alegal” because they operate outside the law so are neither legal nor illegal (De Filippi et al., 2022). Even if DAOs can develop their own “alegal” framework based on smart contracts and without local regulations, no1s1 would still need access to the local legal system in case of serious conflicts within its community. Therefore, recognition and support of the no1s1 autonomous governance model by local authorities and government agencies is undoubtedly a key factor in successful operation and long-term viability.
4.8 Global coordination
A network of collectively managed houses worldwide can only function with local control and global coordination. In the case of no1s1, each sub-DAO could manage its own property (or geographically neighboring properties) through elected representatives within the subgroups. This keeps decision-making efficient and avoids information overload, as all members only need to be involved in key decisions (Zhao et al., 2022). These sub-DAO representatives could then be entitled to vote on specific issues in a global no1s1 governing body. Alternatively, all members of no1s1 could elect a separate body to deal with overarching global problems. In this way, blockchain technology can efficiently implement and facilitate these elections and voting processes. This bottom-up approach empowers local groups while enabling them to leverage the collective knowledge and resources of the network through elected representatives and shared governance structures.
5 Conceptualization of DAO as a governance tool
In this paper, we have developed a globally run collaborative housing initiative based on the new concept of decentralized autonomous organizations for governing CPRs (Cila et al., 2020; Rozas et al., 2021a; 2021b; Van Vulpen and Jansen, 2023). In the previous section, we outlined how DAOs could serve as digital governance tools for global collaborative housing initiatives and how DAOs enable the implementation of the developed eight key design principles for the creation of stable and efficient collaborative housing governance in line with the concepts of Ostrom (1990); Ostrom (2010) and Fitzpatrick (2018). As Figure 4 shows, we can now conceptualize our findings by identifying five specific benefits of DAOs for governing CH initiatives, namely,: (i) a transparent crypto-accounting system, (ii) a scalable decision-making mechanism, (iii) a global jurisdiction and rule enforcement mechanism, (iv) an automated rights and incentive system, and (v) a flexible polycentric governance system. All five are explained in greater detail below.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Key benefits of DAOs for governing collaborative housing.
First, we observe that blockchain-based DAOs facilitate a collectively and globally managed accounting system for the financial and economic needs of the CH initiative. A standard, global, and transparent crypto-accounting system such as this helps the community follow the key principles of proportional costs, shared knowledge and responsibility, autonomous governance, and global coordination. A shared global accounting system helps distribute the costs of using and maintaining the houses in a transparent and fair way, including shared responsibility for financial and economic decisions within the community (Beck et al., 2018). Furthermore, the independent global accounting system should be seen as a key feature to provide the community with autonomy for its self-governance; only communities with an independent, censor-resistant, adaptable, tamper-proofed, and transparent financial system can ultimately be defined as autonomous (Wright, 2021). Additionally, the global independent accounting system helps coordinate and allocate funds according to the local and global needs of the communities.
Second, DAOs enable flexible, transparent decision-making mechanisms that can be adapted and scaled to globally distributed collaborative communities (Zhao et al., 2022). The transparent and scalable decision-making mechanism of no1s1 is characterized by the key design principle of inclusive and adaptive decision-making, shared knowledge and responsibility, and global coordination, whereby voting rights are differentiated according to the roles and responsibilities of each member and local communities represented by different tokens (e.g., governance tokens, utility tokens, etc.). It is crucial that sub-DAOs are organized around local communities so that all affected local members can actively participate within their sub-community, be jointly responsible, and be empowered to adapt the rules to their changing needs. In addition, DAOs need to include knowledge-sharing mechanisms, such as communication platforms for opinion formation and information sharing (Spychiger et al., 2025).
Third, a key advantage of DAOs for governing CH initiatives is their ability to create a global jurisdiction and rule enforcement mechanism. In this way, DAOs can help implement key design principles like gradual accountability, community conflict resolution, autonomous governance, and global coordination. The key here is undoubtedly the ability to install autonomous governance that not only helps a global community define its own rules, measurements, and conflict resolution procedures (Rozas et al., 2021a) but also provides the ability to enforce any decision directly by actively revoking, confiscating, or distributing access, governance, and/or utility tokens from/to a specific community member (Hunhevicz et al., 2022). Furthermore, by allowing local communities to organize local governance within a sub-DAO, it should be possible to follow the principles of subsidiarity governance (Fitzpatrick, 2018) and provide local communities with the tools and power to decide quickly and efficiently on regional issues.
Fourth, one of the key features of DAOs–and blockchain–is the possibility to create trust and transparency within a global community of people who do not know each other and do not necessarily trust each other (Rozas et al., 2021b). This is mainly possible through a token-based automated rights and incentives system clearly defining the community’s boundaries and each member’s rights and responsibilities (Hunhevicz et al., 2022). In this way, DAOs can help implement the key design principle of defined boundaries and responsibilities for collective housing initiatives. Smart contracts can automate the rights to grant and revoke incentives, offering greater control and flexibility than traditional methods (Van Vulpen and Jansen, 2023). Additionally, a DAO can provide specific incentives to reward valuable activities through token rewards, in which the blockchain provides an immutable record of any activity and decisions, promoting global transparency within the community (Cila et al., 2020). As a result of DAO-based transparency, CH initiatives would benefit from increased trust not only by their members but also by local authorities, which again would help achieve an autonomous governance recognized by local authorities.
Fifth, with sub-DAOs, CH initiatives can implement a flexible polycentric governance system still based on the key design principles but complying with the concept of global coordination. Here, local groups are part of a larger community, following their overarching rules, strategy, and vision. This polycentric governance system would allow CH initiatives to scale–not only in community size from small to large but also geographically from local to global. In this way, DAOs enable the implementation of scalable governance mechanisms, such as decision-making that ensures local decisions still reflect the global opinion of the DAO community (Field, 2018; Field and Weller, 2019).
To conclude our conceptualization section, we assert that our study contributes theoretically and practically to the discourse on collaborative governance and offers insights into how DAOs and blockchain technology can potentially transform CH initiatives by promoting autonomy, transparency, and coordination on a global scale. Hence, we propose a theoretical framework for globally operating CH initiatives based on the principles of autonomous governance, shared responsibility, and global coordination, extending existing theories of collaborative governance to the context of DAOs. In practice, we further propose that DAOs could facilitate transparent and flexible decision-making mechanisms, create token-based jurisdictions for rule enforcement, and establish polycentric governance systems that promote scalability and the alignment of local decision-making with global community values. This would create a scalable and trustworthy system for geographically dispersed CH communities.
6 Conclusion
Drawing on the work of various scholars and the experimental development of a collaborative housing DAO, this paper presents an innovative approach to CH governance using decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) as it seeks to establish how DAOs could help govern CH initiatives. In doing so, we outline how DAOs could become a valuable digital governance tool that helps CH initiatives apply Ostrom (1990); Ostrom (2010) governance principles. This allows us to identify the following five key benefits of DAOs in the governance of collective housing initiatives:
First, DAOs enable a transparent and globally accessible accounting system that ensures fair cost allocation and shared responsibility. Second, DAOs enable flexible decision-making with voting rights based on members’ roles and local needs. Sub-DAOs empower local communities to modify rules and promote active participation. Third, DAOs can create a token-based system to enforce the rules and resolve conflicts, allowing communities to define their own governance structure with the help of a token mechanism. Fourth, DAOs promote trust and transparency within a global community by clearly defining the rights and obligations of its members. Here, smart contracts automate processes and provide an immutable record of activities. Finally, DAOs facilitate the implementation of a polycentric governance system with sub-DAOs for local communities, allowing CH initiatives to be scaled globally while maintaining local autonomy.
From a theoretical perspective, it also seems relevant to identify (i) the tokenization of rights and incentives and (ii) the institutionalization of trust based on a transparent and automated code system as key features of DAOs since this could have implications for ongoing research on trust and governance in traditional organizations. However, it is essential to recognize that blockchain–and therefore DAOs–are a new technological innovation, and their transferability to CH is still largely theoretical. Further research would require real-life applications to assess their potential benefits. For example, a subsequent research project could evaluate certain aspects of DAOs as a technical tool (e.g., decision-making) for a specific governance process in CH initiatives. It could also apply the governance framework to a community that wants to adapt blockchain technology for scaling globally. In addition, such research could extend governance for CH communities by adding smart features to homes and involving the Internet of Things. Integrating the latest intelligence into the governance process would lead to new requirements for the governance system and an adaptation of the proposed governance principles.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
ML: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. SW: Conceptualization, Investigation, Validation, Visualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. LK: Conceptualization, Investigation, Validation, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the DIZH (Digitalization Initiative of the Zurich Higher Education Institutions, Switzerland) under Grant No. 39. Open access funding was provided by ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences.
Acknowledgments
This work was previously published as a preprint on SSRN and can be accessed at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4950821.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
1https://dezentrum.ch/case-studies/no1s1 [accessed 09.05.2024].
2https://cabin.city/[accessed 15.03.2024].
3https://www.buildcities.network/ [accessed 15.03.2024].
4Fitzpatrick (2018) uses the term “mutual housing” in his dissertation, but basically this has the same meaning as collaborative housing.
5The eight principles (Ostrom, 1990) are: clearly defined boundaries, congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions, collective-choice arrangements, monitoring, graduated sanctions, conflict-resolution mechanisms, minimal recognition of rights to organize, and nested enterprises.
References
Aalbers, M. (2008). The financialization of home and the mortgage market crisis. Compet. & Change 12 (2), 148–166. doi:10.1179/102452908X289802
Aernouts, N., and Ryckewaert, M. (2019). Reproducing housing commons. Government involvement and differential commoning in a housing cooperative. Hous. Stud. 34 (1), 92–110. doi:10.1080/02673037.2018.1432756
Axelsen, H., Jensen, J. R., and Ross, O. (2022). Hen is a DAO Decentralized? Complex Systems. Inf. Model. Q. 31, 51–75. doi:10.7250/csimq.2022-31.04
Balmer, I., and Gerber, J.-D. (2018). Why are housing cooperatives successful? Insights from Swiss affordable housing policy. Hous. Stud. 33 (3), 361–385. doi:10.1080/02673037.2017.1344958
Beck, R., Müller-Bloch, Ch., and King, J. (2018). Governance in the blockchain economy: a framework and research agenda. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 19 (10)–1034. Available online at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol19/iss10/.
Bellavitis, C., Fisch, Ch., and Momtaz, P. (2023). The rise of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs): a first empirical glimpse. Venture Cap. 25 (2), 187–203. doi:10.1080/13691066.2022.2116797
Borge, M., Kokoris-Kogias, E., Jovanovic, P., Gasser, L., Gailly, N., and Ford, B. (2017). “Proof-of-personhood: redemocratizing permissionless cryptocurrencies,” in 2017 IEEE European symposium on security and privacy workshops, 23–26. doi:10.1109/EuroSPW.2017.46
Bossuyt, D. (2021). Who owns collaborative housing? A conceptual typology of property regimes. Hous. Theory Soc. 39 (2), 200–216. doi:10.1080/14036096.2021.1888788
Brenton, M. (2013). Senior co-housing communities–an alternative approach for the UK? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Buterin, V. (2013). Bootstrapping a decentralized autonomous corporation: Part I. Bitcoin Mag. Available online at: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bootstrapping-a-decentralized-autonomous-corporation-part-i-1379644274 (Accessed March 21, 2024).
Buterin, V. (2014). A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform, Ethereum White Paper. Available online at: https://ethereum.org/de/whitepaper/(Accessed March 21, 2024).
Calcaterra, C. (2018). On-chain governance of decentralized autonomous organizations: blockchain organizat`ion using semada. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3188374
Catalini, C., and Gans, J. (2020). Some simple economics of the blockchain. Commun. ACM 63 (7), 80–90. doi:10.1145/3359552
Cila, N., Ferri, G., de Waal, M., Gloerich, I., and Karpinski, T. (2020). “The blockchain and the commons: dilemmas in the design of local platforms,” in Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 1–14. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376660
Cooper, C. (2000). Site planning, building design and a sense of community: an analysis of six co-housing schemes in Denmark, Sweden, and The Netherlands. J. Archit. Plan. Res. 17 (2), 146–163. Available online at:http://www.jstor.org/stable/43030533
Crandall, J. (2023). Living on the block: how equitable is tokenized equity? Big Data & Soc. 10 (2). doi:10.1177/20539517231208455
Czischke, D. (2018). Collaborative housing and housing providers: towards an analytical framework of multi-stakeholder collaboration in housing co-production. Int. J. Hous. Policy 18 (1), 55–81. doi:10.1080/19491247.2017.1331593
Czischke, D., Carriou, C., and Lang, R. (2020). Collaborative housing in europe: conceptualizing the field. Hous. Theory Soc. 37 (1), 1–9. doi:10.1080/14036096.2020.1703611
Davidson, S., De Filippi, P., and Potts, J. (2016). Economics of blockchain. SSRN J. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2744751
Davidson, S., De Filippi, P., and Potts, J. (2018). Blockchains and the economic institutions of capitalism. J. Institutional Econ. 14 (4), 639–658. doi:10.1017/S1744137417000200
De Filippi, P., Mannan, M., and Reijers, W. (2022). The alegality of blockchain technology. Policy Soc. 41 (3), 358–372. doi:10.1093/polsoc/puac006
Diacon, D., Clarke, R., and Guimaraes, S. (2005). Redefining the Commons: Locking in Value through Community Land Trusts. (Coalville: Building & Social Housing Foundation).
Durrett, C., and McCamant, K. (2011). Creating co-housing: building sustainable communities. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
Feichtinger, R., Fritsch, R., Vonlanthen, Y., and Wattenhofer, R. (2023). “The hidden shortcomings of (D)aos – an empirical study of on-chain governance,” in Financial cryptography and data security, lecture notes in computer Sciences. Editor A. Essex, S. Matsuo, O. Kulyk, L. Gudgeon, A. Klages-Mundt, D. Perezet al. (Cham: Springer), 165–185. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-48806-1_11
Ferreri, M., and Vidal, L. (2022). Public-cooperative policy mechanisms for housing commons. Int. J. Hous. Policy 22 (2), 149–173. doi:10.1080/19491247.2021.1877888
Field, M. (2018). Holographic consensus – Part 1. DAOstack. Available online at: https://medium.com/daostack/holographic-consensus-part-1-116a73ba1e1c (Accessed May 01, 2024).
Field, M., and Weller, E. (2019). Holographic consensus – Part 2. DAOstack. Available online at: https://medium.com/daostack/holographic-consensus-part-2-4fd461e8dcde (Accessed May 01, 2024).
Fitzpatrick, D. (2018). Governance of mutual housing in London Doctoral dissertation. London: UCL University College London. Available online at: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10047446/1/Fitzpatrick_10047446_thesis.Redacted.pdf ([Accessed March 21, 2024).
Fromm, D. (2012). Seeding community: collaborative housing as a strategy for social and neighbourhood repair. Built Environ. 38 (3), 364–394. doi:10.2148/benv.38.3.364
Fromm, D. (1991). Collaborative communities: Cohousing, Central Living and Other New Forms of Housing with Shared Facilities. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Fulmer, I. (2012). Editor’s comments: the craft of writing theory articles – variety and similarity in AMR. Acad. Manag. Rev. 37 (3), 327–331. doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0026
Gilson, L., and Goldberg, C. (2015). Editors’ comment: so, what is a conceptual paper? Group & Organ. Manag. 40 (2), 127–130. doi:10.1177/1059601115576425
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 162 (3859), 1243–1248. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
Hassan, S., and De Filippi, P. (2021). Decentralized autonomous organization. Internet Policy Rev. 10 (2), 1–10. doi:10.14763/2021.2.1556
Hunhevicz, J. (2022). Exploring the potential of blockchain and cryptoeconomics for the construction industry Doctoral dissertation, ETH Zurich. doi:10.3929/ethz-b-000575095
Hunhevicz, J., Brasey, P., Bonanomi, M., Hall, D., and Fischer, M. (2022). Applications of blockchain for the governance of integrated project delivery: a crypto commons approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.07002. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2207.07002
Hunhevicz, J., and Hall, D. (2020). Do you need a blockchain in construction? Use case categories and decision framework for DLT design options. Adv. Eng. Inf. 45, 101094. doi:10.1016/j.aei.2020.101094
Hunhevicz, J., Wang, H., Hess, L., and Hall, D. (2021). “no1s1–a blockchain-based DAO prototype for autonomous space,” in Proceedings of the 2021 European conference on computing in construction (London: University College Dublin), 2, 27–33. doi:10.35490/ec3.2021.185
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS Rev. 10, 18–26. doi:10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
Jarvis, H. (2015). Towards a deeper understanding of the social architecture of co-housing: evidence from the UK, USA and Australia. Urban Res. & Pract. 8 (1), 93–105. doi:10.1080/17535069.2015.1011429
Labit, A. (2015). Self-managed co-housing in the context of an ageing population in Europe. Urban Res. & Pract. 8 (1), 32–45. doi:10.1080/17535069.2015.1011425
Lang, R., Carriou, D., and Czischke, D. (2020). Collaborative housing research (1990–2017): a systematic review and thematic analysis of the field. Hous. Theory Soc. 37 (1), 10–39. doi:10.1080/14036096.2018.1536077
Lang, R., Chatterton, P., and Mullins, D. (2019). Grassroots innovations in community-led housing in England: the role and evolution of intermediaries. Interna. J. Urban Sustai. Develop. 12 (1), 52–72. doi:10.1080/19463138.2019.1663525
Larimer, S. (2013). Bitcoin and the three laws of robotics, steemit. Available online at: https://steemit.com/bitshares/@stan/bitcoin-and-the-three-laws-of-robotics (Accessed March 21, 2024).
Li, C., Chen, Z., Xue, F., Kong, X., Xiao, B., Lai, X., et al. (2021). A blockchain-and IoT-based smart product-service system for the sustainability of prefabricated housing construction. J. Clean. Prod. 286, 125391. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125391
Lumineau, F., Wang, W., and Schilke, O. (2021). Blockchain governance—a new way of organizing collaborations? Organ. Sci. 32 (2), 500–521. doi:10.1287/orsc.2020.1379
Lustenberger, M., Spychiger, F., and Küng, L. (2024b). “Designing a decentralized autonomous organization,” in ECIS 2024 proceedings, 6. Available online at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2024/track16_fintech/track16_fintech/6.
Lustenberger, M., Spychiger, F., Küng, L., Bassi, E., and Wollenschläger, S. (2024a). DAO research trends: reflections and learnings from the first European DAO workshop (DAWO). doi:10.2139/ssrn.4944742
Meredith, J. (1993). Theory building through conceptual methods. Int. J. Operations & Prod. Manag. 13 (5), 3–11. doi:10.1108/01443579310028120
Mohamed, H. (2021). “Real estate crowdfunding for public housing on the blockchain,” in Crowdfunding in the public sector: theory and best practices. Editors R. Lenart-Gansiniec, and J. Chen (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 107–126. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-77841-5
Moore, T. E. (2011). Community ownership and governance of affordable housing: Perspectives on community land trusts. Sheffield Hallam University.
Nasarre-Aznar, S. (2018). Collaborative housing and blockchain. Administration 66 (2), 59–82. doi:10.2478/admin-2018-0018
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Am. Econ. Rev. 100 (3), 641–672. doi:10.1257/aer.100.3.641
Ostrom, E., and Hess, C. (2007). in Indiana university (Bloomington: School of Public & Environmental Affairs Research Paper No. 2008-11-01). Private and common property rights. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1936062
Poux, P., De Filippi, P., and Ramos, S. (2020). “Blockchains for the governance of common goods,” in Proceedings of the 1stinternational Workshop on distributed Infrastructure for common good, 7–12. doi:10.1145/3428662.3428793
Proskurovska, A., and Dörry, S. (2022). The blockchain challenge for Sweden’s housing and mortgage markets. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 54 (8), 1569–1585. doi:10.1177/0308518X221116896
Qi-Long, C., Rong-Hua, Y., and Fei-Long, L. (2019). “A blockchain-based housing rental system,” in Proceedings of the international conference on advances in computer technology, information science and communications, 184–190. Xiamen, China.
Rikken, O., Janssen, M., and Kwee, Z. (2023). The ins and outs of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) unraveling the definitions, characteristics, and emerging developments of DAOs. Blockchain Res. Appl. 4 (3), 100143. doi:10.1016/j.bcra.2023.100143
Rozas, D., Tenorio-Fornés, A., Díaz-Molina, S., and Hassan, S. (2021a). When Ostrom meets blockchain: exploring the potentials of blockchain for commons governance. Sage Open 11 (1). doi:10.1177/21582440211002526
Rozas, D., Tenorio-Fornés, A., and Hassan, S. (2021b). Analysis of the potentials of blockchain for the governance of global digital commons. Front. Blockchain 4, 577680. doi:10.3389/fbloc.2021.577680
Spychiger, F., Lustenberger, M., and Küng, L. (2025). “Decision-making in decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs),” in Handbook of blockchain technology. Editor M. Themistocleous (UK: Edward Elgar Publishing).
Spychiger, F., Makode, P. K., Küng, L., and Tessone, C. J. (2024). “Governance and maintenance for a DAO with physical assets-an agent-based model,” in 2024 IEEE international conference on omni-layer intelligent systems (COINS) (London: United Kingdom), 1–6. doi:10.1109/COINS61597.2024.10622115
Tan, J. Z., Merk, T., Hubbard, S., Oak, E. R., Pirovich, J., Rennie, E., et al. (2023). Open problems in DAOs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19201. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2310.19201
Tummers, L. (2015). Understanding co-housing from a planning perspective: why and how? Urban Res. & Pract. 8 (1), 64–78. doi:10.1080/17535069.2015.1011427
Tummers, L. (2016). The re-emergence of self-managed co-housing in Europe: a critical review of co-housing research. Urban Stud. 53 (10), 2023–2040. doi:10.1177/0042098015586696
Utkarsh, P. H., Saran, P., and Vetrivelan, P. (2022). “Loan origination system in housing sector using blockchain,”. Futuristic Communication and network technologies, VICFCNT 2020, lecture notes in electrical engineering. Editors A. Sivasubramanian, P. N. Shastry, and P. C. Hong (Singapore: Springer), 792, 915–922. doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4625-6_91
Van Vulpen, P., and Jansen, S. (2023). Decentralized autonomous organization design for the commons and the common good. Front. Blockchain 6, 1287249. doi:10.3389/fbloc.2023.1287249
Vestbro, D. U., and Horelli, L. (2012). Design for gender equality: The history of co-housing ideas and realities. Buil. Environ. 38 (3), 315–335.
Vestbro, D. (2010). “Concepts and terminology,” in Living together – Co-housing ideas and realities around the world. Editor D. Vestbro Stockholm (London Division of Urban and Regional Studies), 21–29. Available online at: https://kollektivhus.se/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Livingtogetherwebb-1.pdf (Accessed March 24, 2024).
Wang, C., Jia, W., and Chen, Y. (2022). Housing rental scheme based on redactable blockchain. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2022, 1–10.
Wang, J., Wu, P., Wang, X., and Shou, W. (2017). The outlook of blockchain technology for construction engineering management. Front. Eng. Manag. 4 (1), 67–75. doi:10.15302/J-FEM-2017006
Williams, J. (2005). Sun, surf and sustainable housing—cohousing, the Californian experience, Int. Plan. Stud. 10 (2), 145–177. doi:10.1080/13563470500258824
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14 (4), 516–531.
Wright, S. A. (2021). Measuring DAO autonomy: lessons from other autonomous systems. IEEE Trans. Technol. Soc. 2 (1), 43–53. doi:10.1109/TTS.2021.3054974
Keywords: collaborative housing, decentralized autonomous organization, blockchain, governance, commons, common-pool resource
Citation: Lustenberger M, Wollenschläger S and Küng L (2025) DAO as digital governance tool for collaborative housing. Front. Blockchain 8:1523951. doi: 10.3389/fbloc.2025.1523951
Received: 06 November 2024; Accepted: 24 February 2025;
Published: 26 March 2025.
Edited by:
Qin Wang, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), AustraliaReviewed by:
John Anthony Rose, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, JapanRaul Zambrano, Independent Researcher, New York, United States
Copyright © 2025 Lustenberger, Wollenschläger and Küng. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Michael Lustenberger, bWljaGFlbC5sdXN0ZW5iZXJnZXJAemhhdy5jaA==