Blockchain governance occurs through a combination of social and technical activities, involving smart contracts, deliberation within a group, and voting. These processes are significant as they demonstrate how governance of distributed infrastructures is evolving. While typologies of blockchain governance can be constructed by gathering on-chain interactions and formal rules, other aspects are more difficult to observe, including governance interactions occurring inside discussion forums. In this article, we discuss a participatory digital ethnography technique, whereby participants and researchers use a bespoke bot to identify governance interactions occurring within project forums (on Discord). The technique is designed to be used in conjunction with the analysis of software for the purpose of mapping and understanding the “governance surface” of different protocols. We describe our tools and methods for understanding automated futures through a case study of the SourceCred community, an organization using, developing, and maintaining open source software called SourceCred. The SourceCred codebase is also used by other decentralized communities for various organizational functions, including reputation and compensation.
AnannyM.CrawfordK. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media and Society, 20(3), 973–989.
2.
AndrejevicM. (2020). Automated media. Routledge.
3.
BaguleyJ. (2019). Gates and channels: An ANT-oriented approach to understanding fan community behavior and identity on a Discord chat server [Honours, University of Sydney]. University of Sydney Research Repository. https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/21878
BrattonB. (2016). The stack: On software and sovereignty. MIT press.
6.
BrinS.PageL. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine [Conference session]. Seventh International World-Wide Web Conference, Brisbane, Australia.
7.
BurgessJ.AngusD.CarahN.AndrejevicM.HawkerK.LewisK.ObeidA. K.SmithA.TanJ.FordyceR.TrottV.LiL. (2021, November6). Critical simulation as hybrid digital method for exploring the data operations and vernacular cultures of visual social media platforms. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/2cwsu
8.
BurrellJ. (2009). The field site as a network: A strategy for locating ethnographic research. Field Methods, 21(2), 181–199.
FalzonM.-A. (2009). Introduction. In FalzonM.-A. (Ed.), Multi-sited ethnography theory, praxis and locality in contemporary research (pp. 1–25). Routledge.
14.
FoucaultM. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.
15.
GallowayA. R. (2012). The interface effect. Polity Press.
16.
GillespieT. (2018). Custodians of the Internet. Yale University Press.
17.
GirardR.FrecceroY. (1976). Deceit, desire, and the novel. John Hopkins University Press.
18.
GorwaR. (2019). What is platform governance?Information, Communication & Society, 22(6), 854–871.
19.
HassanS.De FilippiP. (2021). Decentralized autonomous organization. Internet Policy Review, 10(2), np.
20.
HineC. (2020). Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, embodied, and everyday (2nd ed.). Routledge.
21.
HongS. (2020). Technologies of speculation: The limits of knowledge in a data-driven society. New York University Press.
22.
JhaverS.BirmanI.GilbertE.BruckmanA. (2019). Human-machine collaboration for content regulation: The case of reddit automoderator. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 26(5), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3338243
23.
KooimanJ. (2003). Governing as governance. SAGE.
24.
KozinetsR. (2020). Netnography the essential guide to qualitative social media research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
25.
Latzko-TothG. (2014). Users as co-designers of software-based media: The co-construction of Internet relay chat. Canadian Journal of Communication, 39(4), 577–595.
MouffeC. (2013). For an agonistic model of democracy. In MartinJ. (Ed.), Chantal Mouffe : Hegemony, radical democracy, and the political (pp. 191–206). Taylor & Francis.
32.
Nippert-EngC. E. (2008). Home and work: Negotiating boundaries through everyday life. University of Chicago Press.
33.
PinkS.HorstH.HjorthL.LewisT.TacchiJ. (2016). Digital ethnography: Principles and practice. SAGE.
SuzorN. P. (2019). Lawless: The secret rules that govern our digital lives. Cambridge University Press.
38.
TacchiJ. (2015). Ethnographic action research: Media, information and communicative ecologies for development initiatives. In BradburyH. (Ed.), The Sage handbook of action research (pp. 220–229). SAGE.
