Systematization of Knowledge: Architectural Resilience, Economic Sovereignty, and the Future of Distributed Consensus

A Comprehensive Analysis of Blockchain Infrastructures for Human Civilization

1. Introduction: The Anthropological Imperative for Trustless Coordination

The evolution of human civilization is intrinsically linked to the evolution of coordination technologies. From the clay tablets of Mesopotamia to the double-entry bookkeeping of the Medici era, the mechanism by which society records “truth”—ownership, identity, and contractual obligation—has dictated the scale of economic complexity. We currently stand at an inflection point where Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) offers a transition from “institutional trust” (reliance on intermediaries like central banks and governments) to “cryptographic trust” (reliance on mathematical proofs and game-theoretic equilibrium).

This report presents an exhaustive, expert-level systematization of knowledge (SoK) regarding the current state of blockchain technology. It ignores speculative market sentiment to focus strictly on rigorous academic research, formal verification, and empirical data regarding consensus mechanisms, tokenomics, decentralization metrics, and governance models. The objective is to identify and rank the specific blockchain architectures that possess the requisite robustness, fairness, and censorship resistance to serve as the foundational financial and governance layer for the human species.

Our analysis is grounded in the “Blockchain Trilemma”—the challenge of achieving Scalability, Security, and Decentralization simultaneously—but extends beyond it to include a fourth and fifth dimension critical for long-term survival: Governance (the capacity for protocol evolution) and Economic Sovereignty (the sustainability of monetary policy). We utilize the Edinburgh Decentralisation Index (EDI) methodology to quantify the often-nebulous concept of “decentralization” and employ game-theoretic frameworks like DeTEcT to analyze wealth distribution dynamics.

—

2. Taxonomy of Consensus: The Physics of Agreement

The consensus mechanism is the fundamental protocol that ensures a distributed network of nodes maintains a unified state of the ledger without a central authority. Through our review of over 130 algorithms and associated academic literature, distinct classifications emerge based on the resource utilized to achieve sybil resistance and the method of finality.

2.1 Class I: Thermodynamic Consensus (Proof-of-Work)

Abstract:

Thermodynamic consensus, commonly known as Proof-of-Work (PoW), anchors digital truth in physical reality. It requires the expenditure of energy (computation) to propose blocks, creating a “cost of forgery” that makes rewriting history economically prohibitive.

2.1.1 Subclass: Nakamoto Consensus (Bitcoin)

Nakamoto Consensus, introduced by Bitcoin, represents the first solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem in an asynchronous setting. It utilizes a probabilistic finality model where the probability of a transaction being reversed decreases exponentially with each subsequent block.

• Mechanism: Nodes compete to solve a SHA-256 cryptographic puzzle. The difficulty is adjusted every 2,016 blocks to maintain a 10-minute average interval.
• Security Model: Security is derived from the assumption that honest nodes control of the total CPU power. It is robust against “Nothing-at-Stake” attacks because mining a fork requires splitting physical resources.1
• Failure Modes: The primary failure mode is the 51% Attack, where a coalition gains majority hash rate. While historically theoretical, the industrialization of mining has introduced significant centralization vectors. Research indicates that mining pools have consolidated power, with Gini coefficients for block production rising from 0.85 to 0.97 over the last decade.2
• Civilizational Utility: Bitcoin’s strength lies in its immutability and thermodynamic cost, functioning as a “digital gold” or settlement layer. However, its limited throughput (7 TPS) and high energy consumption (rivaling nation-states) pose questions regarding its viability as a global medium of exchange for daily commerce.1

2.1.2 Subclass: ASIC-Resistant PoW (Monero)

• Mechanism: Monero employs the RandomX algorithm, specifically designed to be efficient on general-purpose CPUs and inefficient on specialized ASICs.
• Objective: To preserve the egalitarian nature of mining (“one CPU, one vote”) and prevent the centralization seen in Bitcoin mining farms.
• Privacy Utility: Monero integrates Ring Signatures, Stealth Addresses, and RingCT to obfuscate the sender, receiver, and amount. This makes it the only major protocol offering true fungibility and censorship resistance at the protocol level.3
• Research Insight: Empirical studies suggest that while Monero facilitates illicit markets, this property is identical to physical cash and is essential for a robust financial system that protects individuals from surveillance capitalism and authoritarian overreach.3

2.2 Class II: Capital-Based Consensus (Proof-of-Stake)

Abstract:

Proof-of-Stake (PoS) decouples consensus from physical energy, utilizing internal economic value (“stake”) for sybil resistance. This introduces the “Nothing-at-Stake” problem (where it costs nothing to validate on multiple forks), which is solved through either “Slashing” (financial penalties) or cryptographic sortition.

2.2.1 Subclass: High-Assurance Probabilistic PoS (Cardano/Ouroboros)

The Ouroboros family of protocols (Classic, Praos, Genesis, Chronos) represents the first PoS algorithms with mathematically proven security guarantees comparable to Bitcoin.

• Mechanism: Ouroboros divides time into epochs and slots. A slot leader is elected via a lottery based on stake.
• Innovation - Verifiable Random Functions (VRF): To prevent “Grinding Attacks” (where an adversary manipulates the randomness source), Ouroboros uses VRFs. This allows nodes to privately determine if they are the slot leader and generate a proof that others can verify, without revealing their identity prematurely.5
• Security Proofs: Academic research confirms Ouroboros is secure against fully adaptive corruption (adversaries who can corrupt nodes instantly) and enables “bootstrapping from genesis” (Ouroboros Genesis), solving the long-range attack problem without trusted checkpoints.7
• Fairness: It employs a saturation parameter that limits the rewards of a pool once it reaches a certain size. This mathematically enforces decentralization, preventing the emergence of “super-pools” seen in Bitcoin and Ethereum.8

2.2.2 Subclass: Deterministic Finality Gadgets (Ethereum/Gasper)

Ethereum’s transition to PoS (“The Merge”) utilizes the Gasper protocol, a hybrid of LMD-GHOST (fork choice rule) and Casper FFG (finality gadget).

• Mechanism: Validators attest to blocks in epochs (32 slots). If >2/3 of the validator set agrees, the epoch is “justified” and then “finalized.”
• Trade-offs: Unlike Ouroboros (which is probabilistic but rapid), Casper provides “economic finality.” Reverting a finalized block would require burning at least 1/3 of the total staked ETH (billions of dollars), creating a massive economic shield.1
• Centralization Risks: The rise of Liquid Staking Derivatives (LSDs) like Lido has created a new centralization vector. Research shows that while the validator count is high, the “effective” Nakamoto coefficient is lower due to these distinct entities controlling vast swathes of stake.9

2.2.3 Subclass: Nominated Proof-of-Stake (Polkadot/NPoS)

Polkadot employs Nominated Proof-of-Stake (NPoS), designed to maximize the economic security of the network.

• Mechanism: Separates Validators (infrastructure providers) from Nominators (token holders). Nominators select up to 16 trustworthy validators.
• Innovation - The Phragmén Method: A sophisticated election algorithm optimizes stake distribution, ensuring the active validator set is the most diverse and backed by the highest possible total stake. This prevents vote centralization on a few popular nodes.11
• Security: Features explicit slashing for equivocation (double-signing). If a validator is slashed, their nominators are also slashed, creating a high-stakes “skin in the game” alignment that encourages rigorous due diligence by token holders.12

2.2.4 Subclass: Pure Proof-of-Stake (Algorand)

Algorand utilizes Pure Proof-of-Stake (PPoS), optimizing for speed and fairness via “cryptographic self-sortition.”

• Mechanism: Every user runs a VRF locally to see if they are selected to propose or vote on a block. The weighted lottery is proportional to stake but executed privately.
• Trilemma Solution: This allows for a unique property: Immediate Transaction Finality. There are no forks. Once a block is produced, it is final.13
• Vulnerability: Academic reviews highlight that PPoS prioritizes Safety over Liveness. In the event of a network partition (e.g., a massive firewall), the protocol halts to prevent inconsistencies, whereas Bitcoin or Cardano would continue (possibly forking).14

2.3 Class III: Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAG) & Metastability

Abstract:

Moving beyond the linear blockchain, DAGs allow parallel processing of transactions. Consensus is achieved not by a single leader but through the convergence of the network state.

2.3.1 Subclass: Metastable Consensus (Avalanche)

• Mechanism: The Snow family of protocols uses repeated random sub-sampling. A node queries a small, random set of neighbors (e.g., 20). If a supermajority agrees on a color (Blue vs. Red), the node flips its preference. This triggers a “phase transition” across the network, leading to rapid consensus.15
• Performance: Offers sub-second finality and high throughput.
• Failure Modes: Academic analysis identifies a “Liveness Attack” where an adversary can keep the network balanced between two choices (metastable state) indefinitely, preventing convergence. Furthermore, the safety guarantee is probabilistic, meaning there is a non-zero (though negligible) chance of failure.16

2.3.2 Subclass: Asynchronous BFT (Hedera Hashgraph)

• Mechanism: Uses a “gossip about gossip” protocol. Nodes share transactions and the history of how they received them. Each node builds a local model of the Hashgraph (the history of communication).17
• Innovation: Because every node knows what every other node knows, they can execute “virtual voting.” They calculate what the vote would have been without sending messages over the network.18
• Security: Achieves Asynchronous Byzantine Fault Tolerance (aBFT), the theoretical limit of security in distributed systems. It is mathematically secure even if the adversary controls the network timing (e.g., DDoS attacks).19

2.4 Class IV: Proof-of-Capacity (PoC)

Abstract:

PoC replaces energy and capital with storage space, attempting to be more egalitarian and eco-friendly.

2.4.1 Subclass: CrustChain

• Mechanism: Utilizes Proof-of-Capacity where consensus power is derived from trusted execution environments (TEE) and available storage.
• Trilemma Solution: Research suggests this model resolves the trilemma by lowering hardware barriers ($150/node), enhancing decentralization compared to ASIC-mining, while maintaining high security through “Meaningful Work” (storing data) rather than useless hashing.20

—

3. Quantitative Decentralization: The Edinburgh Framework

Decentralization is often treated as a binary marketing term. However, the Edinburgh Decentralisation Index (EDI) provides a rigorous, stratified methodology to measure it across multiple layers: Consensus, Network, Tokenomics, and Governance.9

3.1 Metrics of Systemic Resilience

1. Nakamoto Coefficient: The minimum number of entities required to compromise 51% of the system.
   • Interpretation: A high coefficient implies resilience against collusion.
2. Gini Coefficient: Measures inequality (0 = equality, 1 = concentrated).
   • Interpretation: High Gini in tokenomics leads to plutocracy in governance.
3. Shannon Entropy: Measures the unpredictability of the block proposer.
   • Interpretation: Low entropy indicates a deterministic schedule that can be DDoS attacked.
4. Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI): Measures market concentration of pools or validators.

3.2 Empirical Comparative Analysis (2024-2025 Data)

Key Insight: The EDI analysis reveals a “Decentralization Illusion” in PoW systems. While theoretically open, the industrial economies of scale have centralized Bitcoin mining into a few corporate entities. Conversely, Cardano’s algorithmic enforcement of decentralization (saturation) appears to be the most effective mechanism for maintaining a high Nakamoto coefficient over time.8

—

4. Tokenomics and Monetary Sovereignty

A robust financial system requires a monetary policy that ensures stability, incentivizes security, and promotes fair distribution. We analyze these through the lens of DeTEcT (Decentralized Token Economy Theory).26

4.1 Comparative Monetary Schedules

4.2 The Role of Treasuries in Civilization-Scale Systems

For a blockchain to serve as long-term infrastructure, it cannot rely on the charity of developers or the whims of Venture Capital.

• Cardano & Polkadot: Both implement on-chain Treasuries funded by protocol revenues.
• Research Insight: This mechanism creates a “Sovereign Wealth Fund” for the blockchain, allowing it to hire engineers, market itself, or even invest in real-world assets. This is critical for autopoietic (self-sustaining) systems.31

—

5. Governance: The Transition from Rule of Law to Rule of Code

Political science frameworks applied to blockchain reveal a dichotomy between “Off-chain” (informal) and “On-chain” (formal) governance.

5.1 Informal Governance (Bitcoin/Ethereum)

Relies on “Rough Consensus” (mailing lists, GitHub).

• Pros: High stability; difficult to change (conservative).
• Cons: Susceptible to “Technocracy” (core devs decide) and “Miner/Validator Capture.” Lack of formal dispute resolution can lead to catastrophic forks (e.g., ETH/ETC split).33

5.2 On-Chain Polycentric Governance (Polkadot/Cardano)

These systems codify the political process into the protocol itself.

• Polkadot OpenGov: Represents a sophisticated experiment in Direct Democracy. It abolished the “Council” (centralized body) for a concurrent referendum model.
• Innovation: Conviction Voting. Users can vote with more weight by locking their tokens for longer periods. This balances the power of “Whales” (who have capital) with “Believers” (who have time/conviction).34
• Cardano Voltaire (Project Catalyst): Utilizes Liquid Democracy. Users can vote directly or delegate their voting power to “DReps” (Domain Experts). This solves the “Rational Ignorance” problem where voters lack the time/expertise to evaluate every proposal.35

5.3 Fairness Analysis: The Plutocracy Problem

Research by Primavera De Filippi highlights that most “decentralized” governance is effectively plutocratic (1 token = 1 vote).36

• Emerging Solutions: Quadratic Voting (used in some DAOs) makes each additional vote exponentially more expensive, dampening the power of whales. Proof-of-Personhood (verifying unique humans) is the holy grail for “One Person, One Vote,” though privacy concerns remain.37

—

6. Failure Modes, Security Risks, and Censorship

6.1 The Liveness vs. Safety Trade-off

The CAP Theorem dictates that in a partition, a system must choose:

• Safety (Consistency): Algorand, Cosmos, Neo. The chain halts. Risk: Economic paralysis.
• Liveness (Availability): Bitcoin, Cardano, Ethereum. The chain continues, potentially forking. Risk: Double-spends (though mitigated by long confirmation times).5

6.2 The Censorship Vector: OFAC and the Base Layer

The 2025 NY Fed Staff Report on Tornado Cash reveals a critical vulnerability in Ethereum’s Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS).

• Finding: “Block Builders” (who construct blocks) and “Relays” are increasingly compliant with OFAC sanctions, censoring transactions at the protocol level.
• Implication: If the base layer is not neutral, it fails as a “robust financial system for the human species.” It becomes merely a more efficient banking rail.39
• Mitigation: Encrypted Mempools (using threshold encryption) are proposed to hide transaction contents until they are included in a block, preventing pre-censorship.

6.3 Privacy as Security (Monero)

Transparent ledgers (Bitcoin/Ethereum) expose users to “surveillance capitalism” and “taint analysis.”

• Risk: “Clean” coins trade at a premium; “tainted” coins are blacklisted. This destroys Fungibility, a core property of money.
• Solution: Monero’s privacy-by-default ensures that all coins are equal. Academic analysis confirms that privacy is not just for illicit activity but is a requisite for a censorship-resistant global currency.3

—

7. Comparative Classification of Blockchain Generations

Based on our research, we classify existing blockchains into three generations of problem-solving.

—

8. Ranking of Blockchains for Human Civilization

This ranking weighs Robustness, Fairness, Governance, and Sustainability over pure throughput (TPS). A financial system for the human species must survive for centuries, not just process trading bots quickly.

—

9. Conclusion: The Path to Robust Infrastructure

Our exhaustive analysis indicates that the blockchain industry has moved beyond the “Wild West” era into a phase of rigorous architectural competition.

1. Consensus is Solved: The “Energy Waste” argument against blockchain is obsolete. Ouroboros (Cardano) and PPoS (Algorand) have proven that security can be maintained without massive carbon footprints, utilizing cryptographic sortition and game theory instead of brute force.5
2. Decentralization is Quantifiable but Regressing: While protocols are becoming more robust, the economies of scale are pushing the physical layer (nodes/mining) towards centralization. The EDI metrics serve as a crucial warning system here.9
3. Governance is the Critical Differentiator: For a system to serve human civilization for generations, it must be able to evolve. Static systems (Bitcoin) risk obsolescence or violent schism. Self-amending systems with on-chain treasuries (Cardano, Polkadot) represent the biological evolution of software—autopoietic systems capable of self-preservation and adaptation.34

Final Recommendation: For “Human Civilization,” we prioritize systems that balance technical correctness with political fairness. Cardano and Polkadot currently represent the state-of-the-art in attempting to build not just a ledger, but a digital nation-state with checks, balances, and economic sovereignty. Monero remains the indispensable “check” on total surveillance. Ethereum remains the pragmatic engine of the current economy. A robust future likely involves a multi-chain interoperability of these specialized systems, rather than a single winner.

—

Works cited

1. Blockchain Consensus Mechanisms: A Primer for Supervisors (2025 Update), accessed February 12, 2026, https://www.imf.org/en/publications/wp/issues/2025/09/19/blockchain-consensus-mechanisms-a-primer-for-supervisors-2025-update-570531
2. Measuring Decentralization in Bitcoin and Ethereum using Multiple Metrics and Granularities | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed February 12, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351837354_Measuring_Decentralization_in_Bitcoin_and_Ethereum_using_Multiple_Metrics_and_Granularities
3. Privacy Coins and the Challenge of Anti-Money Laundering Regulations - ResearchGate, accessed February 12, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394928511_Privacy_Coins_and_the_Challenge_of_Anti-Money_Laundering_Regulations
4. Monero: Why It May Fall Short as a Money Laundering Tool | by Nefture Security - Medium, accessed February 12, 2026, https://medium.com/coinmonks/monero-why-it-may-fall-short-as-a-money-laundering-tool-457e0fd79f94
5. [PDF] Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol | Semantic Scholar, accessed February 12, 2026, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ouroboros%3A-A-Provably-Secure-Proof-of-Stake-Kiayias-Russell/44dacdec625e31df66736a385e7001ef33756c5f
6. Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol, accessed February 12, 2026, https://digit.cologne/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/cardano-ada-whitepaper.pdf
7. (PDF) Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol - ResearchGate, accessed February 12, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318747828_Ouroboros_A_Provably_Secure_Proof-of-Stake_Blockchain_Protocol
8. Alpha release of Edinburgh Decentralisation Index – EDI – Blockchain Technology Lab Blog, accessed February 12, 2026, https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/blockchain/2024/03/06/alpha-edi/
9. (PDF) SoK: Measuring Blockchain Decentralization - ResearchGate, accessed February 12, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388529742_SoK_Measuring_Blockchain_Decentralization
10. SoK: Measuring Blockchain Decentralization - arXiv, accessed February 12, 2026, https://arxiv.org/html/2501.18279v1
11. Review of blockchain’s consensus algorithms Comparative Analysis and Future Directions of Blockchain Consensus Mechanisms - Semantic Scholar, accessed February 12, 2026, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b319/1be6babfc4bb5f112fa02d848f8da80b7257.pdf
12. Understanding Polkadot Through Graph Analysis: Transaction Model, Network Properties, and Insights - Financial Cryptography 2023, accessed February 12, 2026, https://fc23.ifca.ai/preproceedings/131.pdf
13. Algorand: Scaling Byzantine Agreements for Cryptocurrencies - People, accessed February 12, 2026, https://people.csail.mit.edu/nickolai/papers/gilad-algorand-eprint.pdf
14. The Blockchain Trilemma: A Formal Proof of the Inherent Trade-Offs Among Decentralization, Security, and Scalability - MDPI, accessed February 12, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/1/19
15. Efficiency and Reliability of Avalanche Consensus Protocol in Vehicular Communication Networks - Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, accessed February 12, 2026, https://annals-csis.org/Volume_39/drp/pdf/3909.pdf
16. An Analysis of Avalanche Consensus, accessed February 12, 2026, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.02811
17. The Hashgraph Protocol: Efficient Asynchronous BFT for High-Throughput Distributed Ledgers - ResearchGate, accessed February 12, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344820401_The_Hashgraph_Protocol_Efficient_Asynchronous_BFT_for_High-Throughput_Distributed_Ledgers
18. Hedera Consensus Service, accessed February 12, 2026, https://files.hedera.com/hh-consensus-service-whitepaper.pdf
19. Hedera: A Public Hashgraph Network & Governing Council - Bit2Me Academy, accessed February 12, 2026, https://academy.bit2me.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/HASHGRAPH-WHITEPAPER.pdf
20. CrustChain: Resolving the blockchain trilemma via decentralized …, accessed February 12, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12360553/
21. Cardano (ADA) Tokenomics Explained: Supply, Incentives, and Staking, accessed February 12, 2026, https://www.findas.org/tokenomics-review/coins/the-tokenomics-of-cardano-ada/r/Quvd2ZeAVzoLuu7i2qawVN
22. Measuring Decentralization in Emerging Public Blockchains …, accessed February 12, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362119314_Measuring_Decentralization_in_Emerging_Public_Blockchains
23. Measuring Solana’s Decentralization: Facts and Figures - Helius, accessed February 12, 2026, https://www.helius.dev/blog/solana-decentralization-facts-and-figures
24. Edinburgh Decentralisation Index, accessed February 12, 2026, https://blockchainlab.inf.ed.ac.uk/edi-dashboard/geography/methodology
25. (PDF) Solana’s transaction network: analysis, insights, and comparison - ResearchGate, accessed February 12, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393671883_Solana’s_transaction_network_analysis_insights_and_comparison
26. Decentralized Token Economy Theory (DeTEcT), accessed February 12, 2026, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.12330
27. Types of cryptocurrencies and their potential pros and cons - Fidelity Investments, accessed February 12, 2026, https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/types-of-cryptocurrency
28. Bitcoin vs. Ethereum in 2025: Comparison & Outlook - VanEck, accessed February 12, 2026, https://www.vaneck.com/us/en/blogs/digital-assets/bitcoin-vs-ethereum/
29. Understanding Ethereum’s Deflationary Supply: EIP-1559, Proof-of-Stake, and Investor Implications - Bit Digital, accessed February 12, 2026, https://bit-digital.com/blog/understanding-ethereum-deflationary-supply/
30. Stabilizing the Staking Rate, Dynamically Distributed Inflation and Delay Induced Oscillations - arXiv, accessed February 12, 2026, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.11065
31. End of Year Report 2024 - Polkadot Data, accessed February 12, 2026, https://data.parity.io/data/eoyr_2024.pdf
32. Research Report (Cardano) - Intelligent Trading Foundation, accessed February 12, 2026, https://intelligenttrading.org/static/reports/ITF-Research-Report-Cardano.pdf
33. BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY AND … - Virtus InterPress, accessed February 12, 2026, https://virtusinterpress.org/IMG/pdf/10.22495_jgr_v6_i1_p5.pdf
34. The Blockchain Governance Toolkit - Project Liberty, accessed February 12, 2026, https://www.projectliberty.io/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/PL_Toolkit_Report_v7.pdf
35. Project Catalyst dRep Analysis Framework, accessed February 12, 2026, https://projectcatalyst.io/funds/14/cardano-open-ecosystem/project-catalyst-drep-analysis-framework
36. Blockchain Technology and the Rule of Code: Regulation via Governance - The George Washington Law Review, accessed February 12, 2026, https://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/92-Geo.-Wash.-L.-Rev.-1229.pdf
37. Blockchain-enhanced electoral integrity: a robust model for secure digital voting systems in Oman - PubMed Central, accessed February 12, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12397734/
38. DAOs and the Legal Wrapper Dilemma | BlockStand, accessed February 12, 2026, https://blockstand.eu/blockstand/uploads/2025/05/DAOs-and-the-Legal-Wrapper-Dilemma_Mariana-de-la-Roche.pdf
39. How Censorship Resistant Are Decentralized Systems? - Liberty …, accessed February 12, 2026, https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2025/02/how-censorship-resistant-are-decentralized-systems/
40. Algorand research: Driving the future of blockchain technology, accessed February 12, 2026, https://algorand.co/technology/research
41. A Comprehensive Annual Budget Process for Decentralized Governance | Intersect, accessed February 12, 2026, https://committees.docs.intersectmbo.org/intersect-budget-committee/archive/a-comprehensive-annual-budget-process-for-decentralized-governance