Scholarlink

The convergence of Web 3.0 technologies with knowledge management (KM) is reshaping how knowledge is created, validated, and shared across organizational and sectoral boundaries. Drawing on an extensive review of KM theory and the affordances of blockchain, decentralized storage, and smart contracts, this study develops a rigorous decentralized knowledge management framework that reconceptualizes technical trust and token‑mediated governance as dual pillars of next‑generation KM. Two emblematic cases are analyzed through a qualitative multiple‑case design to elucidate how distributed ledgers, cryptoeconomic incentives, and community-driven decision processes operate in practice. Findings show that (i) token staking and slashing can partially substitute for editorial hierarchies in mitigating low quality content, (ii) Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) voting structures redistribute but do not eradicate power asymmetries, and (iii) interoperability protocols unlock cross‑platform knowledge recombination while introducing new technical bottlenecks. A comparative evaluation against traditional, centrally managed KMS highlights fundamental trade‑offs in governance, incentive design, quality assurance, and scalability.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Reconfiguring Knowledge Management Systems for the Web 3.0 Ecosystem

  • 会议论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年

查看全文
  • Yu Cui,
  • Hiroki Idota,
  • Masaharu Ota

摘要

The convergence of Web 3.0 technologies with knowledge management (KM) is reshaping how knowledge is created, validated, and shared across organizational and sectoral boundaries. Drawing on an extensive review of KM theory and the affordances of blockchain, decentralized storage, and smart contracts, this study develops a rigorous decentralized knowledge management framework that reconceptualizes technical trust and token‑mediated governance as dual pillars of next‑generation KM. Two emblematic cases are analyzed through a qualitative multiple‑case design to elucidate how distributed ledgers, cryptoeconomic incentives, and community-driven decision processes operate in practice. Findings show that (i) token staking and slashing can partially substitute for editorial hierarchies in mitigating low quality content, (ii) Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) voting structures redistribute but do not eradicate power asymmetries, and (iii) interoperability protocols unlock cross‑platform knowledge recombination while introducing new technical bottlenecks. A comparative evaluation against traditional, centrally managed KMS highlights fundamental trade‑offs in governance, incentive design, quality assurance, and scalability.