# kaal:claim:3995709-030

**Claim.** Crowd review and policing votes by the CRDAO collective filter out idiosyncratic reviewer preferences, because reviewers who submit highly idiosyncratic reviews would have to fear slashing and loss of standing in the community.

**Type.** mechanism  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- mandatory crowd review of each code review
- slashing and reputation stakes in place

**Source quote.**

> Instead, the CRDAO mandates that reviews are subject to crowd review and policing votes by the CRDAO collective. Accordingly, code reviewers are less likely to engage in highly idiosyncratic reviews as they would need to fear slashing and loss of standing in the community.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, *How DAOs Optimize Open-Source Code Reviews and Create Open-Source Standards* (2021), Feedback Loops, page 15

**Cite as.** Wulf A. Kaal, How DAOs Optimize Open-Source Code Reviews and Create Open-Source Standards (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3995709

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `6d77dbfb15ee86080bfde0b98089180cabafeb6defdf0f05eaaeb3cb99871e89` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20-%202021%20-%20How%20DAOs%20Optimize%20Open-Source%20Code%20Reviews%20and%20Create%20Open-Source%20Standards.pdf

**Topics.** reputation, risk-and-incentives

**Keywords.** crowd-controls, slashing, reputation, reviewer-incentives

**Related claims.**

- restated_by: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4734750-024
- restated_by: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4755632-030

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.