Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Longitudinal evidence of entrepreneurial behaviour in a blockchain-based decentralized autonomous organization: Case study of the Nano cryptocurrency

Abstract

Objective: The article aims to investigate how entrepreneurial behaviour among members of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAO) changes over time. Decentralized autonomous organizations allow for the creation of distributed organizations driven by organizational entrepreneurship, many of which are based on blockchain technology. The self-organization of DAO members and their entrepreneurial behaviour are crucial to the organization’s development. Research on entrepreneurial behaviour in DAOs is scarce. Cryptocurrency markets, blockchain technologies, and community sentiment can evolve rapidly, making it important to longitudinally research such organizations and the entrepreneurship among their members.

Research Design & Methods: We formulated research propositions and combined qualitative and longitudinal interviews with entrepreneurially active members of a DAO with data science-based sentiment analysis of the main Nano community over the course of 16 months.

Findings: The entrepreneurial behaviour of DAO members can hinge on external circumstances, such as the health of the overall cryptocurrency market. Partly resulting from a crypto downturn, some of Nano’s entrepreneurially active members reduced their engagement and stopped or downsized their conduction of entrepreneurial tasks. This change was also linked to lower levels of community activity and deteriorating sentiment scores. Entrepreneurial tasks such as marketing or outreach to customers were conducted to a lesser extent. The resulting picture is one of a fluid state of entrepreneurship within this DAO. We also found internal factors influencing entrepreneurial behaviour, especially related to the distinction between technology-oriented and market-oriented members and their changing levels of activity.

Implications & Recommendations: The findings highlight the influence of external factors – such as the health of the cryptocurrency market – on the entrepreneurial behaviour of DAO members. This suggests that the success and engagement of entrepreneurial individuals within a DAO can be subject to volatility and fluctuations in the broader market, emphasizing the need for adaptability and resilience.

Contribution & Value Added: This is one of the first articles to address the connection between entrepreneurship and DAOs based on blockchain. In doing so, it benefits from a unique data set comprising quantitative and qualitative elements.

       

Keywords

blockchain, decentralized autonomous organization, entrepreneurship, financial technology, entrepreneurial behaviour, financial markets

(PDF) Save

References

  1. Adams, R., Parry, G., Godsiff, P., & Ward, P. (2017). The future of money and further applications of the blockchain. Strategic Change, 26(5), 417-422. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2141
  2. Adhami, S., Giudici, G., & Martinazzi, S. (2018). Why do businesses go crypto? An empirical analysis of initial coin offerings. Journal of Economics and Business, 100, 64-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2018.04.001
  3. Altaleb, H., & Zoltan, R. (2022). Decentralized autonomous organizations review, importance, and applica-tions. In H. Altaleb & Z. Rajnai (Eds.), Decentralized autonomous organizations review, importance, and applications, (pp. 121-126). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/INES56734.2022.9922656
  4. Anamika, Chakraborty, M., & Subramaniam, S. (2021). Does Sentiment Impact Cryptocurrency?. Journal of Behavioural Finance, 2, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427560.2021.1950723
  5. Ayvaz, S., & Shiha, M.O. (2018). A Scalable Streaming Big Data Architecture for Real-Time Sentiment Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2018 2nd International Conference on Cloud and Big Data Computing – ICCBDC’18 (pp. 47-51). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3264560.3266428
  6. Beck, R., Müller-Bloch, C., & King, J.L. (2018). Governance in the Blockchain Economy: A Framework and Re-search Agenda. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10, 1020-1034. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00518
  7. Bellavitis, C., Fisch, C., & Momtaz, P. (2022). The rise of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs): a first empirical glimpse. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 2, https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2022.2116797
  8. Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2006). Forschungsmethoden Und Evaluation Für Human- und sozialwissenschaftler (4th ed.). Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag.
  9. Bouri, E., Gupta, R., & Roubaud, D. (2019). Herding behaviour in cryptocurrencies. Finance Research Letters, 29, 216-221.
  10. Burrell, G., & Morgan, M. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
  11. Chalmers, D., Matthews, R., & Hyslop, A. (2021). Blockchain as an external enabler of new venture ideas: digital entrepreneurs and the disintermediation of the global music industry. Journal of Business Re-search, 125, 577-591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.002
  12. Chohan, U.W. (2002). A History of Bitcoin. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3047875 on March 10, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3047875
  13. Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five approach. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
  14. De Filippi, P., & Wright, A. (2018). Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of Code. Harvard University Press.
  15. Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-32). Sage Publications Ltd.
  16. Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 1-32). Sage Publi-cations, Thousand Oaks.
  17. DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B.F. (2006). ‘The qualitative research interview’. Medical Education, 40(4), 314-321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x
  18. DuPont, Q. (2018). Experiments in Algorithmic Governance: A History and Ethnography of ‘The DAO,’ a failed Decentralized Autonomous Organization, In M. Campbell-Verduyn (Ed.), Bitcoin and Beyond: The Chal-lenges and Opportunities of Blockchains for Global Governance (pp. 157-77). New York: Routledge.
  19. Eisenhardt, K.M., & Graebner, M.E. (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888
  20. El Faqir, Y., Arroyo, J., & Hassan, S. (2020). An overview of decentralized autonomous organizations on the blockchain. In G. Robles, K.-J. Stol, & X. Wang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Open Collaboration (pp. 1-8). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3412569.3412579
  21. Fisch, C., Masiak, C., Vismara, S., & Block, J. (2021). Motives and profiles of ICO investors. Journal of Business Research, 125, 564-576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.036
  22. Freiling, J. (2006). Entrepreneurship. Theoretische Grundlagen und unternehmerische Praxis. München: Verlag Franz Vahlen.
  23. Freiling, J., & Reckenfelderbäumer, M. (2010). Markt und Unternehmung. Eine Marktorientierte Einführung in die Betriebswirtschaftslehre (3rd ed.). Wiesbaden: Gabler / GWV Fachverlage.
  24. Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., & Hamilton, A.L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
  25. Hermanowicz, J.C. (2013). The Longitudinal Qualitative Interview. Qualitative Sociology, 36(2), 189-208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-013-9247-7
  26. Hsieh, Y.‑Y., Vergne, J.‑P., Anderson, P., Lakhani, K., & Reitzig, M. (2018). Bitcoin and the rise of decentralized autonomous organizations. Journal of Organization Design, 7(1), https://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-018-0038-1
  27. Ingram, C., & Morisse, M. (2016). Almost an MNC: Bitcoin Entrepreneurs’ Use of Collective Resources and Decoupling to Build Legitimacy. In C. Ingram & M. Morisse (Eds.), Almost an MNC: Bitcoin Entrepreneurs’ Use of Collective Resources and Decoupling to Build Legitimacy, (pp. 4083-4092). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.507
  28. Kaal, W.A. (2020). Decentralized Autonomous Organizations – Internal Governance and External Legal De-sign. Annals of Corporate Governance, University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Legal Studies Research Paper No. 20-14.
  29. Kher, R., Terjesen, S., & Liu, C. (2021). Blockchain, Bitcoin, and ICOs: a review and research agenda. Small Business Economics, 56(4), 1699-1720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00286-y
  30. Kondova, G., & Barba, R. (2019). Governance of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 15(8), https://doi.org/10.17265/1548-6583/2019.08.003
  31. Kypriotaki, K., Zamani, E., & Giaglis, G. (2015). From Bitcoin to Decentralized Autonomous Corporations - Extending the Application Scope of Decentralized Peer-to-Peer Networks and Blockchains. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (pp. 284-290). SCITEPRESS - Sci-ence and and Technology Publications. https://doi.org/10.5220/0005378402840290
  32. LeMahieu, C. (2018). Nano: A Feeless Distributed Cryptocurrency Network.
  33. Liu, L., Zhou, S., Huang, H., & Zheng, Z. (2020). From Technology to Society: An Overview of Blockchain-based DAO. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.14940v2 on April 30, 2023.
  34. Lustig, C., & Nardi, B. (2015). Algorithmic Authority: The Case of Bitcoin. In C. Lustig & B. Nardi (Eds.), Algo-rithmic Authority: The Case of Bitcoin (pp. 743-752). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2015.95
  35. Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative Research Design. An Interactive Approach (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
  36. McMullen, J.S., & Dimov, D. (2013). Time and the entrepreneurial journey: the problems and promise of studying entre-preneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1481-1512. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12049
  37. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldana, J.M. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed). Sage, Thousand Oaks, USA.
  38. Mises, L. von (1996). Human action. A treatise on economics. Fourth Edition. Fox & Wilkes, San Francisco.
  39. Naeem, M.A., Mbarki, I., & Shahzad, S.J.H. (2021). Predictive role of online investor sentiment for cryptocur-rency market: evidence from happiness and fears. International Review of Economics and Finance, 73, 496-514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2021.01.008
  40. Narayanan, A., Bonneau, J., Felten, E., Miller, A., Goldfeder, S., & Clark, J. (2016). Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies Introduction to the Book. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  41. Sasmaz, E., & Tek, F.B. (2021). Tweet Sentiment Analysis for Cryptocurrencies. In E. Sasmaz & F.B. Tek (Eds.), Tweet Sentiment Analysis for Cryptocurrencies (pp. 613-618). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/UBMK52708.2021.9558914
  42. Shermin, V. (2017). Disrupting governance with blockchains and smart contracts. Strategic Change, 26(5), 499-509. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2150
  43. Slavin, A., & Werbach, K. (2022). Decentralized Autonomous Organizations: Beyond the Hype, World Eco-nomic Forum 2022, White Paper.
  44. Sun, X., Chen, X., Stasinakis, C., & Sermpinis, G. (2022). Voter coalitions in Decentralized Autonomous Organ-ization (DAO): Evidence from MakerDAO. Retrieved from https://ssrn.Com/abstract=4253868 on April 4, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4253868
  45. Tana, S., Breidbach, C., & Turpin, A. (2019). I want a Lamborghini: an ethnography of cryptocurrency com-munities. Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). Stockholm & Upp-sala, Sweden, June 8-14, 2019.
  46. Weking, J., Mandalenakis, M., Hein, A., Hermes, S., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2020). The impact of blockchain technology on business models – a taxonomy and archetypal patterns. Electronic Markets, 30(2), 285-305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-019-00386-3
  47. Xiao, Y., Zhang, N., Lou, W., & Hou, Y.T. (2020). A Survey of Distributed Consensus Protocols for Blockchain Networks. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 22(2), 1432-1465. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2020.2969706
  48. Yetis-Larsson, Z., Teigland, R., & Dovbysh, O. (2015). Networked Entrepreneurs. American Behavioural Scien-tist, 59(4), 475-491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214556809
  49. Yin, R.K. (2013). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

<< < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.