IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v13y2023i6p144-d1159551.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Blockchain-Based Crowdfunding Campaign Success Factors Based on VASMA-L Criteria Weighting Method

Author

Listed:
  • Santautė Venslavienė

    (Department of Financial Engineering, Faculty of Business Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saulėtekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Jelena Stankevičienė

    (Department of Financial Engineering, Faculty of Business Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saulėtekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
    Department of Finance, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Vilnius University, Saulėtekio al. 9, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Ingrida Leščauskienė

    (Department of Graphical Systems, Faculty of Fundamental Sciences, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

Abstract

When investing in blockchain-based crowdfunding campaigns, choosing the right one is difficult. Therefore, it is important to recognize success factors that express the value of the specific campaign. This study is aimed at determining the success factors impacting the investors’ decision to fund blockchain-based crowdfunding campaigns and ranking them according to their importance in decision-making. An online survey was employed to collect expert opinions. The modification of the visual analogue scale matrix for criteria weighting methodology called VASMA-L was presented in this study to rank the list of the predetermined factors. To reduce the uncertainties in the decision-making process and the cognitive overload of the survey respondents, all the predetermined success factors were split into two smaller groups and assessed as those that fit both traditional and blockchain-based crowdfunding models and those that are specific only to the blockchain-based crowdfunding model. The main findings disclose that the three factors with the highest VASMA weights are from the first group. This means that when selecting the specific crowdfunding campaign to invest in, investors use common factors rather than those specific to blockchain-based crowdfunding. Only investor preferences were chosen and analyzed for successful blockchain-based crowdfunding campaign investment in this research. The VASMA-L methodology might help compare several criteria groups and select the most important ones. In addition, this weighting methodology might help investors to choose the most thrilling blockchain-based crowdfunding campaigns to fund.

Suggested Citation

  • Santautė Venslavienė & Jelena Stankevičienė & Ingrida Leščauskienė, 2023. "Evaluation of Blockchain-Based Crowdfunding Campaign Success Factors Based on VASMA-L Criteria Weighting Method," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-16, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:13:y:2023:i:6:p:144-:d:1159551
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/13/6/144/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/13/6/144/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cynthia Weiyi Cai, 2018. "Disruption of financial intermediation by FinTech: a review on crowdfunding and blockchain," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(4), pages 965-992, December.
    2. Santautė Venslavienė & Jelena Stankevičienė & Agnė Vaiciukevičiūtė, 2021. "Assessment of Successful Drivers of Crowdfunding Projects Based on Visual Analogue Scale Matrix for Criteria Weighting Method," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(14), pages 1-18, July.
    3. Denis Frydrych & Adam J. Bock & Tony Kinder & Benjamin Koeck, 2014. "Exploring entrepreneurial legitimacy in reward-based crowdfunding," Venture Capital, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 247-269, July.
    4. Adhami, Saman & Giudici, Giancarlo & Martinazzi, Stefano, 2018. "Why do businesses go crypto? An empirical analysis of initial coin offerings," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 64-75.
    5. Anna, Petrenko, 2016. "Мaркування готової продукції як складова частина інформаційного забезпечення маркетингової діяльності підприємств овочепродуктового підкомплексу," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 2(1), March.
    6. Hacker Philipp & Thomale Chris, 2018. "Crypto-Securities Regulation: ICOs, Token Sales and Cryptocurrencies under EU Financial Law," European Company and Financial Law Review, De Gruyter, vol. 15(4), pages 645-696, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emil Adamek & Jan Janku, 2022. "What Drives Small Business Crowdfunding? Impact of Macroeconomic and Financial Factors," Czech Journal of Economics and Finance (Finance a uver), Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, vol. 72(2), pages 172-196, June.
    2. Klarin, Anton, 2020. "The decade-long cryptocurrencies and the blockchain rollercoaster: Mapping the intellectual structure and charting future directions," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    3. Lyudmila Tolstolesova & Igor Glukhikh & Natalya Yumanova & Otabek Arzikulov, 2021. "Digital Transformation of Public-Private Partnership Tools," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-17, March.
    4. Ju‐Chun Yen & Tawei Wang & Yu‐Hung Chen, 2021. "Different is better: how unique initial coin offering language in white papers enhances success," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(4), pages 5309-5340, December.
    5. Anton Miglo, 2021. "STO vs. ICO: A Theory of Token Issues under Moral Hazard and Demand Uncertainty," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-35, May.
    6. Simon Albrecht & Bernhard Lutz & Dirk Neumann, 2020. "The behavior of blockchain ventures on Twitter as a determinant for funding success," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(2), pages 241-257, June.
    7. Patel, Ritesh & Migliavacca, Milena & Oriani, Marco E., 2022. "Blockchain in banking and finance: A bibliometric review," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    8. Dulani Jayasuriya Daluwathumullagamage & Alexandra Sims, 2021. "Fantastic Beasts: Blockchain Based Banking," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-43, April.
    9. Yi Sun & Shihui Li & Rui Wang, 2023. "Fintech: from budding to explosion - an overview of the current state of research," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 715-755, April.
    10. Simon Fernandez-Vazquez & Rafael Rosillo & David De La Fuente & Paolo Priore, 2019. "Blockchain in FinTech: A Mapping Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-24, November.
    11. Vivian Welch & Christine M. Mathew & Panteha Babelmorad & Yanfei Li & Elizabeth T. Ghogomu & Johan Borg & Monserrat Conde & Elizabeth Kristjansson & Anne Lyddiatt & Sue Marcus & Jason W. Nickerson & K, 2021. "Health, social care and technological interventions to improve functional ability of older adults living at home: An evidence and gap map," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), September.
    12. Persson, Petra & Qiu, Xinyao & Rossin-Slater, Maya, 2021. "Family Spillover Effects of Marginal Diagnoses: The Case of ADHD," IZA Discussion Papers 14020, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Menkhoff, Lukas & Miethe, Jakob, 2019. "Tax evasion in new disguise? Examining tax havens' international bank deposits," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 176, pages 53-78.
    14. Ran Abramitzky & Roy Mill & Santiago Pérez, 2020. "Linking individuals across historical sources: A fully automated approach," Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(2), pages 94-111, April.
    15. Ferdinand Thies & Sören Wallbach & Michael Wessel & Markus Besler & Alexander Benlian, 2022. "Initial coin offerings and the cryptocurrency hype - the moderating role of exogenous and endogenous signals," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(3), pages 1691-1705, September.
    16. Werner Eichhorst & Ulf Rinne, 2017. "Digital Challenges for the Welfare State," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 18(04), pages 03-08, December.
    17. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Tommaso Colussi & Ingo E. Isphording & Nico Pestel, 2021. "Minority Salience and Political Extremism," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 237-271, July.
    19. Erkmen Giray Aslim, 2019. "The Relationship Between Health Insurance and Early Retirement: Evidence from the Affordable Care Act," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 45(1), pages 112-140, January.
    20. Balint, T. & Lamperti, F. & Mandel, A. & Napoletano, M. & Roventini, A. & Sapio, A., 2017. "Complexity and the Economics of Climate Change: A Survey and a Look Forward," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 252-265.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:13:y:2023:i:6:p:144-:d:1159551. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.