IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2210.04339.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Seller-buyer networks in NFT art are driven by preferential ties

Author

Listed:
  • Giovanni Colavizza

Abstract

Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) have recently surged to mainstream attention by allowing the exchange of digital assets via blockchains. NFTs have also been adopted by artists to sell digital art. One of the promises of NFTs is broadening participation to the arts market, a traditionally closed and opaque system, to sustain a wider and more diverse set of artists and collectors. A key sign of this effect would be the disappearance or at least reduction in importance of seller-buyer preferential ties, whereby the success of an artist is strongly dependent on the patronage of a single collector. We investigate NFT art seller-buyer networks considering several galleries and a large set of nearly 40,000 sales for over 230M USD in total volume. We find that NFT art is a highly concentrated market driven by few successful sellers and even fewer systematic buyers. High concentration is present in both the number of sales and, even more strongly, in their priced volume. Furthermore, we show that, while a broader-participation market was present in the early phase of NFT art adoption, preferential ties have dominated during market growth, peak and recent decline. We consistently find that the top buyer accounts on average for over 80% of buys for a given seller. Similar trends apply to buyers and their top seller. We conclude that NFT art constitutes, at the present, a highly concentrated market driven by preferential seller-buyer ties.

Suggested Citation

  • Giovanni Colavizza, 2022. "Seller-buyer networks in NFT art are driven by preferential ties," Papers 2210.04339, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2022.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2210.04339
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.04339
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dakshina Garfield De Silva & Marina Gertsberg & Rachel Pownall, 2016. "Market Evolution, Bidding Strategies, and Survival of Art Dealers," Working Papers 138739557, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    2. Oliver E. Williams & Lucas Lacasa & Vito Latora, 2019. "Quantifying and predicting success in show business," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-8, December.
    3. Throsby, David, 1994. "The Production and Consumption of the Arts: A View of Cultural Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 32(1), pages 1-29, March.
    4. Orian Brook & Dave O’Brien & Mark Taylor, 2020. "“There’s No Way That You Get Paid to Do the Arts†: Unpaid Labour Across the Cultural and Creative Life Course," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 25(4), pages 571-588, December.
    5. Nachoem M. Wijnberg & Gerda Gemser, 2000. "Adding Value to Innovation: Impressionism and the Transformation of the Selection System in Visual Arts," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 323-329, June.
    6. Sándor Juhász & Gergő Tóth & Balázs Lengyel, 2020. "Brokering the core and the periphery: Creative success and collaboration networks in the film industry," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-15, February.
    7. David Yermack, 2017. "Corporate Governance and Blockchains," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 21(1), pages 7-31.
    8. Matthieu Nadini & Laura Alessandretti & Flavio Di Giacinto & Mauro Martino & Luca Maria Aiello & Andrea Baronchelli, 2021. "Mapping the NFT revolution: market trends, trade networks and visual features," Papers 2106.00647, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2021.
    9. Amy Whitaker & Roman Kräussl, 2020. "Fractional Equity, Blockchain, and the Future of Creative Work," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(10), pages 4594-4611, October.
    10. David, Géraldine & Oosterlinck, Kim & Szafarz, Ariane, 2013. "Art market inefficiency," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 23-25.
    11. Holger Bonus & Dieter Ronte, 1997. "Credibility and Economic Value in the Visual Arts," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 21(2), pages 103-118, June.
    12. Joop Hartog & Monika Kackovic, 2019. "On the Idiosyncrasies of the Labour Market for Visual Artists : Striking features, a formal model, and suggestions for further work," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 33(2), pages 162-186, June.
    13. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    14. Min Xu & Xingtong Chen & Gang Kou, 2019. "A systematic review of blockchain," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 5(1), pages 1-14, December.
    15. Hong Bao & David Roubaud, 2022. "Non-Fungible Token: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-9, May.
    16. Aloys Prinz & Jan Piening & Thomas Ehrmann, 2015. "The success of art galleries: a dynamic model with competition and information effects," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 39(2), pages 153-176, May.
    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. Laurens Swinkels, 2023. "Empirical evidence on the ownership and liquidity of real estate tokens," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 9(1), pages 1-29, December.
    2. Anne-Sophie V. E. Radermecker, 2019. "Artworks without names: an insight into the market for anonymous paintings," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 43(3), pages 443-483, September.
    3. Olivier Meier & Aurélie Sannajust, 0. "The smart contract revolution: a solution for the holdup problem?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-16.
    4. Jongsub Lee & Tao Li & Donghwa Shin, 2022. "The Wisdom of Crowds in FinTech: Evidence from Initial Coin Offerings," The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 11(1), pages 1-46.
    5. Sun, Yi & Jiang, Shiqing & Jia, Wanjiao & Wang, Yu, 2022. "Blockchain as a cutting-edge technology impacting business: A systematic literature review perspective," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10).
    6. Monika Kackovic & Joop Hartog & Hans van Ophem & Nachoem Wijnberg, 2022. "The promise of potential: A study on the effectiveness of jury selection to a prestigious visual arts program," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(3), pages 410-435, August.
    7. Saenger, Christoph & Torero, Maximo & Qaim, Matin, 2016. "Impact of third-party enforcement of contracts in agricultural markets—A field experiment in Vietnam," IFPRI book chapters, in: Devaux, André & Torero, Maximo & Donovan, Jason & Horton, Douglas E. (ed.), Innovation for inclusive value-chain development: Successes and challenges, chapter 11, pages 343-374, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    8. Anne-Sophie Radermecker, 2019. "Artworks without names: an insight into the market for anonymous paintings," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/296529, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Han, Hongdan & Shiwakoti, Radha K. & Jarvis, Robin & Mordi, Chima & Botchie, David, 2023. "Accounting and auditing with blockchain technology and artificial Intelligence: A literature review," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    10. Elli Kraizberg, 2023. "Non-fungible tokens: a bubble or the end of an era of intellectual property rights," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, December.
    11. Lin, Min-Bin & Wang, Bingling & Bocart, Fabian Y.R.P. & Hafner, Christian M. & Härdle, Wolfgang K., 2022. "DAI Digital Art Index : a robust price index for heterogeneous digital assets," LIDAM Discussion Papers ISBA 2022036, Université catholique de Louvain, Institute of Statistics, Biostatistics and Actuarial Sciences (ISBA).
    12. Michael Rushton, 2000. "Public Funding of Controversial Art," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 24(4), pages 267-282, November.
    13. Karpoff, Jonathan M., 2021. "The future of financial fraud," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    14. Olivier Meier & Aurélie Sannajust, 2021. "The smart contract revolution: a solution for the holdup problem?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 1073-1088, August.
    15. Notheisen, Benedikt & Weinhardt, Christof, 2019. "The blockchain, plums, and lemons: Information asymmetries & transparency in decentralized markets," Working Paper Series in Economics 130, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    16. Vidal-Tomás, David, 2023. "The illusion of the metaverse and meta-economy," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    17. Merijn Rengers & Olav Velthuis, 2002. "Determinants of Prices for Contemporary Art in Dutch Galleries, 1992–1998," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 26(1), pages 1-28, February.
    18. Francesco Angelini & Massimiliano Castellani, 2019. "Cultural and economic value: a critical review," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 43(2), pages 173-188, June.
    19. Prieto-Rodriguez, Juan & Vecco, Marilena, 2021. "Reading between the lines in the art market: Lack of transparency and price heterogeneity as an indicator of multiple equilibria," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    20. Francesco Angelini & Massimiliano Castellani, 2018. "Private pricing in the art market," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(4), pages 2371-2378.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:arx:papers:2210.04339. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.