IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/upf/upfgen/1608.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Blockchain: The birth of decentralized governance

Author

Abstract

By allowing networks to split, decentralized blockchain platforms protect members against hold up, but hinder coordination, given that adaptation decisions are ultimately decentralized. The current solutions to improve coordination, based on “premining” cryptocoins, taxing members and incentivizing developers, are insufficient. For blockchain to fulfill its promise and outcompete centralized firms, it needs to develop new forms of “soft” decentralized governance (anarchic, aristocratic, democratic, and autocratic) that allow networks to avoid bad equilibria.

Suggested Citation

  • Benito Arruñada & Luis Garicano, 2018. "Blockchain: The birth of decentralized governance," Economics Working Papers 1608, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    • Handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:1608
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econ-papers.upf.edu/papers/1608.pdf
    File Function: Whole Paper
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua S. Gans & Hanna Halaburda, 2015. "Some Economics of Private Digital Currency," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Analysis of the Digital Economy, pages 257-276, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Goldfarb, Avi & Greenstein, Shane M. & Tucker, Catherine E. (ed.), 2015. "Economic Analysis of the Digital Economy," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226206981, December.
    3. Wouter Dessein & Luis Garicano & Robert Gertner, 2010. "Organizing for Synergies," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 77-114, November.
    4. David S. Evans & Andrei Hagiu & Richard Schmalensee, 2008. "Invisible Engines: How Software Platforms Drive Innovation and Transform Industries," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262550687, December.
    5. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1986. "The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 691-719, August.
    6. Benito Arruñada, 2010. "Institutional Support of the Firm: A Theory of Business Registries," Working Papers 508, Barcelona School of Economics.
    7. Avi Goldfarb & Shane M. Greenstein & Catherine E. Tucker, 2015. "Economic Analysis of the Digital Economy," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gree13-1, May.
    8. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1986. "Technology Adoption in the Presence of Network Externalities," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 822-841, August.
    9. Hu, Henry T.C. & Black, Bernard, 2007. "Hedge funds, insiders, and the decoupling of economic and voting ownership: Empty voting and hidden (morphable) ownership," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 343-367, June.
    10. Christian Catalini & Joshua S. Gans, 2016. "Some Simple Economics of the Blockchain," NBER Working Papers 22952, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Arrunada, Benito & Garicano, Luis & Vazquez, Luis, 2001. "Contractual Allocation of Decision Rights and Incentives: The Case of Automobile Distribution," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 257-284, April.
    12. Susan Athey & Christian Catalini & Catherine Tucker, 2017. "The Digital Privacy Paradox: Small Money, Small Costs, Small Talk," NBER Working Papers 23488, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Holmstrom, Bengt, 1999. "The Firm as a Subeconomy," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 74-102, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Goldberg, Mitchell & Schär, Fabian, 2023. "Metaverse governance: An empirical analysis of voting within Decentralized Autonomous Organizations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    2. Hanna Halaburda & Guillaume Haeringer & Joshua Gans & Neil Gandal, 2022. "The Microeconomics of Cryptocurrencies," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 60(3), pages 971-1013, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Santana, Carlos & Albareda, Laura, 2022. "Blockchain and the emergence of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs): An integrative model and research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    5. Pietrewicz, Lesław, 2019. "Blockchain: A Coordination Mechanism," Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference (2019), Rovinj, Croatia, in: Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference, Rovinj, Croatia, 12-14 September 2019, pages 137-143, IRENET - Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, Zagreb.
    6. Joshua S. Gans, 2019. "The Fine Print in Smart Contracts," NBER Working Papers 25443, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Michael Sockin & Wei Xiong, 2023. "Decentralization through Tokenization," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 78(1), pages 247-299, February.

    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. Panos Constantinides & Ola Henfridsson & Geoffrey G. Parker, 2018. "Introduction—Platforms and Infrastructures in the Digital Age," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 381-400, June.
    2. Easley, David & O'Hara, Maureen & Basu, Soumya, 2019. "From mining to markets: The evolution of bitcoin transaction fees," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 91-109.
    3. Lőrinczi, Gyula, 2013. "A cégek eredete [The origin of the firm]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 25-46.
    4. Gibbons, Robert, 2005. "Four forma(lizable) theories of the firm?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 200-245, October.
    5. Schmid, Andreas, 2007. "Incentive Compatibility and Efficiency in the contractual Insurer-Provider Relationship: Economic Theory and practical Implications: The Case of North Carolina," MPRA Paper 23311, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2008.
    6. Kim, Jongwook & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2008. "A Strategic Theory of the Firm as a Nexus of Incomplete Contracts: A Property Rights Approach," Working Papers 08-0108, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    7. Shuo Liu & Dimitri Migrow, 2019. "Designing organizations in volatile markets," ECON - Working Papers 319, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    8. Laura Alfaro & Nicholas Bloom & Paola Conconi & Harald Fadinger & Patrick Legros & Andrew F. Newman & Raffaella Sadun & John Van Reenen, 2017. "Come Together: Firm Boundaries and Delegation," Harvard Business School Working Papers 18-051, Harvard Business School, revised May 2019.
    9. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2017. "Digital knowledge generation and the appropriability trade-off," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 991-1002.
    10. John M. Abowd & Ian M. Schmutte & William Sexton & Lars Vilhuber, 2019. "Suboptimal Provision of Privacy and Statistical Accuracy When They are Public Goods," Papers 1906.09353, arXiv.org.
    11. Kekezi, Orsa & Mellander, Charlotta, 2017. "Geography and Media – Does a Local Editorial Office Increase the Consumption of Local News?," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 447, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    12. Leonardo Felli & Kevin Roberts, 2016. "Does Competition Solve the Hold-up Problem?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 83(329), pages 172-200, January.
    13. Holger Mueller, 2016. "Reallocation of Capital and Labor within Firms," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 152(4), pages 289-303, October.
    14. Laurent Ferrara & Anna Simoni, 2023. "When are Google Data Useful to Nowcast GDP? An Approach via Preselection and Shrinkage," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 1188-1202, October.
    15. Kerstin Puschke, "undated". "Optimal Hierarchies with Diverse Decision-Makers," Papers 034, Departmental Working Papers.
    16. Luis Garicano & Luis Rayo, 2016. "Why Organizations Fail: Models and Cases," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(1), pages 137-192, March.
    17. Rongrong Zhou & Decai Tang & Dan Da & Wenya Chen & Lin Kong & Valentina Boamah, 2022. "Research on China’s Manufacturing Industry Moving towards the Middle and High-End of the GVC Driven by Digital Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-30, June.
    18. Charlie Joyez, 2017. "Firm heterogeneity and the integration trilemma: The utility of Joint ventures in integration versus outsourcing models," Working Papers DT/2017/09, DIAL (Développement, Institutions et Mondialisation).
    19. Paul Walker, 2010. "The (Non)Theory Of The Knowledge Firm," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 57(1), pages 1-32, February.
    20. Gawer, Annabelle, 2014. "Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1239-1249.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    blockchain; platforms; networks; hold‐up; coordination; relational capital; incomplete contracts; decentralized governance;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • L22 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Organization and Market Structure
    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software

    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:upf:upfgen:1608. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.econ.upf.edu/ .

    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.