IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jorgde/v7y2018i1d10.1186_s41469-018-0038-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bitcoin and the rise of decentralized autonomous organizations

Author

Listed:
  • Ying-Ying Hsieh

    (Imperial College London)

  • Jean-Philippe Vergne

    (Western University)

  • Philip Anderson

    (INSEAD)

  • Karim Lakhani

    (Harvard Business School)

  • Markus Reitzig

    (University of Vienna)

Abstract

Bitcoin represents the first real-world implementation of a “decentralized autonomous organization” (DAO) and offers a new paradigm for organization design. Imagine working for a global business organization whose routine tasks are powered by a software protocol instead of being governed by managers and employees. Task assignments and rewards are randomized by the algorithm. Information is not channeled through a hierarchy but recorded transparently and securely on an immutable public ledger called “blockchain.” Further, the organization decides on design and strategy changes through a democratic voting process involving a previously unseen class of stakeholders called “miners.” Agreements need to be reached at the organizational level for any proposed protocol changes to be approved and activated. How do DAOs solve the universal problem of organizing with such novel solutions? What are the implications? We use Bitcoin as an example to shed light on how a DAO works in the cryptocurrency industry, where it provides a peer-to-peer, decentralized, and disintermediated payment system that can compete against traditional financial institutions. We also invited commentaries from renowned organization scholars to share their views on this intriguing phenomenon.

Suggested Citation

  • Ying-Ying Hsieh & Jean-Philippe Vergne & Philip Anderson & Karim Lakhani & Markus Reitzig, 2018. "Bitcoin and the rise of decentralized autonomous organizations," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jorgde:v:7:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1186_s41469-018-0038-1
    DOI: 10.1186/s41469-018-0038-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s41469-018-0038-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s41469-018-0038-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Yermack, 2017. "Corporate Governance and Blockchains," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 21(1), pages 7-31.
    2. Lyra J. Colfer & Carliss Y. Baldwin, 2016. "The mirroring hypothesis: theory, evidence, and exceptions," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(5), pages 709-738.
    3. Joel West & Siobhan O'mahony, 2008. "The Role of Participation Architecture in Growing Sponsored Open Source Communities," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 145-168.
    4. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2002. "Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 249-273, June.
    5. von Krogh, Georg & Spaeth, Sebastian & Lakhani, Karim R., 2003. "Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: a case study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1217-1241, July.
    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. Engelhardt, Sebastian v. & Freytag, Andreas, 2013. "Institutions, culture, and open source," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 90-110.
    2. Becker, Markus C. & Rullani, Francesco & Zirpoli, Francesco, 2021. "The role of digital artefacts in early stages of distributed innovation processes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    3. Colombo, Massimo G. & Piva, Evila & Rossi-Lamastra, Cristina, 2014. "Open innovation and within-industry diversification in small and medium enterprises: The case of open source software firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 891-902.
    4. Siobhan O'Mahony & Rebecca Karp, 2022. "From proprietary to collective governance: How do platform participation strategies evolve?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 530-562, March.
    5. Julia Bauer & Nikolaus Franke & Philipp Tuertscher, 2016. "Intellectual Property Norms in Online Communities: How User-Organized Intellectual Property Regulation Supports Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 724-750, December.
    6. Karim R. Lakhani & Hila Lifshitz-Assaf & Michael L. Tushman, 2013. "Open innovation and organizational boundaries: task decomposition, knowledge distribution and the locus of innovation," Chapters, in: Anna Grandori (ed.), Handbook of Economic Organization, chapter 19, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Michael A. Stanko, 2016. "Toward a Theory of Remixing in Online Innovation Communities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 773-791, December.
    8. Oliver Alexy & Joel West & Helge Klapper & Markus Reitzig, 2018. "Surrendering control to gain advantage: Reconciling openness and the resource‐based view of the firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1704-1727, June.
    9. Smirnova, Inna & Reitzig, Markus & Alexy, Oliver, 2022. "What makes the right OSS contributor tick? Treatments to motivate high-skilled developers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    10. Islam, Mazhar & Miller, Jacob & Park, Haemin Dennis, 2017. "But what will it cost me? How do private costs of participation affect open source software projects?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1062-1070.
    11. Lee, Saerom & Baek, Hyunmi & Jahng, Jungjoo, 2017. "Governance strategies for open collaboration: Focusing on resource allocation in open source software development organizations," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 431-437.
    12. Feuerstein Patrick & Hanekop Heidemarie, 2017. "Koordination überbetrieblicher Wissensproduktion: Zum Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Unternehmen und Communities in Open-Source-Projekten mit Unternehmensbeteiligung," Arbeit, De Gruyter, vol. 26(1), pages 111-136, April.
    13. Ilya Ivaninskiy & Irina Ivashkovskaya & Joseph A. McCahery, 2023. "Does digitalization mitigate or intensify the principal-agent conflict in a firm?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(3), pages 695-725, September.
    14. Verena Brinks, 2016. "Situated affect and collective meaning: A community perspective on processes of value creation and commercialization in enthusiast-driven fields," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(6), pages 1152-1169, June.
    15. Baldwin, Carliss Y. & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Kapoor, Rahul & West, Joel, 2024. "Focusing the ecosystem lens on innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    16. Bitzer, Jürgen & Geishecker, Ingo, 2010. "Who contributes voluntarily to OSS? An investigation among German IT employees," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 165-172, February.
    17. Mateos-Garcia, Juan & Steinmueller, W. Edward, 2008. "The institutions of open source software: Examining the Debian community," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 333-344, December.
    18. David, Paul A. & Shapiro, Joseph S., 2008. "Community-based production of open-source software: What do we know about the developers who participate?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 364-398, December.
    19. Genevieve Musca, 2007. "La construction de compétences dans l'action," Post-Print hal-01517916, HAL.
    20. Su, Dan & Zhang, Lijun & Peng, Hua & Saeidi, Parvaneh & Tirkolaee, Erfan Babaee, 2023. "Technical challenges of blockchain technology for sustainable manufacturing paradigm in Industry 4.0 era using a fuzzy decision support system," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).

    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:spr:jorgde:v:7:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1186_s41469-018-0038-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.