{"title":"Decentralized Platforms: Governance, Tokenomics, and ICO Design","authors":"Jingxing Gan, Gerry Tsoukalas, Serguei Netessine","doi":"10.1287/mnsc.2021.02076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Traditional two-sided platforms (e.g., Amazon, Uber) rely primarily on commission contracts to generate revenues and fuel growth, whereas their decentralized counterparts (e.g., Uniswap, Filecoin) often forego these in favor of token retention. What economics underpin this choice? We show that with properly designed initial coin offerings (ICOs), both mechanisms can independently alleviate market failures at the initial fundraising stage and incentivize long-term platform building. However, they achieve this in different ways. Although commission contracts often lead to higher profits for founders, token retention leads to higher service levels, benefiting the users and service providers. In essence, token retention surrenders a fraction of earnings to better align with the tenets of decentralized governance. Combining both mechanisms can add value, but only in relatively limited cases. These findings offer guidance and a possible rationale for why platforms may want to favor one mechanism over the other or use both. This paper was accepted by Will Cong, Special Issue of Management Science: Blockchains and crypto economics. Funding: This work is funded by the Mack Institute at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.02076 .","PeriodicalId":18208,"journal":{"name":"Manag. Sci.","volume":"884 1","pages":"6667-6683"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Manag. Sci.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.02076","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Traditional two-sided platforms (e.g., Amazon, Uber) rely primarily on commission contracts to generate revenues and fuel growth, whereas their decentralized counterparts (e.g., Uniswap, Filecoin) often forego these in favor of token retention. What economics underpin this choice? We show that with properly designed initial coin offerings (ICOs), both mechanisms can independently alleviate market failures at the initial fundraising stage and incentivize long-term platform building. However, they achieve this in different ways. Although commission contracts often lead to higher profits for founders, token retention leads to higher service levels, benefiting the users and service providers. In essence, token retention surrenders a fraction of earnings to better align with the tenets of decentralized governance. Combining both mechanisms can add value, but only in relatively limited cases. These findings offer guidance and a possible rationale for why platforms may want to favor one mechanism over the other or use both. This paper was accepted by Will Cong, Special Issue of Management Science: Blockchains and crypto economics. Funding: This work is funded by the Mack Institute at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.02076 .
传统的双面平台(如亚马逊、优步)主要依靠佣金合同来创造收入和促进增长,而它们的去中心化平台(如 Uniswap、Filecoin)往往放弃佣金合同,转而保留代币。这种选择的经济学基础是什么?我们的研究表明,如果初始代币发行(ICO)设计得当,这两种机制都能独立缓解初始筹资阶段的市场失灵,并激励长期的平台建设。然而,它们实现这一目标的方式各不相同。虽然佣金合同通常会给创始人带来更高的利润,但代币留存则会提高服务水平,使用户和服务提供商受益。从本质上讲,代币留存让渡了一部分收益,从而更好地符合去中心化治理的原则。将这两种机制结合起来可以增加价值,但仅限于相对有限的情况。这些发现提供了指导和可能的理论依据,说明为什么平台可能希望偏重一种机制而不是另一种,或者同时使用两种机制。本文已被《管理科学》特刊的 Will Cong 接受:区块链和加密经济学》。资助:本工作由宾夕法尼亚大学沃顿商学院马克研究所(Mack Institute at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania)资助。补充材料:在线附录见 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.02076 。