去中心化平台:治理、代币经济学和 ICO 设计

Jingxing Gan, Gerry Tsoukalas, Serguei Netessine
{"title":"去中心化平台:治理、代币经济学和 ICO 设计","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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 。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Decentralized Platforms: Governance, Tokenomics, and ICO Design
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 .
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Disclosure in Incentivized Reviews: Does It Protect Consumers? Can Blockchain Technology Help Overcome Contractual Incompleteness? Evidence from State Laws Utility Tokens, Network Effects, and Pricing Power Decentralized Platforms: Governance, Tokenomics, and ICO Design The Conceptual Flaws of Decentralized Automated Market Making
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1