The Blockchain Phenomenon:

(1)

The Blockchain Phenomenon:

A Study on Entrepreneurial Opportunity and Blockchain

By Anna Christina Rhöse

Dual Award Advanced International Business Management and Marketing

3471101 170807474

Dr Mariko Klasing Prof Jonathan Sapsed

University of Groningen Newcastle University

Groningen, The Netherlands Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom

(2)

Abstract

Purpose:

This study aims to analyse entrepreneurial opportunity in relation to blockchain technology. Additionally, it aims to shed light on the relation between blockchain and trust in business relationships. Therefore, it assesses the entrepreneurs’ motivation to implement blockchain, top management involvement, their perception of blockchain opportunities and obstacles, enabling factors as well as their characteristics.

Design / Method / Approach:

The study makes use of qualitative research. It analyses current literature regarding entrepreneurial opportunity, the role of trust in transactions and blockchain. The central source of data is a multi-case study, which involves ten in-depth semi-structured interviews with blockchain experts (entrepreneurs and professionals).

Findings:

The analysis of the perceived potential of blockchain technology indicates that it would provide benefits across many industries that vary regarding the suitability of use case as well as firm and entrepreneur specific factors. Furthermore, through the use of blockchain systems, international business is facilitated as barriers arising from trust issues are reduced and thus costs are lowered.

Originality / Value:

(3)

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisors Dr Mariko Klasing from the University of Groningen as well as Prof Dr Jonathan Sapsed from Newcastle University for their guidance, comments and continuous support during the process of writing this thesis. Additionally, I would like to thank both universities for providing an extensive amount of resources necessary for this research.

Furthermore, I would like to thank the companies participating in the study for their time, openness and invaluable contribution to this research. Thank you for taking the time to have very insightful conversations with me during your busy schedules.

(4)

1 Introduction

The development of opportunities is of central interest in the field of entrepreneurship research (Kirzner, 1979; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Shane, 2003; Chandra, 2017; Alvarez and Barney, 2007; Renko et al., 2012). There exists an extensive debate about the emergence of opportunities, i.e. whether they are discovered or constructed (Kirzner, 1979; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Alvarez and Barney, 2007). The entrepreneurs’ ability to discover or create opportunity and the factors promoting or hindering this process is often the focus of analysis (Vogel, 2017; Tumasjan and Braun, 2012). A critical component is thus the entrepreneur’s perception of an opportunity, which impacts its development.

Through digital innovation across industries, new business opportunities arise (Deloitte, 2013; Sabbagh et al., 2012). One promising technology is blockchain. It was first discussed in Nakamoto’s (2008) whitepaper “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”, where he introduced the idea of Bitcoin. As the technology underpinning Bitcoin, blockchain first gained interest in the finance sector, but in recent years the focus has shifted towards a greater perspective, namely how to use this transforming technology for other purposes. “The promise of the blockchain” (The Economist, 2015) is to create trust free transactions, as intermediaries become obsolete (Orcutt, 2018).

(7)

Combining the research areas of entrepreneurial opportunity, trust in transactions and blockchain technology, the following research questions are proposed: How do entrepreneurs perceive blockchain-based opportunities as well as the emerging obstacles during the development process of a blockchain-based business opportunity? How do entrepreneurs’ perceptions of advanced technologies such as blockchain influence common notions of trust and potentially enable greater trust in cross-border business?

To answer these questions, a study is conducted that provides insights from ten semi-structured interviews with blockchain experts – entrepreneurs and external blockchain professionals with various backgrounds. This study thereby contributes to the literature by examining the relevance of common frameworks in both the field of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition and trust in exchange situations. It also provides insights for practitioners by presenting supporting individual and environmental factors in the process of developing a blockchain solution.

(8)

2 Literature Review

For the purpose of providing a background to the research, it is important to understand three concepts. What is entrepreneurial opportunity and where does it stem from? How does trust influence transaction costs and thus business decisions? What is blockchain technology and how may it benefit businesses, institutions and society? These questions are answered in the following sections.

2.1 Entrepreneurial Opportunity

This chapter reviews the relevant literature in the field of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition. In order to understand the concept of entrepreneurial opportunity, it is first crucial to define opportunity. According to the Oxford dictionary, an opportunity is “a time or set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something”. Therefore, an opportunity requires objective feasibility and action.

Consequently, to become an entrepreneurial opportunity, an actor, i.e. entrepreneur that is able to see the opportunity is involved. Previous literature provides a range of definitions for the concept of entrepreneurial opportunity. A central debate in the literature remains between two ontological views concerning the question whether it is discovered (objectivist: e.g. Kirzner, 1979; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Shane, 2003; Chandra, 2017; Alvarez and Barney, 2007) or created (constructivist: e.g. Alvarez and Barney, 2007) or both (Renko et al., 2012). This paper follows and extends Venkataraman (1997) and Sarasvathy et al. (2010) in defining entrepreneurial opportunity as a situation where a person (entrepreneur) notices that exogenously given factors are potentially suitable for realising a business idea or invention in the future.

(9)

outcome-oriented component. When considering perceived opportunities, the outcome is not known, which is favourable on the one hand, as it avoids bias of the perception of the opportunity (Singh, 2001). On the other hand, perceived opportunities might not turn out to be actual opportunities that are feasible and profitable (Singh, 2001). He urges researchers to clearly define their ontological stance on entrepreneurial opportunity.

By acknowledging the discovery as well as the creation arguments, this paper combines both ontologies. An entrepreneurial opportunity must exist objectively, while it cannot be realised unless an entrepreneur discovers it (the objectively and externally visible aspects) to create a suitable business idea. This view is illustrated by Renko et al. (2012), who have developed an integrated model of actual and perceived opportunity, shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Integrated Model of Actual and Perceived Opportunity (based on Renko et al.,

(10)

They state that an actual entrepreneurial opportunity arises from the discrepancy between market need and the means to satisfy those needs (Renko et al., 2012). Through the entrepreneurs’ individual perceptions and characteristics, including entrepreneurial alertness (see Chapter 2.1.1), opportunities are perceived in a cognitive process leading to a perceived opportunity. As shown in Figure 2.1, there is an overlap between perceived and actual opportunities, which verifies the initial assumptions regarding the nature of an entrepreneurial opportunity made in this work.

(11)

guidance for the process of entrepreneurial opportunity emergence, it differs for every potential opportunity, as external factors vary as well as the entrepreneur’s individual assessment of a situation (Vogel, 2017).

Figure 2.2: Simplified Conceptual Framework of the Entrepreneurial Process from Idea to

Opportunity (based on Vogel, 2017)

Individual-Level Factors

External Factors

Furthermore, this analysis has shown that entrepreneurial opportunity recognition is not a linear process, but in each of the frameworks, it involves continuous re-evaluations of the opportunity by the entrepreneur (Vogel, 2017; Renko et al., 2012; Chandra, 2017).

Ardichvili et al. (2003) have identified five critical components for successful opportunity recognition and development – depicted in Figure 2.3 – that are dependent on both the entrepreneur and the environment, which are worth a more detailed analysis: entrepreneurial alertness, information asymmetry and prior knowledge, social networks, personality traits and the nature of the opportunity.

Venture Idea Generation Venture Opportunity Development

(12)

Figure 2.3: Factors Influencing Opportunity Identification and Development (based on

Ardichvili et al., 2003)

2.1.1 Entrepreneurial Alertness

Entrepreneurial alertness can be defined as “an attitude of receptiveness to available (but hitherto overlooked) opportunities” (Kirzner, 1997: 72). This already implies the previously discussed duality of ontologies. An opportunity must exist objectively, but can only be developed by an individual with the required mental conception. At the same time, it includes both of Vogel’s (2017) view that opportunities can either be actively searched for or discovered accidentally. If the alertness and thus the receptiveness of an entrepreneur is sufficiently high, the opportunity must not be actively searched in order to be “received” by the alert entrepreneur.

Alertness is needed to surpass a certain threshold to overcome the hurdle between idea or invention of an opportunity to the successful creation or recognition of an opportunity (Sarasvathy et al., 2010; Ardichvili et al., 2003; Shamudeen et al., 2017). As a result, alertness is a sharp mental state that also involves gathering information, combining insights that were previously disconnected and assessing whether this results in a potentially viable business (Tang et al., 2012).

(13)

2.1.2 Information Asymmetry and Prior Knowledge

It is widely acknowledged that information asymmetry is a source of risk (Chiles and McMackin, 1996). In an exchange relationship, asymmetric information arises when one party has more information about the exchange situation than the other party leading to decision-making uncertainty (Akerlof, 1970). The lack of information may hinder the opportunity recognition process for some entrepreneurs, as their alertness might not be sufficiently high to actually see an opportunity where there is no complete picture of the situation. At the same time, asymmetric information may pose as an obstacle to realise a potential opportunity since relevant facts may not be known to the entrepreneur.

It is argued that prior knowledge of the market, the customers and how to serve customer needs is associated with a greater ability to recognise opportunities (Ardichvili et al., 2003). This effect is especially significant when prior knowledge is the result of a broad range of rich life experience with regard to work and business experience that entrepreneurs can draw on in various situations (Baron, 2006; Gaglio and Winter, 2017). Therefore, entrepreneurs should aim at gaining a high degree of varied entrepreneurial experience in addition to obtaining sufficient education and analytical skills to increase their ability to base their decision on well-founded knowledge, i.e. make informed decisions.

2.1.3 Social Networks

(14)

2010). Additionally, Wood and McKinley (2010) have found that the entrepreneur’s reputation in the network influences this consensus process, which is positively influenced by the level of education. Moreover, entrepreneurs who have an extended social network are better at identifying potential opportunities (Ardichvili et al., 2003; Shu et al., 2018). Therefore, the assessment and opinion of other entrepreneurs in the network is a crucial factor for opportunity recognition.

2.1.4 Personal Traits

As the individual and subjective perceptions of an entrepreneurial opportunity influences the opportunity recognition process (Renko et al., 2012), it is of interest to further understand entrepreneurs characteristics and mind-set. Following Higgins (1997), Tumasjan and Braun (2012) found that opportunity recognition is highly influenced by an individual’s promotion focus as well as the ability of self-regulation, so the extent to which an individual controls their cognitive processes, emotions and behaviours. They found that a goal-driven, optimistic mental orientation increases the ability to recognise innovation and opportunities. Thus, the way entrepreneurs process information and the internal mechanisms used to evaluate and decide about the potential of an opportunity further impacts its success (Vaghely and Julien, 2010). In addition to a high educational level (Arenius and Clercq, 2005), entrepreneurs must possess capabilities such as creativity, alertness (see Chapter 2.1.1), readiness to learn and reflection as they influence the opportunity recognition process (Vogel, 2017; Beck and Müller-Bloch, 2017).

(15)

2.1.5 Nature of Opportunity

While the factors above influence opportunity recognition, the nature of an opportunity itself must be analysed as well. This relates to the previously described discussion regarding the ontology of entrepreneurial opportunity. It has already been established that the opportunity must exist objectively in order to be recognised by an entrepreneur with a sufficiently high level of entrepreneurial alertness. Opportunities might exist due to technological advancements, shifts in the market, and changes in government policy or newly arising competition (Baron, 2006). As a result of the great variety of sources of opportunities, each opportunity requires a different entrepreneurial mind-set and set of skills to be perceived as an opportunity. Especially when there is a high degree of uncertainty and the outcome is unknown, for instance through asymmetric information in cross-border business, experienced entrepreneurs are often better at recognizing the opportunity (Beck and Müller-Bloch, 2017; Freeman and Soete, 1997; Baron, 2006).

2.2 Trust in the Context of Business Relationships

Trust is a central component in business relationships as it influences the attitude of the partners on one another. The following sections describe different conceptualisations and types of trust, and establish the role of trust in exchange situations as well as potential changes to the common notions of trust when information and communication technologies (ICTs) are involved.

2.2.1 Conceptualisation of Trust

(16)

Rousseau et al. (1998) describe trust as “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another” (Rousseau et al., 1998: 395). Similarly, Sako (1992) defines trust as “a state of mind, an expectation held by one trading partner about another that the other behaves or responds in a predictable and mutually acceptable manner” (Sako, 1992: 37). Zaheer et al. (1998) define their notion of trust on the basis of three concepts (1) reliability, (2) fairness and (3) goodwill/benevolence. This again relates to Rousseau et al.’s (1998) understanding that one relies on the goodwill of another party to act fairly, i.e. make oneself vulnerable to the other party’s behaviour.

Trust therefore includes cognitive, emotional as well as behavioural features and thus, trust is conceptualized as a concept that is based on informal mechanisms rather than formal (contractual) ones (Zaheer et al., 1998).

2.2.2 Types of Trust

In the literature, it is distinguished between dispositional trust, which refers to individuals’ trustworthiness in general (Rotter, 1967) and relation trust, which refers to trust between two parties. This research only addresses relational trust, as the focal point of interest lies on the role of trust in dyadic business relationships, i.e. where an exchange of a tangible or intangible asset occurs.

(17)

extent to which organisational members have a collectively held trust orientation toward the partner firm” (Zaheer et al. 1998: 143). As a result, interorganisational trust refers to a firm’s willingness to make itself vulnerable to another firm, while relying on the goodwill of that organisation not to behave in an opportunistic manner.

Sako (1992) has developed a typology of trust alongside three types of trust between organisations that have a positive impact on the business relationship as information flow is open and commitment is high. The first type – contractual trust – refers to relying on the other partner to fulfil written or oral agreements (Sako, 1992). Especially in situations where uncertainty is high, formal written agreements are used as a safeguarding mechanism (Sako, 1992). Where there is greater reliance on oral agreements rather than written ones, the level of trust is higher. The second type – competence trust – relates to the trust of one party that the other party will fulfil their role in the partnership competently, i.e. with a high level of technical and managerial competence (Sako, 1992). Thus, the parties count on each other to be able to perform their tasks well. The third type – goodwill trust – refers to the expectation that parties will go beyond what is specified in an agreement (Sako, 1992). It shows a high level of open commitment to the partner that is beneficial for both, as it enables greater reliance on each other. In sum, Sako’s (1992) typology of trust outlines different forms of trust between partners. While contractual trust and competence trust are a basic requirement in a partnership, goodwill trust is at a higher level and highly dependent on the context of the partnership.

2.2.3 Factors Influencing the Degree of Trust and Effects of Trust

(18)

exchanges in business and the factors influencing the degree of trust (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). This work focuses mostly on the trust component of Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) key mediating variable (KMV) model and extends it by additional relevant components drawn from other literature.

The KMV model depicted in Figure 2.4 shows the relationships between influencing factors of trust in the context of business relationships and their consequences. Four key components impact the degree of trust. First, trust is enabled when two organisations have shared values, i.e. they have common beliefs about appropriate and right behaviours, goals and policies (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Second, effective communication, i.e. “formal as well as informal sharing of meaningful and timely information between firms” (Anderson and Narus, 1990: 44) is a direct and major precursor of trust (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Third, the absence of opportunistic behaviour influences the development of trust, so a mutual understanding to act to the benefit of both firms in the business relationship rather than behaviour that is merely motivated out of self-interest to one firm involving deceitfulness (Williamson, 1975; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Fourth, prior business relationship between firms helps to increase trust in the future, as their mutual history and repeated interaction with one another increases trust through familiarity (Gulati, 1995; Gulati and Sytch, 2008).

(19)

innovative ideas, curiosity and ultimately an increase in the productivity of the business relationship (Anderson and Narus, 1990). Third, trust decreases decision-making uncertainty that arises in situations where information is not symmetric and it is unknown what to expect from the other partner (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). As conceptualised above, expectations of the other party’s behaviour and the confidence that their actions are not harmful to the business is among the core meanings of trust.

Figure 2.4: The Key Mediating Model of Trust in Business Relationships (based on Morgan

and Hunt, 1994; Gulati, 1995; Gulati and Nickerson, 2008; Gulati and Sytch, 2008)

Therefore, trust can have a significant impact on business relationships. On the one hand, it impacts business outcomes by reducing negotiation or monitoring costs, i.e. transaction costs (Zaheer et al., 1998; Dyer and Singh, 1998). McCann et al. (2005) refer to transaction costs as “the resources used to define, establish, maintain and transfer property rights” (McCann et al., 2005: 530). Transaction costs are usually higher in situations with asymmetric information, unfamiliarity or other distance effects, resulting in the need for extensive and costly safeguarding mechanisms, i.e. formal contracts (Gulati, 1995; Chiles and McMackin, 1996; Casey and Vigna, 2018). The monetary benefits due to trust and thus lower transaction costs have the potential to be of substantial impact to both transacting partners (Dyer and Chu, 2003). Trust therefore acts as an informal safeguarding mechanism

(20)

that in combination with other informal and formal measures ensures effective governance of a business relationship (Gulati, 1995; Dyer and Singh, 1998).

In sum, trust is a governance mechanism that exists between individuals or organisations (i.e. between individuals of an organisation) and varies in its scale, depending on preconditions such as shared values, effective communication, prior business relationship and opportunistic behaviour. Trust facilitates business by promoting cooperation, functional conflicts and decreasing decision-making uncertainty. It thereby reduces costs associated with complex contracting and other formal safeguarding mechanisms, while promoting information sharing that leads to better relationship performance.

2.2.4 Trust in Technology

It has been established that trust is an important concept when it comes to business relationships, either in the form of interorganisational trust or with the support of trusted intermediaries that facilitate transactions between two parties.

(21)

understudied as new, innovative technologies are developed at a high pace and thus new opportunities arise, while the way to think about trust changes. For instance, Greiner and Wang (2015) have introduced the notion of “trust-free systems” (Greiner and Wang, 2015: 1) that eliminate the need for trusting in another party in the first place. In those systems, computers and algorithms take over the task of mediating between parties, potentially leading to the obsolescence of intermediaries in the long run and possibly to substantial facilitating effects of international business.

This review of literature shows that there is a certain degree of ambiguity with regard to trust and technology. While some argue that technology creates trust-free systems (Greiner and Wang, 2015), others would say that trust simply shifts from people to algorithms (Lustig and Nardi, 2015). Some form of trust or the absence thereof seems to remain of central interest in business relationships. This research aims to analyse whether and how ICT systems may enable or replace trust.

2.3 Blockchain

(22)

powerful than another. In sum, blockchains are decentralised, autonomous, transparent, secure, tamper-free, cost-effective, efficient, irreversible systems (Glaser, 2017; Atzori, 2015; Mattila, 2016; Fanning and Centers, 2016).

It can be distinguished between two types of blockchains that can be programmed for the intended use. On the one hand, there exist public or permissionless blockchains with open access to the network (Mattila, 2016; Atzori, 2015). On the other hand, private or permissioned blockchains are only open to a limited number of users (Casey and Vigna, 2018). As opposed to the public blockchain, private ones are suitable for cases of sensitive data such as governmental institutions (Atzori, 2015). This prevents data privacy issues, while enabling reaping the benefits from blockchain.

(23)

However, blockchain faces various challenges regarding technology, implementation and applicability. Technological challenges consist of limitations in capacity and scalability (Glaser, 2017; Notheisen et al., 2017). Additionally, due to the irreversibility of logged transactions as all blocks are connected, it makes changes of data impossible (Notheisen et al., 2017). Moreover, blockchains must be adapted for every use case, it is associated with high upfront investment costs to establish the desired system (Notheisen et al., 2017). At the same time, negative implications for data privacy in public blockchains arise and thus the risk of exposure of sensitive personal information (Notheisen et al., 2017; Atzori, 2015). Since blockchains are dependent on the internet and/or electronic networks, connectivity is a critical component (Atzori, 2015). On top of that, it is unclear whether blockchains have the required durability/continuity to exist long enough for the intended purpose (Atzori, 2015). Furthermore, the emergence of blockchain technology results in a societal challenge to realistically evaluate its benefits for citizens as well as rethinking the role of the state as power shifts from the public to the private sector (Atzori, 2015). It is therefore necessary to establish the suitable boundaries for the use of such a system. Finally, the question regarding large scale applicability and mass adoption of blockchain systems remains (Notheisen et al., 2017). Blockchain systems have the potential to be implemented across industries (Casey and Vigna, 2018):

In the finance sector, they remove the need for a central authority, i.e. the bank, while still documenting ownership of an asset (physical or digital; Mattila, 2016). Additionally, they create the possibility of nanopayments, i.e. transactions worth a fraction of the smallest monetary unit, which enable new business models, such as pay-per-use (Mattila, 2016).

(24)

increase efficiency in allocating energy depending on volumes needed in addition to optimising maintenance processes.

In the logistics sector, organising shipments by blockchain increases efficiency as it removes a third-party that is a source of misinformation as well as it optimises loading capacities (Allison, 2016; Thuermer, 2017).

Furthermore, blockchain can be applied in supply chain management. It empowers consumers to make informed and ethically motivated purchasing decisions by determining the origins of a product or the material used in production, to assess the ethical correctness of the product and business (Mattila, 2016; Orcutt, 2018).

In the public sector, blockchain can be implemented for a number of applications ranging from identity management, health care and elections for better communication with citizens (Mattila, 2016; Ølnes, 2016; Orcutt, 2018; Simonite, 2017; Fanning and Centers, 2016).

In sum, blockchain can be implemented anywhere for the purpose of transferring any kind of data securely. If the technological problems that are mostly due to limitations in currently available technology are solved (Casey and Vigna, 2018), blockchain could benefit even more industries than mentioned in this paper.

(25)

3 Research Design and Method

3.1 Research Focus

This research follows a qualitative approach using an inductive multi-case study with ten semi-structured interviews of entrepreneurs, their staff and external experts in the field of blockchain to gather primary data. Its design is closely linked with Eisenhardt’s (1989) process of building theory from case study research.

At the beginning of the research, it is crucial to define a research focus, i.e. entrepreneurial opportunity and blockchain in order to avoid getting overwhelmed by the data (Eisenhardt, 1989). This research intends to (1) increase the understanding of entrepreneurs’ motivation and ability to translate blockchain ideas into business, (2) to shed some light on a new type of potentially disruptive technology, its future prospect and (3) assess its impact on the common role of trust and thus find implications for both theory and practice. This led to the following two research questions: How do entrepreneurs perceive blockchain-based opportunities as well as the emerging obstacles during the development process of a blockchain-based business opportunity? How do entrepreneurs’ perceptions of advanced technologies such as blockchain influence common notions of trust and potentially enable greater trust in cross-border business?

(26)

The proposed research design is of both retrospective nature while including a prospective view of the investigated matter. Blockchain is a relatively young technology as is the research accompanying it, especially when it is differentiated between blockchain in the cryptocurrency area and other fields that use blockchain. Due to the early stage of this technology, there are few projects running yet, but there is a vast amount of ideas and projects in their initial phases of ideation, planning and implementation. Thus, where possible, real-time information is gathered about the entrepreneurial opportunity, ranging from potential cases to actually implemented ideas.

In line with Eisenhardt’s (1989) proposition, possibly relevant constructs were specified a priori. These included entrepreneur’s background, top management involvement, motivation to implement a blockchain solution, value creation from blockchain, source of information about the opportunity, blockchain as a hype, societal, economic and political implications, possible use cases, obstacles, potential technological benefits as well as limitations. While not all of them turned out to be relevant in the development of theory, they helped to shape the research approach.

3.2 Case Selection

(27)

The cases were chosen based on three reasons. First, firms that were knowingly already looking at or planning to implement a blockchain solution were asked to participate. Second, efforts were made to cover the most interesting and potentially most disrupted industries (see Chapter 2.3) in addition to start-ups working on blockchain development as well as professional experts (consultants and investor). Third, Pavitt’s (1984) taxonomy is used to classify the case firms along their processes of technological change. He distinguishing between three categories of firms. Supplier dominated firms are usually found in traditional manufacturing settings where innovation is sparked externally. Production intensive firms can be divided into scale intensive and specialised supplier firms depending on the production volume and type of product. Science based firms are highly dependent on research and development and the potential to innovate is high. Table 3.1 allocates the chosen case firms including their industry to each of those types. While the majority of cases is placed in the production intensive area, it is interesting to see that the two blockchain start-ups belong to the science based firms which are small, but innovate at a high pace. Two interviews were excluded from this classification as they could not be allocated to either of the categories. The interview with an IT consultant who gave his expert opinion about the matter was not assigned to Pavitt’s taxonomy as well as Gamma airport, which due to its wide variety of services and departments can be placed across all of Pavitt’s categories depending on the examined unit. Table 3.2 shows the interview participants’ background.

Table 3.1: Pavitt’s Taxonomy of Selected Cases (based on Pavitt, 1984)

Category of Firm Case Industry

Supplier Dominated • Beta • Finance

Production Intensive Scale Intensive • Alpha • Jaspis • Ceta • Epsilon • Energy and VC • Transportation, Mobility • IT (Soft- and Hardware) • IT (Soft- and Hardware)

Specialised Suppliers • Hexa • Aviation and IT Consulting

Science Based • Delta

• Iota

(28)

Table 3.2: Overview of Interviews – Industry Background, Duration and Current Use of

Blockchain

Firm Industry Background Duration (min) Blockchain Use

1 Alpha Energy, Venture Capitalist 38:00  Investing in blockchain start-ups

2 Beta Finance, Banking 27:03

 No use

 Pilot project planned in one department

3 Ceta IT (Soft and Hardware) + IT

Consulting 41:16

 Some use cases

 Focus on consulting

4 Delta Blockchain Development 35:30  Provide blockchain solutions and

consulting

5 Epsilon IT (Soft and Hardware) in writing  Blockchain development

6 Foxx IT Consulting 31:19  Consults potential customers on

blockchain 7 Gamma International Airport:

Transport, Logistics, Services 20:31

 No use yet

 Assess potential in pilot use cases

8 Hexa IT Consultant, Aviation 32:30  Some use cases of internal

customers

9 Iota Blockchain Development 27:50

 Provide blockchain solution

 Blockchain business concept constantly changing

10 Jaspis Transportation / Mobility 51:05  Ca. 10 successful pilot projects

 More than 70 potential use cases

While it is favourable to reveal the identity of the firms and interviewees (Yin, 2009), they were anonymised in this study to both protect intellectual property as well as the individuals participating in representation of their company. However, detailed background information on the cases is given in Chapter 4 to allow for more familiarity with the cases (Yin, 2009).

3.3 Data Collection

(29)

They lasted between 20 and 50 minutes, where the duration was dependent on the interview partners’ expertise and experience with blockchain. Table 3.2 provides an overview of the interviewees’ background as well as the corresponding durations. Where the technology was already in use the interviews usually lasted longer than those where blockchain technology has not been used (yet) and the focus has been laid on assessing the potential of blockchain in the respective industry.

During the interviews, the participants were asked about their entrepreneurial background, the current use of blockchain in their company as well as their motivation to implement a blockchain system. Moreover, they were asked to state their view about the implications for economy, society and government, in particular relating to the potential change of common understandings and the role of trust. Finally, interview participants gave an expert opinion about the future potential of this technology in their sector as well as other industries. Typical for an inductive research approach in combination with semi-structured interviews, the set of questions comprised of open-ended questions and included some key questions (see Appendix A) that varied depending on the interviewee’s background (Lodico et al., 2010). For instance, as the first interview partner invested in promising blockchain start-ups, specific questions for investor-related aspects were included.

(30)

3.4 Data Analysis

In order to satisfy the research focus, the interviews are analysed using an inductive reasoning approach. Often referred to as the “bottom-up approach” (Lodico et al., 2010: 5), inductive research leads to the development of new understandings and theoretical frameworks through analysing observations of the investigated matter (Lodico et al., 2010), which is the aim of this research.

The interviews are the main source for making observations. The interview analysis involves thematic coding and is based on procedures influenced by Grounded Theory. Once the interviews have been conducted, the content is transcribed and prepared accordingly, to be coded. This coding process is supported by the software NVivo that facilitates organising the data in a comprehensive way. Reoccurring themes are identified and interview content is matched accordingly as well as other interesting and important remarks are gathered. Through the use of sorting mechanisms, interpretations can be made and correlations between influencing factors and outcomes can be determined. In line with Eisenhardt (1989), within-case analysis is conducted first to get familiarised with each case and facilitate cross-case analysis. The obtained data is presented in a cross-cross-case style to compare answers and arrive at deductions within one theme (Yin, 2009).

(31)

Finally, Eisenhardt (1989) argues that a comparison of the results and emergent theory with existing literature is crucial in case study research. Therefore, the study insights were linked with existing frameworks and concepts described in the literature review of this work.

3.5 Limitations and Ethical Issues of the Research Approach

The possible limitations of the described approach are associated with the qualitative nature of the study. First, due to the lack of hard data and thus the reliance on insights from semi-structured interviews, the results are not generalizable beyond its context. Second, although semi-structured interviews allow for more variation and the emergence of interesting conversations as well as they create a more relaxed setting, there is a threat of reflexivity which the researcher was aware of and thrived to maintain as neutral as possible (Yin, 2009). Third, as prospective information is included in the study, it might be the case that even promising projects turn out to be unfeasible and are classified as entrepreneurial opportunities falsely in this study. However, the research interest lies on the entrepreneurs’ perceptions of the potential entrepreneurial opportunity, not the actual opportunity itself.

(32)

4 Findings and Discussion

The interview analysis leads to a number of conclusions regarding the motivation to implement a blockchain system, the role of top management involvement, the perceptions of blockchain-related entrepreneurial opportunities and emerging obstacles as well as factors that could support the development of a blockchain system in addition to entrepreneur’s characteristics. These sections offer a collection of factors influencing the blockchain opportunity recognition process. Figure 4.1 at the end of the chapter provides an integrated model of the components described in each of the following sections. Additionally, the interviews give insights into perceived changes to common notions of trust in business settings and how blockchain potentially facilitates trust in cross-border business and revisits the theoretical framework of trust in light of the role of blockchain with regard to trust.

An overview of the cases chosen for interviews and analysis was already introduced in Table 3.1 and 3.2. The following section provides a more detailed background of the case firms.

The first firm – Alpha – is a European energy producer with a focus on renewable energy in Germany. They expand their business in the e-mobility sector, as their view of the future will include so-called prosumers, i.e. customers who are also producers. This can be realised for example in the area of solar power, were households not only consume energy, but also produce it to be fed into the grid and shared with other consumer. In those kind of use cases, Alpha invests in blockchain start-ups that have promising ideas in the area of platform development for energy and e-mobility.

(33)

traditional role of banks involving the dependence on trusted bank advisors and paper money.

The third firm – Ceta – is a global IT soft- and hardware producer that acts at the top front of blockchain innovation. They do not only develop blockchain solutions themselves, but also consult customers on how to best achieve a feasible blockchain implementation. Together with another global firm, Ceta was able to develop a working blockchain solution in the logistics sector.

The fourth firm – Delta – a German blockchain start-up provides a blockchain product that solves a major problem of blockchain, namely the limited scalability. They use a traditional database and built a blockchain layer on top to get the benefits of both architectures. Moreover, they offer consulting services for firms and governments to implement their blockchain solution or other blockchain systems. They aim to create a decentralised internet, where no single entity controls the internet.

The fifth firm – Epsilon – is an international IT soft- and hardware producer with a focus on software. They currently work on providing customers across industries such as manufacturing, retail, insurance, banking and capital markets as well as healthcare with blockchain-based platforms.

(34)

The eight firm – Hexa – is an IT consultancy in the aviation sector and beyond. They aim to develop blockchain solutions for in-house customers as well as external customers. They have evaluated some possible use cases, but as the aviation sector still has unrealised potential to digitise with other means, no blockchain solutions have been implemented yet.

The ninth firm – Iota – is a German blockchain start-up in the energy and e-mobility sector. One of their projects was to develop a decentralised blockchain-based platform that brings together car owners and charging pole owners to share the charging facilities.

The tenth firm – Jaspis – is a transportation company in Germany that over the last one to two years has taken a journey from an informal group of employees from all sort of departments to an official blockchain unit. The firm is quite enthusiastic about blockchain and has found more than 70 potential blockchain use cases. Currently, they work on 10 to 12 blockchain projects with some in the testing stage already.

4.1 Entrepreneurial Opportunity and Blockchain

Part of the research focus is to analyse entrepreneurial opportunity in relation to blockchain. The following sections present and discuss findings regarding the relevant concepts in the blockchain opportunity recognition process.

4.1.1 Motivation to Implement

(35)

that also solved a typical current technological problem of blockchain technology itself, namely the low transaction capacity.

On the other hand, it was found that for some firms, blockchain provides an opportunity to facilitate and improve business processes. Alpha for example found that their current systems were prone to cyber-attacks. For them, using blockchain technology with its decentralised infrastructure would be a way to increase security in the network. At the same time, blockchain seems to be particularly favoured in firms or business units that deal with a lot of external customers. Epsilon has conducted a market study indicating a “massive opportunity to improve shared business processes” (interview with Epsilon). This connects to the IT consultant’s view that a motivation to implement blockchain in the public sector would be to increase trust. This is not surprising as one of blockchain’s benefits is its facilitating role in transactions, as it gets rid of the trusted intermediary and enables trust through its technological properties (see section 4.2). This results in great potential cost savings as processes become much simpler. Hexa for instance perceives blockchain as a mean for the IT department to improve the entire firm’s communication processes with buyers or suppliers as they have a need for quick and timely communication. Similarly, Gamma airport would implement blockchain as a measure to enable processes, not within the firm, but only where and if other firms are involved.

Finally, there is a consensus among the larger and well-established firms that devoting thoughts to blockchain is necessary to stay on top of business and ensure a competitive market position in the future.

(36)

watch out what is out there, what new technologies are out there, you need to observe and also get involved with them and get familiarised with them.” (Interview with Jaspis)

This statement explains the third motivation well as it acknowledges the existence and potential threat or disruption of this new technology. Markets might look different in the future due to this technology (interview with Alpha). It therefore also provides an opportunity to increase the business portfolio. “Blockchain allows us to tackle completely new business models out there in the marketplace, […] we have a great interest to tap into this development in the market” (interview with Ceta). Blockchain implementation therefore not only ensure future business, it also enables expanding business operations. Large and well-established firms such as Alpha, Beta, Epsilon and Jaspis have the financial freedom to devote resources to research and development of blockchain solutions. Thereby, as early adopters, they are able to obtain a high market share and develop blockchain platforms suiting the respective business case (e.g. e-mobility, IT consulting or energy) for their customers.

(37)

4.1.2 The Role of Top Management Involvement

Besides motivation, the involvement of top management in driving blockchain solutions is of interest as it varies across firms and can have an ambiguous effect on business development.

In the bank, “blockchain is a buzzword” (interview with Beta), but it is not actually followed up at the moment. The interest in blockchain across the firm is relatively low, but greater in departments that might be able to use it efficiently. This was quite surprising, as blockchain already disrupted the finance sector and potentially poses a threat to traditional banks once the initial issues are overcome. Reasons for this may be found in the fact that – especially in Germany – society still trusts their banks and holds on to traditional means of money and payment.

At the same time, the results of the conversation with the IT consultant working in the public sector showed that although blockchain is present in the IT circles within government agencies, it is not discussed at the management level. It might be interesting in the future and people are curious about blockchain’s potential, but it is more of a side issue at the moment.

At the airport, blockchain is “already in the heads of people” (interview with Gamma), but most people do not know what it actually is. The top management does not actively drive blockchain solutions, but excitement comes from the business units who hear about blockchain in the media and contact their IT department regarding the possibilities of implementation.

(38)

“I would say we are lucky that we have this colleague in our group, who has good connections. Thanks to him, we were able to have an access to couple of people from the top management and he was able to convince them and they help us. Otherwise we probably would not have this official blockchain group.” (Interview with Jaspis)

In this case, the top managers themselves are interested in blockchain and thus involved in their development. The strong ties and good connection of the blockchain team with the top management is a key advantage.

In the IT firms, top management is quite involved, which is not surprising considering their firms are at the source of development and have the necessary expertise to look into new technologies. “Blockchain is one […] important segment in every company announcement” (interview with Epsilon) and the “top management is keen on supporting blockchain and supporting the product development” (interview with Epsilon).

In sum, top management either drives or hinders blockchain innovation depending on its involvement. While top management involvement is not crucial to develop new solutions, it is enormously helpful to facilitate the process as more resources are available to develop projects.

(39)

with their vision of the decentralisation of the internet, where no single entity has the control. As those firms are founded to disrupt the market, their top management is a driving force in succeeding with blockchain technology.

4.1.3 Perception of Blockchain Opportunities

As outlined in the literature review, entrepreneurs differ in their perceptions of opportunities. Overall, there is a consensus among the interview participants that blockchain is a hype, which is quite normal for such a new and potentially disrupting technology. “The hype is always an expression of enthusiasm for a new technology, and during the hype you're trying to explore this technology and figure out how to use it well” (interview with Foxx). At the same time, the hype around blockchain does not mean that it does not deserve the attention it tractions.

“I mean blockchain is definitely a hype […] just like any other new technology, you will always have this huge hype of it, but does not mean that they do not deserve […] this kind of investment.” (Interview with Delta)

Some even go that far to describe its potential to be equally influential as the internet when it first emerged. However, it is necessary to distinguish between blockchain in the area of cryptocurrencies and other use cases of blockchain, since blockchain in the field of cryptocurrencies was overly hyped in the past. There is a widespread acknowledgement that there is less hype now compared to some years ago.

(40)

So, while the hype is necessary in bringing ideas forward, the movement towards a more realistic view helps to determine how blockchain actually works and where it could be implemented best. Whether or not to use blockchain technology depends on the entrepreneurs’ perception of the blockchain opportunity.

(41)

might be “an approach that has a strong revolutionary effect” (interview with Ceta) with “huge disruption capabilities” (interview with Delta).

First, blockchain has the potential to make intermediaries obsolete. It can best be used “in the areas where middlemen can be made obsolete relatively quickly and [thus] costs can be saved” (interview with Foxx). While this may facilitate business, it also has an impact on the job market. Blockchain “is not a business in favour of human beings” (interview with Alpha), as it potentially cost jobs in some areas, especially those of intermediaries and registries.

Second, blockchain could enable automation and streamlining of processes to make them faster, leaner, more transparent, less vulnerable to falsifications and thus less costly (interview with Ceta, Gamma and Iota). Especially with regards to transactions, “blockchain is useful […] in situations across industries that involve asset transfer, cross-organisational exchange and a requirement for audit” (interview with Epsilon). It therefore has the potential to facilitate the exchange of assets globally.

Third, blockchain has the capability to increase transparency. It enables asset tracking of any sort, for instance to retrace the origin of a product (interview with Hexa). This would be a significant step towards transparency of the supply chain. While, the interviewees evaluate this development quite positively, it must be noted that there is still a dependency on the credibility of those who enter the data into the blockchain (for instance whether the production process was morally inoffensive).

(42)

might become a selling point for individuals as well, if they are enabled through blockchain to collect fees for the data they make available through the blockchain (interview with Foxx). Fifth, another potential consequence regarding data is the decentralisation of the internet, which gets rid of monopolies controlling data (interview with Delta and Iota). So, blockchain is also about democratisation of the internet, but also in other sectors, for instance in finance. Blockchain has the “potential to democratize the access to money or to funding” (interview with Alpha).

Sixth, with blockchain there is a potential of new business models. Former or future competitors collaborate on a platform to maintain their ability to generate value in the future (interview with Alpha and Jaspis). Blockchain only makes sense to be implemented across more than one firm as only then there is a need for blockchain and the benefits are worth the effort of developing a blockchain solution.

In sum, blockchain potentially takes out the middleman, improves processes, facilitates the exchange of assets, increases transparency, makes previously unavailable data accessible, decentralises the internet and thereby gets rid of monopolies and results in new business models that involve collaboration among former and future competitors. As described by Vogel (2017) and Renko et al. (2012), perceptions are filtered by individuals. Therefore, the individual entrepreneur’s perception of these benefits also influences the perception of the blockchain opportunity itself (see Figure 4.1).

(43)

blockchain solutions (interview with Ceta, Delta and Foxx). Fourth, by providing a platform that connects competing firms or firms and users (interview with Epsilon, Iota and Jaspis). This is particularly important as nowadays “in the business world […] you need to collaborate and compete at the same time” (interview with Iota).

4.1.4 Perception of Obstacles

In order to achieve value generation through blockchain, entrepreneurs must overcome a number of obstacles. On the one hand, it is challenging to find a suitable business case that fits the current understanding of the technology (interview with Alpha), that can be realisable (interview with Ceta), and that could be best solved with blockchain (interview with Jaspis). “You have to be very careful to select a suitable use case, not every use case by far is good for blockchain” (interview with Gamma). Especially as blockchain is such a special technology, not every application can be solved with blockchain (interview with Foxx). The second obstacle is the availability of resources both financial and human. Blockchain is an expensive technology that comes at great overhead costs (interview with Epsilon, Foxx, Gamma, Hexa and Jaspis). Developing and implementing a blockchain solution requires skilled developers that are rare as well as expensive (interview with Delta, Foxx and Hexa). The results indicate that where the top management was involved and the motivation to look for a blockchain solution, more resources were made available, which manifested for instance in the founding of a business unit dedicated to blockchain technology. The third obstacle is to get people on board that are able to contribute the needed resources.

(44)

“There are all these reservations, also you could call it prejudices against blockchain technology that you first have to break down. You need to do some convincing.” (Interview with Jaspis)

People often do not understand blockchain technology, so educational work is necessary to show them the benefits (interview with Ceta and Gamma). This is important within the company, but also with potential partners. “A big problem with regards to organisational issues is that blockchain is not purely an internal topic, it’s never just a purely internal topic” (interview with Hexa). Finding the right partner is a difficult process and when a suitable one is found, promoting the desired openness and transparency among competitors to sit down together and think about a project that ultimately results in an agreement is challenging (interview with Hexa).

Moreover, the blockchain space is quickly evolving as the technological base is changing rapidly. “You will always have to be constantly up-to-date and curious for what are the new stuff happening in the space, to keep up with the very fast paced environment” (interview with Delta). This makes it difficult to run a blockchain project, as one always lags behind the technological developments (interview with Foxx). At the same time, as the technology is new, the product maturity is low compared to others, so only few supporting frameworks are available (interview with Hexa).

(45)

might only be of interest in a few circles of technology experts. Moreover, there exist concerns about the long-term prognosis of blockchain (interview with Epsilon). Will they be around long enough to take over important business processes? Finally, there exists regulatory uncertainty (interview with Alpha and Beta). Especially regarding data privacy, which connects to the technological challenges.

One of blockchain’s purposes is to provide a clear audit trail. However, this immutability does not allow for the recently passed law that users must have the right to be forgotten. While there are solutions in the process of development where some data is stored on-chain and sensitive data off-chain with a linking mechanisms between the two, this remains a critical issue (interview with Delta). So ensuring data security is still a challenging technological feature (interview with Epsilon). Additionally, blockchain still struggles with its low transaction rate and limited scalability which makes it unsuitable for high transaction volumes (interview with Beta, Ceta, Delta, Hexa and Iota). Lastly, there is a lack of standards in the field of blockchain making it difficult for two systems to communicate with each other (interview with Jaspis). Interoperability between two blockchain systems, but also with existing IT infrastructures poses as an obstacle (interview with Epsilon and Hexa). “The process for implementing a blockchain may look quite different in one company that in another company, because there are other systems in use” (interview with Hexa).

(46)

4.1.5 Supporting Factors

Following the previous analysis, factors that would facilitate the implementation of blockchain can be identified. First, as mentioned before, top management involvement is helpful when planning to implement a blockchain system as it allows for more resources and acceptance across the firm (interview with Jaspis). Second, positive personal characteristics of the entrepreneurs and employees who aim to develop a blockchain solution play an important role. Traits such as enthusiasm, commitment and capability to convince others in addition to deep technological understanding help remove obstacles. These are described in more detail later in this work. Third and most importantly, collaboration is the key when striving for a blockchain-based system.

“From our perspective and what we have learned in the process is that blockchain technology is not for just one single business.” (Interview with Iota). “It is essential that we have to get other people, other companies on board. Otherwise the solution will be useless.” (Interview with Jaspis).

(47)

“So you have the big industries that are very much involved with blockchain start-ups like us. And this is always great to see [as] it’s also I would say very much in accordance with the blockchain identity, blockchain mind, to work together, to achieve one same philosophy.” (Interview with Delta)

Collaboration with both experience corporations and enthusiastic start-ups seems to be a crucial factor to drive blockchain solutions forward. It was proposed in the literature review that firms working together increase performance (Morgan and Hunt, 1994), which was a critical point in each interview. The whole point of blockchain’s open environment is to allow for the consolidation of resources in a cooperative environment and thus the creation of new entrepreneurial opportunity that go beyond single firm boundaries.

Overall, top management involvement, favourable personal characteristics (including enthusiasm, knowledge, experience) and collaboration among firms help to overcome obstacles related to blockchain (see Figure 4.1).

(48)

blockchain as a good choice of technology for the requirements of their business and thus focus on other technologies.

4.1.6 Characteristics of Blockchain Entrepreneurs

Entrepreneurs differ in their mental conceptions and characteristics and so does their perception of opportunities, motivation and strategic choice whether or not to develop a blockchain system. The following analysis identifies some typical characteristics of blockchain entrepreneurs and relates them to previous findings.

(49)

Furthermore, blockchain entrepreneurs are described as polymaths in the area of mathematics, physics, and economics among others (interview with Delta). This wide variety of interests enables them to stay on top of trends in this environment developing at a very high pace. Additionally, it was found that openness and a view for the future enables blockchain implementation as well as a willingness to try and fail (interview with Hexa). These two attributes are linked, as someone who is open to an idea is also more willing to try them out. With blockchain, this becomes increasingly important, because results are often not reached easily and prompt, but take years of development. Naturally, larger and well-established firms such as Alpha, Ceta, Epsilon and Jaspis can afford to contribute resources to develop a blockchain project that does not provide rewards immediately, as for them, this does not lead to a disruption of day-to-day business. Blockchain start-ups are willing to try and fail by their nature, as they are usually high-risk firms that are financed externally through investment and (at an early stage) not by generating revenue themselves. Finally, blockchain entrepreneurs are characterised as people who are able to bring others on board (interview with Iota). For this, it helps substantially if they are well-connected. In the context of competent blockchain entrepreneurs, Alpha found:

“What I observed so far is, it’s better for them if they have access to the German Mittelstand or the industry. This is much more important than for example, having founded already three e-commerce […] start-ups.” (Interview with Alpha)

(50)

Thus, the characteristics of a successful blockchain entrepreneur include being (1) interested financially, (2) an enthusiast, (3) well-versed in the technological side, (4) a polymath, (5) open and future-oriented, (6) willing to try and fail as well as being (7) connected and able to bring people on board. Not every entrepreneur possess all of them, but usually a mix. This is in accordance with the links described in the literature section of this work. The important personal traits of entrepreneurs included a high educational level, optimism, creativity and the ability to reflect on a situation. These are relevant for an entrepreneur’s ability to obtain the technological know-how, to be open and curious and to be able to reflect on a project and also sometimes fail. At the same time, a larger network was associated with greater entrepreneurial success, which is proven by the interviewees belief that connectedness in the network is important for blockchain entrepreneurs. The interview results indicate a particular focus on the entrepreneurs’ positive mind-set and ability to convince people of their idea both reflected in their enthusiasm and persuasiveness concerning the potential of blockchain.

(51)

their individual mind-sets and capabilities are at the centre of the opportunity recognition process.

Figure 4.1: Integrated Model of Blockchain Opportunity Recognition

4.2 Blockchain and its Influence on Trust

(52)

“I think that’s really the fascinating piece that without having trust, without trusting other people or companies or entities, I could exchange value and not be afraid that I could lose everything only because one or two people are not behaving according to the policies.” (Interview with Alpha)

Similar to Alpha, the interviewees emphasized that the properties of the blockchain technology could enable them to exchange tangible or intangible assets with a partner that is not trusted or not trusted sufficiently without being worried about the fulfilment of the transaction. This is due to the properties of the technology which makes it impossible to delete data entries from the chain. Blockchain “allows for a clear audit trail that you can be sure was not tampered with” (interview with Delta). Through this immutability the partners are assured that the information they are provided with is true and there is no need for verifying that something has been forged. This results in cost savings in business exchanges as it reduces the need for complex contracts and safeguarding.

Additionally, it allows firms to compete and collaborate at the same time, which – some say – is the business model of the future (interview with Alpha, Delta, Iota and Jaspis).

“I could foresee that for the very first time, parties that don’t like each other, that don’t trust each other that have been perceived as competitors in the past […], they can use the same infrastructure to build something new.” (Interview with Alpha)

(53)

a blockchain solution, as only when others in their business network participate on a blockchain platform, it is worth the resources necessary for implementation (interview with Foxx, Gamma and Jaspis).

Additionally, it becomes evident, that the concept of trust is still important because “[with] blockchain, the trust is in the architecture” (interview with Jaspis). So the reason why blockchain is referred to as a trust-free construct is its architectural properties. Nevertheless, while one does not have to trust another party in the network, it is necessary to trust the technology, its properties, rules and algorithms. Since someone provides the blockchain solution, these properties are also determined by someone and this person or entity must be trusted as well. However, Iota beliefs that “the trust in technology and the protocol, which everyone agrees on is probably easier to implement that having one big corporation controlling everything for the others as well” (interview with Iota). Firms that are offering blockchain solutions to their customers already, such as Ceta and Epsilon, are convinced that they can provide this trust by their high industry standards, good track record and positive reputation in the field of IT. Nevertheless, it must be assessed carefully to what extent consumers and users are able and willing to use and trust such a system.

The Blockchain Phenomenon: