| Περίληψη: |
Blockchain tokens are widely used in digital markets, yet they do not spread in the same way. Our research shows that tokens designed primarily for financial exchange and those designed for functional or service use diffuse through fundamentally different mechanisms even though they operate on the same underlying technology. Analyzing more than 200 million transactions across more than 24,000 Ethereum-based tokens, we find that financial tokens spread faster when they are held as part of large, diversified user portfolios yet diffuse more slowly when adopted by highly visible lead users. In direct contrast, utility tokens benefit strongly from early adoption by lead users and from transaction platforms that facilitate repeated use, whereas portfolio diversification inhibits their diffusion. These findings have important implications for practice and policy. For managers and platform designers, strategies that successfully promote financial tokens may actively hinder the adoption of utility tokens, underscoring the need for value-specific design, marketing, and platform strategies. For regulators and policymakers, the results provide empirical evidence that blockchain tokens function differently depending on their value orientation, constituting a strong empirical basis for more nuanced, behavior-based regulatory frameworks rather than one-size-fits-all approaches to digital tokens. Blockchain tokens have seen widespread adoption by users. Although prior work examines approaches for making tokens available to the public, for example, via initial coin offerings, airdrops, and initial token offerings, our understanding of how dual-value digital artifacts diffuse within the same category remains limited, posing a challenge for theory and practice (e.g., start-ups and token creators), also carrying significant implications for ongoing policy discussions. Extant diffusion theories, such as innovation diffusion theory and informational cascades, offer valuable foundations for understanding how technologies spread. However, they have not yet fully incorporated the role of value orientation, that is, whether a digital artifact primarily facilitates exchange or utility value, in shaping diffusion dynamics. In this research, we address this theoretical and empirical gap by leveraging an exchange-versus-utility value lens to understand how blockchain tokens within the same digital product category diffuse differently when they embody divergent value orientations (exchange versus utility). Specifically, by conceptualizing blockchain tokens as financial tokens versus utility tokens, we theorize that they facilitate exchange value and utility value, respectively, manifesting in distinct diffusion patterns based on the portfolio size of their users, the actions of lead users, and their availability through transaction platforms. We employ a series of panel vector autoregressions analyzing more than 200 million transactions associated with 24,430 public Ethereum-based tokens and provide empirical evidence regarding how some tokens realize more of their exchange value, whereas other tokens realize more of their utility value, leading to markedly distinct diffusion patterns. We find that increases in the portfolio size of the userbase and decreased adoption by lead users foster the diffusion of financial tokens. In sharp contrast, we provide evidence that decreases in the portfolio size of the userbase, increased adoption by lead users, and increased facilitation of user interactions through transaction platforms foster the diffusion of utility tokens. We conclude by discussing how this work advances broader conversations in information systems, technology management, and innovation diffusion, offering a novel perspective on the diffusion of blockchain tokens and informing policy discussions on blockchain tokens and their regulation as securities or commodities. History: Rajiv Kohli, Senior Editor; Joe Nandhakumar, Associate Editor. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2022.0711. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |