Demand-Side Effects of Open Innovation: The Case of Cryptocurrency Forking

References

• Aggarwal G, Patel V, Varshney G, Oostman K (2019) Understanding the social factors affecting the cryptocurrency market. Preprint, submitted January 13, https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.06245.Google Scholar
• Athey S, Parashkevov I, Sarukkai V, Xia J (2016) Bitcoin pricing, adoption, and usage: Theory and evidence. Working paper, Stanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Woodard CJ (2009) The architecture of platforms: A unified view. Gawer A, ed. Platforms, Markets and Innovation (Edward Elgar, London), 19–44.Google Scholar
• Barua A, Mukherjee R (2021) Multi-homing revisited: Level of adoption and competitive strategies. MIS Quart. 45(2):897–924.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bateman PJ, Gray PH, Butler BS (2011) Research note—The impact of community commitment on participation in online communities. Inform. Systems Res. 22(4):841–854.Link, Google Scholar
• Benedetti HE, Kostovetsky L (2021) Digital tulips? Returns to investors in initial coin offerings. J. Corporate Finance 66:101786.Google Scholar
• Bental B, Spiegel M (1995) Network competition, product quality, and market coverage in the presence of network externalities. J. Indust. Econom. 43(2):197–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benzell SG, Hersh J, Van Alstyne M (2023) How APIs create growth by inverting the firm. Management Sci. 70(10):7120–7141.Link, Google Scholar
• Böhme R, Christin N, Edelman B, Moore T (2015) Bitcoin: Economics, technology, and governance. J. Econom. Perspect. 29(2):213–238.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bohr J, Bashir M (2014) Who uses Bitcoin? An exploration of the Bitcoin community. 2014 12th Annual Internat. Conf. Privacy Security Trust (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, NJ), 94–101.Google Scholar
• Boudreau K (2010) Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control. Management Sci. 56(10):1849–1872.Link, Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ (2012) Let a thousand flowers bloom? An early look at large numbers of software app developers and patterns of innovation. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1409–1427.Link, Google Scholar
• Cameron AC, Miller DL (2015) A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. J. Human Resources 50(2):317–372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casalnuovo C, Vasilescu B, Devanbu P, Filkov V (2015) Developer onboarding in GitHub: The role of prior social links and language experience. Proc. 2015 10th Joint Meeting Foundations Software Engrg. (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 817–828.Google Scholar
• Cenamor J, Frishammar J (2021) Openness in platform ecosystems: Innovation strategies for complementary products. Res. Policy 50(1):1–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cengiz D, Dube A, Lindner A, Zipperer B (2019) The effect of minimum wages on low-wage jobs. Quart. J. Econom. 134(3):1405–1454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheah ET, Fry J (2015) Speculative bubbles in Bitcoin markets? An empirical investigation into the fundamental value of Bitcoin. Econom. Lett. 130:32–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen H, Pendleton M, Njilla L, Xu S (2020) A survey on Ethereum systems security: Vulnerabilities, attacks, and defenses. ACM Comput. Surveys 53(3):1–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen J, Ulrich D, Harrington JE (2009) Avoiding market dominance: Product compatibility in markets with network effects. RAND J. Econom. 40(3):455–485.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheyre C, Klepper S, Veloso F (2015) Spinoffs and the mobility of US merchant semiconductor inventors. Management Sci. 61(3):487–506.Link, Google Scholar
• Chu J, Manchanda P (2016) Quantifying cross and direct network effects in online consumer-to-consumer platforms. Marketing Sci. 35(6):870–893.Link, Google Scholar
• Conner KR (1995) Obtaining strategic advantage from being imitated: When can encouraging “clones” pay? Management Sci. 41(2):209–225.Link, Google Scholar
• Corts KS, Lederman M (2009) Software exclusivity and the scope of indirect network effects in the US home video game market. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 27(2):121–136.Google Scholar
• Darolles S, Le Fol G (2014) Trading volume and arbitrage. GSTF: J. Bus. Rev. 3(3):30–39.Google Scholar
• Dean T, Daluwathumullagamage DJ, Marsden A (2020) Predictability of ICO success and returns. J. Appl. Bus. Econom. 22(13):22–26.Google Scholar
• Derman E (2002) The perception of time, risk and return during periods of speculation. Quant. Finance 2:282–296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drobetz W, Momtaz PP, Schröder H (2019) Investor sentiment and initial coin offerings. J. Alternative Investments 21(4):41–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenmann T, Parker G, Van Alstyne M (2011) Platform envelopment. Strategic Management J. 32(12):1270–1285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenmann T, Parker G, Van Alstyne MW (2006) Strategies for two-sided markets. Harvard Bus. Rev. 84(10):92.Google Scholar
• Foerderer J, Kude T, Mithas S, Heinzl A (2018) Does platform owner’s entry crowd out innovation? Evidence from Google Photos. Inform. Systems Res. 29(2):444–460.Link, Google Scholar
• Foerderer J, Lueker N, Heinzl A (2021) And the winner is…? The desirable and undesirable effects of platform awards. Inform. Systems Res. 32(4):1155–1172.Link, Google Scholar
• Fuller T (2003) How Microsoft warded off rival. New York Times (May 15), C1.Google Scholar
• Gallant AR, Rossi PE, Tauchen G (1992) Stock prices and volume. Rev. Financial Stud. 5(2):199–242.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gandal N, Halaburda H (2016) Can we predict the winner in a market with network effects? Competition in cryptocurrency market. Games 7(3):16.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gawer A (2014) Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Res. Policy 43(7):1239–1249.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gerosa M, Wiese I, Trinkenreich B, Link G, Robles G, Treude C, Steinmacher I, Sarma A (2021) The shifting sands of motivation: Revisiting what drives contributors in open source. 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd Internat. Conf. Software Engrg. (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, NJ), 1046–1058.Google Scholar
• Ghosh RA (2007) Economic impact of open source software on innovation and the competitiveness of the information and communication technologies (ICT) sector in the EU. Accessed February 10, 2024, https://ictlogy.net/bibliography/reports/projects.php?idp=895&lang=en.Google Scholar
• Goldsmith-Pinkham P, Sorkin I, Swift H (2020) Bartik instruments: What, when, why, and how. Amer. Econom. Rev. 110(8):2586–2624.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goodman-Bacon A (2021) Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing. J. Econometrics 225(2):254–277.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grinblatt M, Titman S (1994) A study of monthly mutual fund returns and performance evaluation techniques. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 29(3):419–444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gurkaynak RS, Kisacikoğlu B, Wright JH (2020) Missing events in event studies: Identifying the effects of partially measured news surprises. Amer. Econom. Rev. 110(12):3871–3912.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hagiu A (2009) Two-sided platforms: Product variety and pricing structures. J. Econom. Management Strategy 18(4):1011–1043.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hahn J, Moon JY, Zhang C (2008) Emergence of new project teams from open source software developer networks: Impact of prior collaboration ties. Inform. Systems Res. 19(3):369–391.Link, Google Scholar
• He S, Peng J, Li J, Xu L (2020) Impact of platform owner’s entry on third-party stores. Inform. Systems Res. 31(4):1467–1484.Link, Google Scholar
• Hyrynsalmi S, Suominen A, Mäntymäki M (2016) The influence of developer multi-homing on competition between software ecosystems. J. Systems Software 111(January):119–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jiang J, Lo D, He J, Xia X, Kochhar PS, Zhang L (2017) Why and how developers fork what from whom in GitHub. Empirical Software Engrg. 22(1):547–578.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karhu K, Gustafsson R, Lyytinen K (2018) Exploiting and defending open digital platforms with boundary resources: Android’s five platform forks. Inform. Systems Res. 29(2):479–497.Link, Google Scholar
• Katz ML, Shapiro C (1986) Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities. J. Political Econom. 94(4):822–841.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katz ML, Shapiro C (1994) Systems competition and network effects. J. Econom. Perspect. 8(2):93–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogut B, Metiu A (2001) Open-source software development and distributed innovation. Oxford Rev. Econom. Policy 17(2):248–264.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kouris I, Kleer R (2012) Business models in two-sided markets: An assessment of strategies for app platforms. Proc. Internat. Conf. Mobile Business 2012, ICMB’2012 (Association for Information Systems, Atlanta), 1–12.Google Scholar
• Kuan J (2002) Open source software as lead user’s make or buy decision: A study of open and closed source quality. Working paper, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• Kumar V, Gordon BR, Srinivasan K (2011) Competitive strategy for open source software. Marketing Sci. 30(6):1066–1078.Link, Google Scholar
• Lakhani KR, Wolf RG (2003) Why hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. Working paper, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Lerner J, Tirole J (2002) Some simple economics of open source. J. Indust. Econom. 50(2):197–234.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li Z, Agarwal A (2017) Platform integration and demand spillovers in complementary markets: Evidence from Facebook’s integration of Instagram. Management Sci. 63(10):3438–3458.Link, Google Scholar
• Liu Q, Steenburgh TJ, Gupta S (2015) The cross attributes flexible substitution logit: Uncovering category expansion and share impacts of marketing instruments. Marketing Sci. 34(1):144–159.Link, Google Scholar
• Ma J, Gans JS, Tourky R (2018) Market structure in Bitcoin mining. Working Paper No. 24242, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Ma L, Montgomery AL, Singh PV, Smith MD (2014) An empirical analysis of the impact of pre-release movie piracy on box office revenue. Inform. Systems Res. 25(3):590–603.Link, Google Scholar
• Mahajan V, Sharma S, Buzzell RD (1993) Assessing the impact of competitive entry on market expansion and incumbent sales. J. Marketing 57(3):39–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mai F, Shan Z, Bai Q, Wang X, Chiang RH (2018) How does social media impact Bitcoin value? A test of the silent majority hypothesis. J. Management Inform. Systems 35(1):19–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maruping LM, Daniel SL, Cataldo M (2019) Developer centrality and the impact of value congruence and incongruence on commitment and code contribution activity in open source software communities. MIS Quart. 43(3):951–976.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McIntyre DP, Srinivasan A (2017) Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps. Strategic Management J. 38(1):141–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKendrick DG, Wade JB, Jaffee J (2009) A good riddance? Spin-offs and the technological performance of parent firms. Organ. Sci. 20(6):979–992.Link, Google Scholar
• Midha V, Palvia P (2012) Factors affecting the success of open source software. J. Systems Software 85(4):895–905.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Musseau J, Meyers JS, Sieniawski GP, Thompson CA, German D (2022) Is open source eating the world’s software? Measuring the proportion of open source in proprietary software using java binaries. 2022 IEEE/ACM 19th Internat. Conf. Mining Software Repositories (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ), 561–565.Google Scholar
• Nagle F (2019) Open source software and firm productivity. Management Sci. 65(3):1191–1215.Link, Google Scholar
• Niculescu MF, Wu D, Xu L (2018) Strategic intellectual property sharing: Competition on an open technology platform under network effects. Inform. Systems Res. 29(2):498–519.Link, Google Scholar
• Oliva GA, Hassan AE, Jiang ZM (2020) An exploratory study of smart contracts in the Ethereum blockchain platform. Empirical Software Engrg. 25:1864–1904.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ouimet P, Zarutskie R (2014) Who works for startups? The relation between firm age, employee age, and growth. J. Financial Econom. 112(3):386–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pagnotta E, Buraschi A (2018) An equilibrium valuation of Bitcoin and decentralized network assets. Preprint, submitted March 20, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3142022.Google Scholar
• Pan Y, Huang P, Gopal A (2019) Storm clouds on the horizon? New entry threats and R&D investments in the US IT industry. Inform. Systems Res. 30(2):540–562.Link, Google Scholar
• Porter ME (1989) How competitive forces shape strategy. Asch D, Bowman C, eds. Readings in Strategic Management (Palgrave, London), 133–143.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberts JA, Hann IH, Slaughter SA (2006) Understanding the motivations, participation, and performance of open source software developers: A longitudinal study of the apache projects. Management Sci. 52(7):984–999.Link, Google Scholar
• Ron D, Shamir A (2013) Quantitative analysis of the full Bitcoin transaction graph. Sadeghi AR, ed. Internat. Conf. Financial Cryptography Data Security (Springer, Berlin), 6–24.Google Scholar
• Sahni NS (2016) Advertising spillovers: Evidence from online field experiments and implications for returns on advertising. J. Marketing Res. 53(4):459–478.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saleh F (2018) Blockchain without waste: Proof-of-stake. Preprint, submitted June 7, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3183935.Google Scholar
• Schaumans C, Verboven F (2015) Entry and competition in differentiated products markets. Rev. Econom. Statist. 97(1):195–209.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schultz J, Urban JM (2012) Protecting open innovation: The defensive patent license as a new approach to patent threats, transaction costs, and tactical disarmament. Harvard J. Law Tech. 26(1).Google Scholar
• Shapiro BT (2018) Positive spillovers and free riding in advertising of prescription pharmaceuticals: The case of antidepressants. J. Political Econom. 126(1):381–437.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shapiro C, Varian HR (1998) Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy (Harvard Business Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Singh PV, Tan Y, Mookerjee V (2011) Network effects: The influence of structural capital on open source project success. MIS Quart. 35(4):813–829.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Song J (2019) Programming Bitcoin: Learn How to Program Bitcoin from Scratch (O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA).Google Scholar
• Thompson SB (2011) Simple formulas for standard errors that cluster by both firm and time. J. Financial Econom. 99(1):1–10.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thum M (1994) Network externalities, technological progress, and the competition of market contracts. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 12(2):269–289.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tian J, Zhao X, Xue L (2022) Platform compatibility and developer multihoming: A trade-off perspective. MIS Quart. 46(3):1661–1690.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Viseur R (2012) Forks impacts and motivations in free and open source projects. Internat. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 3(2):117–122.Google Scholar
• Von Krogh G, Von Hippel E (2006) The promise of research on open source software. Management Sci. 52(7):975–983.Link, Google Scholar
• Wang S, Vergne JP (2017) Buzz factor or innovation potential: What explains cryptocurrencies’ returns? PLoS One 12(1):e0169556.Google Scholar
• Wang Q, Li B, Singh PV (2018) Copycats vs. original mobile apps: A machine learning copycat-detection method and empirical analysis. Inform. Systems Res. 29(2):273–291.Link, Google Scholar
• West J (2003) How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Res. Policy 32(7):1259–1285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• West J, Gallagher S (2006) Challenges of open innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open-source software. Res. Management 36(3):319–331.Google Scholar
• Yermack D (2015) Is bitcoin a real currency? An economic appraisal. Chuen DLK, ed. Handbook of Digital Currency (Academic Press, San Diego), 31–43.Google Scholar
• Zhu X (2019) Research on blockchain consensus mechanism and implementation. IOP Conf. Series Materials Sci. Engrg., vol. 569 (IOP Publishing, Bristol, UK), 042058.Google Scholar