An Entrepreneurial Definition of the Blockchain Technology and a Stacked Layer Model of the ICO Marketplace Using the Text Mining Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The landscape of ICOs and its underlying Blockchain technology needs more clarity, given that several overlapping and opposing views exist from governmental institutions, institutional investors, economists, and academia. Those positions stem from confusion, bias, and vested interest. Having consensus from the pioneer entrepreneurs who define Blockchain technology usage, and its marketplace address this need. Furthermore, an agreement on the problems blockchain is solving from the industry perspective would further the understanding of the technology direction and its “raison d’être.” or “reason of existence”. The paper analyzes 4367 businesses that requested funding using ICO whitepapers and raising more than $20 billion US dollars during the most active ICO period. Using Latent Semantic Analyses (LSA), the paper identifies a one-factor solution that explains 98.15% of all ICOs. The paper conducts a second-order analysis that generates an 18-factor solution. Through the empirical analysis, the paper presents its findings as an ICO marketplace stacked layer model. The model is comprised of four layers: (1) Trust; (2) Value exchange; (3) Automation; and (4) Applications to enable value exchange, and an era of new business models. The paper then presents an unbiased, unified entrepreneurial definition of the Blockchain technology usage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".