Blockchain as an Enabler of Generic Business Model Realization

Abstract

The paper presents business models (BMs) for blockchain-based businesses. The paper is a study of IT-aligned BMs categorized by the concepts and possibilities of blockchain business applications. The research aimed to recognize and analyze the extent and directions in which blockchain architectures influence the means of conducting businesses. A set of almost 40,000 decentralized applications is examined to justify the rationale behind the presented analysis. This is an argumentative study that uses the design-oriented approach, as it is suitable for addressing real-world problems, like analyzing business models, while ensuring that artifacts are created and evaluated under methodological standards. Firstly, the concept of a business model is analyzed. Then, a theoretical analysis of different business models is made to identify the ones that are well aligned with the decentralized vision of business and the ones that are obsolete or inoperative from the blockchain business-conducting perspective. In the end, the outcome is applied to examples of existing business startups. Fifteen identified BMs in 7 business sector groups are recognized and 55 cases are detected.

1. Introduction

Blockchain-based architectures are reshaping industries by offering transparency, security, and efficiency. The body of knowledge on blockchain architectures is expanding [1,2]. It reflects the growing interest and developments in this field. While their potential is widely acknowledged, the impact of these technologies on business models (BMs) remains underexplored. This study addresses the gap by analyzing how blockchain features influence the evolution and creation of BMs.

1.1. Research Questions

This paper seeks to address this critical gap by examining how the adoption of decentralized ledger technologies and smart contracts drives both the adaptation of existing business models and the creation of novel ones. Specifically, it investigates the key characteristics and classifications of blockchain-related BMs, focusing on how these models vary across diverse use cases in the IT industry. The central research questions guiding this study are:

• RQ1: How do blockchain-based business models influence the dynamics of industries adopting this technology?
• RQ2: What are the defining features of blockchain-based business models?
• RQ3: To what extent do blockchain technologies enable the creation of entirely new business models?

Analyzing the effects of blockchain adoption (RQ1) helps to reveal its transformative impact on industry practices, competition, and value creation. In this context, industry dynamics refers to changes in market structures, shifts in competitive advantages, and the evolution of business processes driven by blockchain adoption. Efforts to implement blockchain span various industries, demonstrating its versatility and delivering measurable benefits across different sectors [3,4]. By exploring industry-specific examples, the study highlights the extent to which blockchain disrupts established norms and enables more agile, efficient, and innovative operations. Understanding the foundational traits of blockchain-based BMs (RQ2) is essential for grasping how decentralization, transparency, and trust are embedded into business operations. This involves examining how these elements are reshaping traditional value propositions, stakeholder relationships, and revenue streams.

Finally, investigating how blockchain fosters innovation (RQ3) sheds light on its role in enabling disruptive business approaches. The study analyzes models where blockchain technologies may act as catalysts for entirely new paradigms, demonstrating their potential to unlock value that traditional business structures cannot achieve.

1.2. Motivation and Structure

The answers to these questions could have significant implications for both science and business. In the academic sphere, the findings of this study will deepen the understanding of how business models evolve in the context of blockchain technologies, particularly regarding the impact of decentralization, transparency, and smart contracts on fundamental organizational structures. They will provide valuable insights for researchers focused on innovation theory and the development of business models in the digital age, especially in relation to emerging decentralized ecosystems.

From a business perspective, the answers to these questions could revolutionize how companies design their operational models and competitive strategies. Understanding how blockchain influences industry transformation and enables the creation of more efficient, transparent, and trusted structures will be crucial for implementing these technologies across various sectors. Firms that grasp these dynamics will be better equipped to adapt to the changing market, introducing innovations that could provide a competitive edge in the era of digital transformation.

The study contributes to the literature by presenting a comprehensive analysis of 15 distinct BMs across seven business sector groups, supported by evidence from 55 case studies. By leveraging a design-oriented approach, the research not only identifies generic BMs that transcend specific sectors but also categorizes blockchain applications in ways that reveal patterns of innovation and disruption.

In addition to a theoretical analysis, this study integrates two aggregated case studies in the form of matrices (Section 5). The first matrix categorizes the potential applicability of blockchain-based business models across key sectors, while the second directly links these models to real-world examples, including startups and decentralized applications. Together, these matrices bridge the gap between theory and practice, providing empirical evidence and practical guidance for the implementation of blockchain innovations.

The discussion in Section 4 and specifically Figure 6 provide a structured framework that serves as a practical guide for stakeholders, enabling them to assess how different business models interact with blockchain technology. Specifically, the three-dimensional classification (timeframe, tech focus, relation) helps decision makers to identify whether a given BM is already established, emerging, or still conceptual. This allows businesses, investors, and policymakers to strategically position themselves within the evolving blockchain landscape and make informed choices regarding adoption, adaptation, or further research. These findings aim to provide both theoretical insights and practical guidance for stakeholders navigating the rapidly evolving landscape of blockchain-enabled businesses.

The paper is structured as follows. Firstly, related works on the BM analysis approach and generic BM patterns are discussed. Then, an overview of blockchain is provided, followed by current development trends analysis. Section 4 presents generic BMs and discusses their relationship with blockchain. The specification and taxonomy of these models are the main results of the research. Finally, in Section 5, the applicability of particular BMs in different sectors together with real business cases is presented.

2. Related Works and Methodological Approach

2.1. Research Method

While many publications are available concerning general BMs and IT alignment, only a few of them are focused on the issue of BM compatibility with underlying information system architectures.

The chosen research process is in line with the design science research (DSR) method [5], similar to [6]. The research focuses on the rigorous and systematic identification of potential business opportunities that come from a completely new design of underlying information system architecture. DSR is widely adopted and recommended in information system (IS) research [7], as it combines rigorous scientific methods with practical application, contributing to both academic knowledge and real-world improvements. On the other hand, as artifacts in these methods are tailored to specific contexts, the generalizability of the findings to other settings might be limited. The other research approach usually used in IS research is the behavioristic approach [7], which focuses on how users interact with information systems, and thus is not applicable to the research presented in this paper.

The research stages presented in Figure 1 relate to the concepts of design science research. BM definitions and frameworks for analyzing IT-aligned business models (Section 2.2) are the knowledge base, which states the foundations for the research as well as for the underlying methodologies. On the other hand, business needs are formulated based on the business environment, i.e., the real-world context in which the research is conducted, which includes current trends in blockchain usage, where blockchain’s applications across different industries are analyzed (Section 3). The study draws on empirical data from blockchain-based decentralized applications to inform the design of new business models. Finally, the main artifacts are identified as blockchain-enabled business models (Section 4), which include both enhanced traditional BMs and entirely new models specific to blockchain technology.

The study iteratively develops, evaluates, and refines these models based on insights from the rigor and relevance cycles. The first step was to compare existing BM definitions, identify differences, and choose the best suitable for blockchain-based businesses, which resulted in an addition to the existing knowledge base—this step fulfilled the rigor cycle, which focused on refining the artifacts using insights from the knowledge base. In the next step, business needs related to blockchain and possible application of the analyzed technology were identified as indicated in the relevance cycle. The relevance cycle focused on ensuring that the artifacts were practically relevant by addressing real-world business needs and challenges. Finally, the artifacts, i.e., BMs based on blockchain technology, were identified, criticized, and—in some cases—reformulated, making another addition to the knowledge base. This step was conducted as a design cycle in which artifacts were created, evaluated, and refined. It bridged the rigor and relevance cycles by integrating theoretical insights (rigor) with practical feedback (relevance). Identified business models were validated through practical application examples existing on the market. The summary of the design science method components and its application in this study is presented in

Table 1. The design science method components and its application. Source: Own elaboration.

Component	Definition	Application in Study
Knowledge Base	Theoretical foundations from prior research.	Existing BM definitions and ISRF theory (Section 2.2).
Business Environment	Real-world context, trends, and business needs.	Trends in blockchain usage and empirical data from decentralized applications (Section 3).
Artifact	The output of the research process (models, frameworks, etc.).	Blockchain-specific business models (Section 4).
Rigor Cycle	Iterative refinement using insights from the knowledge base.	Refinement of BMs through comparison with existing theories.
Relevance Cycle	Iterative refinement using insights from the business environment.	Refinement of BMs based on practical needs and market trends.
Design Cycle	The core iterative process of designing and refining artifacts.	Development, evaluation, and reformulation of blockchain business models.

.

The research methodology is designed to systematically address all three research questions stated in Section 1.1.

By employing the design science approach, the study leverages both the rigor and relevance cycles to iteratively build a robust classification framework. The knowledge base, derived from existing business model definitions, serves as a theoretical foundation, ensuring that the classification is grounded in established concepts. Simultaneously, insights from the business environment, which reflect current trends and business needs in blockchain applications, ensure that the proposed models remain relevant and actionable in practice. Through this iterative process, the study not only describes blockchain-related business models but also categorizes them based on their applicability and alignment with blockchain’s decentralized architecture. This methodological alignment ensures comprehensive and dynamic responses to the research questions, bridging theory and practice.

2.2. IT-Aligned Business Models

Although the business model is a popular concept nowadays, researchers argue that there is no common notation or language for BM formalization [8,9]. Moreover, various authors who conduct research in this area do not agree on what a BM actually is. Unfortunately, even though the BM concept is fairly mature and adapted by now, there is still no generally accepted definition of it [10,11,12].

When critically analyzing the formulated definitions of the concept of a BM, it can be seen that two main aspects are recurrent. One is related to the concept of money [13,14]; the other is linked to the company. In the realm of decentralized structures, there is no such concept as a company or centralized organization [15,16]. Moreover, in the blockchain economy, the term “money” is at least very imprecise, as it may refer to cryptocurrency, which is a medium of value transfer but is not considered money in the strict (legal) sense. It may also refer to derived forms, such as tokens, which are dependent on cryptocurrency but share some properties with money. In the end, some of the definitions use the ideas of profits or earnings, which are typically related to purely monetary quantities [17]. In our view, the proposition of treating a BM as a “framework” [18,19] best fits the purposes of the research. It seems more natural and compatible with business strategies that are blockchain oriented. Moreover, it is also applied in the newest research, e.g., [9] states that “A business model is a blueprint that outlines how an organization creates value, generates revenues, delivers offerings, and even interacts with its direct stakeholders (employees, customers, suppliers) and indirect stakeholders (rivals, regulators, community)”.

Although BM elements are domain independent and can be applied to various industries, a significant part of the published work analyzes the e-commerce domain. Similarly to the ambiguous definition of BM, numerous authors proposed different elements to describe BMs. It seems, however, that most authors distinguished finance-, resource- and business partner-related groups of BM elements, and all of them are considered interrelated. E.g., Osterwalder proposed the following elements [15]:

• Cost structure and revenue streams (i.e., finance related);
• Key resources, key activities, value proposition, and channels (i.e., resource related);
• Customer segments, customer relationships, and key partnerships (i.e., partner related).

This model is named the business model canvas (abbreviated as BMC) and has gained popularity from both business and academia representatives. Although BMC is very popular, it is not necessarily suitable for academic research because it requires in-depth knowledge of a company’s internal resources. It rather serves as a tool for strategic management, focusing on operational specifics.

On the contrary, there is a value-oriented framework, proposed by Al-Debei and Avison [20]. The authors proposed a unified framework for BMs, where the BM dimensions (or “elements” as it is usually named in other approaches) are the following:

• Value proposition—represents the business logic of creating value for stakeholders (usually customers);
• Value architecture—both technological and organizational architecture for the organization;
• Value finance—issues related to costs, pricing, and revenues;
• Value network—transactions through coordination and collaboration among parties.

BM dimensions are quite general and can be easily applied to every industry and organization type. E.g., Ranerup, Henriksen, and Hedman adopted the BM analysis approach from Al-Debei and Avison in order to analyze public service platforms [20,21]. The value-oriented framework is particularly suitable for a bottom–up method in BM analysis as it focuses on added value and resource dynamics rather than requiring detailed knowledge of a company’s internal structure, strengths, and weaknesses. This makes it an adaptable and generalizable approach, aligning well with the study’s aim of describing theoretical business models. However, while these frameworks capture traditional or e-commerce-oriented models effectively, the research on how blockchain’s decentralized architecture, tokenization, and consensus mechanisms reshape or extend these business model frameworks remains underexplored. Moreover, existing studies often focus on specific aspects (e.g., decentralized finance or supply chain), leaving a notable gap in holistic, cross-domain analyses of blockchain-based business models.

This study aims to address these gaps by examining real-world data on decentralized applications (DApps) to identify how blockchain-specific features (e.g., consensus mechanisms, token economies, and decentralized governance) can inform or modify established business model frameworks. Comprehensive analysis of business models requires taking into consideration all framework elements, otherwise the results might be biased. Thus, we followed the methodology used for previous research on business models [21] and decided to use the value-oriented framework for BM analysis in Section 4.2 and Section 4.3.

The existing and well-established BM patterns were analyzed as an entry point to identify possible blockchain-based BMs. Osterwalder and Pigneur defined five basic patterns [22]:

• Unbundling BMs—includes three sub-models: customer relationship business, product innovation business, and infrastructure business. These three types are often implemented by one organization, but the authors argue that the “ideal” solution is to keep them separate in order to avoid conflicts.
• Long-tail BMs—focusing on niches, offering many different goods that sell infrequently and in relatively small quantities.
• Multi-sided platforms—intermediary model, where at least two groups of platform customers are brought together in order to facilitate interactions between them.
• Free BMs—offering a free-of-charge offer to at least one group of customers. In most cases, it assumes that other groups of customers finance the non-paying group (e.g., through advertisements).
• Open BMs—assumes that a company can create value through collaboration with other parties.

The abovementioned models are the most generic classification; however there have been attempts to define more domain-dependent models as well, e.g., Rappa, who defined 10 types of e-commerce BMs [16]:

• Brokerage—a variant of a multi-sided platform, where the main revenue stream is transaction fees paid by customers.
• Advertising—fees from advertisers and a company selling advertisement space are the main revenue stream.
• Infomediary—the main value offered for customers is datasets (e.g., about users, users’ behaviors, etc.).
• Merchant—using the Internet as a distribution channel, often as an addition to traditional channels.
• Manufacturer (Direct)—shortened distribution channels by offering own goods to final customers (excluding intermediaries).
• Affiliate—fees from affiliation links displayed on one webpage and targeted at another constitute a revenue stream.
• Community—value built on and offered to a specific community.
• Subscription—paid services, offered in flat, stable price plans.
• Utility/usage—fees based on actual service usage.
• Content provider—new data/content/information as a product sold to customers.

It is easily observed that e-commerce BM patterns are much less generic than those proposed by Osterwalder and Pigneur [22]. In fact, most blockchain-based businesses are e-commerce (providing digital goods or services). Thus, the abovementioned patterns serve as a basis for the analysis provided in Section 4.

There are several publications that discuss business models but in a narrower form than presented above. E.g., Chen and Ballavitis [23] described three business models for the decentralized finance domain: decentralized currencies, decentralized payment services, and decentralized fundraising. This narrow approach focuses on specific BM elements, like costs, revenues, and value proposition. However, it is not sufficient to manage different aspects of blockchain technology.

A study by Weking et al. [6] explored the identification of business model patterns within blockchain-based enterprises. Their research employed a similar design-oriented methodology, focusing on the classification of blockchain-enabled business models. While their findings offer valuable insights, our study builds on and extends this work by adopting a different analytical lens. Specifically, we examine data gathered from DappRadar, which is a website that catalogs blockchain-based applications and, as a starting point, we decided to use a value-oriented business model framework, which allowed for the identification of a distinct set of business model patterns. By systematically integrating blockchain technology’s decentralized architecture into the framework, we aimed to highlight previously overlooked connections between technical features and key business model components. This complementary approach highlights the diversity of blockchain applications and underscores the evolving nature of blockchain-enabled business models. In doing so, we contribute to closing an important research gap: how to refine or adapt traditional business model constructs—such as value propositions, financial flows, and network architectures—to account for the decentralized governance, token-driven economies, and innovative consensus mechanisms that define many blockchain-based enterprises.

There are a number of studies that analyze the impact of blockchain on business models; however, each component of the business model is analyzed separately, without defining more complex business model patterns [24,25]. Those papers analyzed in detail how and on what condition the use of blockchain technology can contribute to the company’s development, while this paper’s goal is to provide a description of emerging business model patterns. Taherdoost and Madanchain [26] provided a systematic review of research addressing the impact of blockchain on business models; however, they provided a broader view of the problem of blockchain adaptation, while this paper proposes a more detailed analysis of business models, using a dedicated framework.

Blockchain is also listed as one of the main technologies with a disruptive impact on business model innovation [27], alongside, e.g., big data and the Internet of Things. Although general domain research does not list specific blockchain-related business model patterns, they highlight the importance of technology advancements in real-life business models [9,19,27]. Hence, by examining a wide range of dApps data through a value-oriented lens, our study seeks to clarify how these technology advancements shape the evolution of blockchain-specific business model patterns—an aspect that remains insufficiently explored in current literature.

Although the aforementioned frameworks (business model canvas (BMC) and the value-oriented approach) provide a broad lens to analyze blockchain business models, they often do not account for the decentralized governance structures, token-driven economies, and evolving consensus mechanisms inherent to blockchain. Those frameworks were originally developed based on use cases of traditional, centralized organizations, meaning their applicability to purely decentralized or hybrid models remains partially untested. For instance, BMC heavily relies on detailed internal resource data, which may be unavailable in decentralized contexts, while the value-oriented framework can overlook the complexities of token economics when analyzing financial flows. This gap in critical examination raises questions about how these frameworks can be adapted or extended to capture the nuanced value propositions, governance mechanics, and revenue models characteristic of blockchain ecosystems. Nonetheless, as, to our best knowledge, no business model framework dedicated to decentralized organization has been proposed, this research uses the value-oriented approach as it is more adaptable and flexible.

While blockchain technology is recognized for its transformative potential across industries, there is limited research that systematically applies established business model frameworks to the unique characteristics of blockchain-based businesses. Existing studies primarily analyze blockchain’s technological aspects or specific use cases without providing a generalized understanding of how blockchain integrates into broader business model patterns. This paper addresses this gap by using a value-oriented framework to propose new blockchain-based business model patterns, categorizing their applications across industries. By doing so, it provides a structured perspective for businesses and stakeholders to understand and adopt blockchain-enabled models effectively.

2.3. Main Directions of Research Related to Blockchain

When analyzing the current state of research on blockchain-related topics, a few research streams can be outlined. The first research stream was introduced by the work of Nakamoto and relates to cryptocurrencies [28]. Since the paper that marked the beginning was made public, it is now a common approach to introduce technical improvements, especially new cryptocurrencies and public tokens, by announcing them with a whitepaper. Some of these whitepapers are obviously of major importance [29,30,31,32]. Numerous cryptocurrencies created after Bitcoin brought spectacular improvements or at least vital modifications both in the sphere of implementation as well as theoretical assumptions. The Ethereum network added Turing-complete scripting capabilities in the form of smart contracts [33]. The Lightning network was created to solve the scalability issues of Bitcoin [34].

The second research stream is the quest for a fully acceptable and flawless consensus method. The idea proposed by Nakomoto’s Proof-of-Work (PoW) method was in fact taken from the earlier work of Wei [35]. PoW is one of the first methods of agreement about what shared information is true. In this case, the total computational power needed to create information history is a decisive factor in its correctness. The idea of treating the nodes’ computational power as a specific economic resource seemed incredibly attractive. Nonetheless, this idea itself became the victim of its own success. Before Bitcoin started to grow in popularity, no one could foresee with certainty that the PoW algorithms would be used so intensively and the overall competition between network users would lead to major inefficiency [36]. As a result, while some suggestions for PoW improvement have been formulated, many cryptocurrency creators and researchers have also turned their attention to PoW substitutes. In the meantime, an abundance of alternative consensus methods has been proposed. The propositions include Proof-of-Stake (PoS) [37], Proof-of-Research [38], etc.

Recent studies [39,40] have provided in-depth reviews of consensus algorithms in blockchain technology. The authors focused on the critical role of consensus methods in securing decentralized networks. Various consensus mechanisms are discussed, such as Proof-of-Work (PoW), Proof-of-Stake (PoS), and Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS), examining their strengths and weaknesses in terms of energy efficiency, throughput, scalability, and security. PoW is energy intensive but highly secure, while PoS and DPoS offer better scalability and efficiency but face risks related to centralization and attacks. The papers also cover other algorithms, like Proof of Burn (PoB), Proof of Capacity (PoC), and Delayed Proof of Work (dPoW), emphasizing the trade-offs between these mechanisms. They highlight the need for continued advancements in efficiency, security, and scalability to meet the evolving needs of blockchain applications and industries.

The third research stream is works that examine the potential of the application of blockchain in a given area like medicine [41,42,43,44], finance [45,46,47], security [48,49,50], etc. The initial works of early enthusiasts and technology propagators were swiftly intercepted by businesses. Both small startups [51] and large market leaders (e.g., JPMorgan [52], Visa [53]) ventured into blockchain architecture. As a result, there is already a vast space of projects and initiatives that should lead to diversified aims, however with one common assumption, which is the use of a distributed ledger design of different flavors within a business activity.

Blockchain technology continues to redefine multiple industries, leveraging its unique characteristics of decentralization, security, and transparency. Recent advancements have significantly enhanced its applicability, addressing previous limitations and opening new avenues for innovation [50]. For example, food supply chains is a domain where blockchain is successfully implemented in order to increase traceability and facilitate cooperation between stakeholders [54,55]. Blockchain applicability in supply chains is often related to cost reduction; however, specific goals to achieve this include developing sustainable business models for smart energy management, waste management, and sustainable production [56].

Morar and Popescu [57] highlighted blockchain’s broad adoption across sectors, emphasizing its transformative role despite challenges such as scalability and energy efficiency. Advances in Layer 2 protocols, as surveyed by Gangwal et al. [58], tackle these issues by offloading transactions from main chains, significantly boosting scalability. These protocols find applications in domains like healthcare, where Merhej et al. [59] discussed secure patient data exchange systems using blockchain and AI. Similarly, Bobrova et al. [60] explored blockchain-based wearables for health monitoring, emphasizing design challenges and opportunities. Additionally, Ajakwe et al. [44] provided a comprehensive review of blockchain’s role in enhancing the security of medical IoT records, underscoring the need for robust data protection mechanisms.

The rise of interoperability protocols, covered by Wang et al. [61], enables seamless data exchange between blockchain networks, fostering integrated ecosystems. Dritsas and Trigka [62] pointed out how this integration, combined with IoT and machine learning, creates smarter urban environments. Ajakwe et al. [44] highlighted its crucial role in securing medical IoT records and ensuring that data flow safely across networks. Maritime and automotive sectors, explored by Kim et al. [63] and Chen et al. [23], also benefit from these advancements, where blockchain interoperability promotes efficiency and sustainability.

The shift to PoS, as exemplified by Ethereum’s transition [64], addresses concerns about high energy consumption in blockchain systems. PoS is increasingly adopted to enhance sustainability and scalability, aligning with global trends in green transformation. This transition is critical in energy trading systems, such as those described by Qazi et al. [65], where blockchain ensures transparent and efficient transactions in EV-driven grids.

Tokenization of assets, discussed by Juan et al. [66], represents another major innovation. It enables fractional ownership and broadens investment opportunities, as explored by Vitelaru and Persia [67] in the context of vehicle ownership. Zhu et al. [68] underscored tokenization’s importance in digital asset circulation, a key element in today’s digital economy.

The decentralized application ecosystem, reviewed by Zheng et al. [69], exemplifies the versatility of blockchain. From e-voting systems [70] to federated learning models [71], blockchain supports innovations that address critical issues such as security, privacy, and accessibility. Mohammed et al. [72] and Ning et al. [71] emphasized blockchain’s potential to revolutionize business practices and machine learning, further solidifying its role in driving digital transformation.

In sum, blockchain’s advancements in scalability, sustainability, interoperability, and asset tokenization are reshaping industries, creating secure, efficient, and adaptable solutions to meet modern challenges. These innovations, supported by a growing body of research, position blockchain as a foundational technology for the future. Nonetheless, a research gap persists regarding how these technical advancements translate into novel or adapted business model patterns. By examining an extensive range of blockchain-based applications and interpreting them through a value-oriented lens, our study aims to address this gap—providing an integrated perspective that links blockchain’s unique technical features to critical components of emerging business models.

3. Current Trends in Blockchain Business Uses

As part of the research, we conducted an analysis of a large set of decentralized applications (dApps). The study, which began in 2020, initially relied on data from Stateofdapps, covering 2887 decentralized applications. At that time, Stateofdapps was the primary, and arguably the only, platform aggregating comprehensive information about dApps, ensuring that the dataset represented the entirety of available data in the field. The analysis considered the state of development and the industry sectors to which the designed individual IT solutions belonged. This dataset was comprehensive for its time, reflecting a relatively complete view of the market despite involving fewer platforms.

Over time, the study was enriched with data from additional sources, including DappRadar, which provided insights into 37,026 decentralized applications. DappRadar, currently the most popular and publicly accessible platform for dApps data, focuses exclusively on the top 30 platforms, providing a more relevant and high-quality dataset by excluding minor solutions. The number of 37,026 dApps corresponds to the total number of applications across these 30 platforms. Although other more extensive datasets on dApps exist, they contain less detailed information and are less representative in terms of the number of platforms covered. Platforms that were excluded from the analysis (outside of the top 30) had fewer than 100 dApps in total across all categories.

Data processing primarily involved verifying correctness, standardizing categories, and ensuring uniform grouping of data across sources, so as to ensure the best possible comparability. Stateofdapps ceased to exist during the research period, and while its dataset was smaller in scale, it was highly representative at the start of the research, as it encompassed the entire known dApps market. This ongoing analysis thus combines comprehensive historical data with insights into the most prominent current platforms, offering both a continuous and evolving perspective on the ecosystem.

Identification of business areas where blockchain solutions are created and determining what is the actual scale of use of this technology for various business applications was essential for our further deliberations. Individual sectors of the economy have their limitations resulting from regulations and customers’ habits. This has direct consequences in terms of the possibilities and scale of use of particular strategies and, most importantly, the usage of BMs. For example, other BMs will be preferred in financial applications and others will be optimal in specific markets like real estate trading.

This analysis compares data from the decentralized applications (dApps) market from 2020 to 2024. As mentioned, according to sources during this period, the number of dApps rose from 2887 to 37,026. This is an impressive growth of more than 1200%. This rapid growth reflects the increasing interest and adoption of blockchain technology in various sectors, driven by several key factors.

One of the primary catalysts for this growth has been the rise of decentralized finance (DeFi), which enables a broad range of financial services such as lending, borrowing, and trading without the need for traditional intermediaries. DeFi applications have drawn substantial attention, significantly boosting dApps development, especially on platforms like Ethereum. Alongside DeFi, the explosion of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) has played a crucial role. NFTs have found applications in digital art, gaming, and collectibles, further expanding the scope of blockchain technology and attracting new users and developers to the ecosystem.

In addition to the application trends, the dominance of certain blockchain platforms has also been a driving factor. Ethereum, with its early leadership in supporting decentralized applications, continues to be the main platform for a large proportion of dApps. However, in recent years, platforms like BNB Chain have gained significant traction, offering faster and cheaper transaction options, which have contributed to the expansion of the dApps market. The rise of these competitors has also had implications for business model innovation, as developers increasingly seek to optimize their applications for performance and cost-efficiency, leading to new approaches in both the technical and business domains.

It also must be noted that the comparison encompasses two distinct sources of data that require activities related to the connection and appropriate reconciliation of the information contained therein. These datasets—Stateofdapps and DappRadar—represent different points in time and focus on varying subsets of platforms, necessitating careful alignment for a meaningful analysis of the dApps market’s evolution.

Figure 2 and Figure 3 represent the division of applications among business sectors and smart contract platforms. Both figures use logarithmic scales, as there are large disproportions between the number of dApps associated with particular platforms. Ethereum was the dominant platform in 2020, with notable participation from EOS. Other platforms, such as GoChain, POA, Steem, xDai, and Loom, were marginal. In 2024, this picture changed dramatically. Ethereum is still strong, but several significant competitors have emerged, including BNB Chain, Polygon, Cardano, Tron, Arbitrum, Avalanche, Solana, Optimism, and others. This expansion shows that the market is diversifying, and competition is increasing. It is worth noting that platforms such as EOS, which were relevant in 2020, have lost their relevance in 2024. The most popular businesses are related to entertainment (games and gambling). However, social and finance applications are also very substantial categories. The Steem platform, which is the only one apart from Ethereum that is still registered in 2024, came from the social media business sector. (Steem, 2020, https://steem.com/ (accessed on 2 August 2024).) That is why social- and media-related applications constituted a notable sector on this platform.

In Figure 4, we show the changes in time for particular business categories. Again, in the case of both the left and right parts of the figure, a logarithmic scale is used. When one looks for trends in business sector usage within dApps, the following patterns emerge. The growth of games on blockchain platforms is significant. Ethereum has maintained a strong position, but BNB Chain has emerged as the leader in this category. The appearance of games on several new platforms, such as Polygon, Arbitrum, and Avalanche, demonstrates the growing interest in blockchain-based games.

As with games, the decentralized finance category has seen tremendous growth. Ethereum and BNB Chain remain key players, but they have been joined by Polygon, Arbitrum, Avalanche, and others. The growth reflects the increasing popularity of DeFi services, such as loans, exchanges, and stablecoins.

The collections category exploded between 2020 and 2024, with Ethereum being the clear leader, driven by the popularity of non-convertible tokens (NFTs). The growth in collections on Cardano suggests that the platform is also gaining ground in this segment.

Other categories, such as markets, gambling, tokens, social media, and high-risk applications, also saw growth, although to varying degrees. This growth is evident across multiple platforms, indicating that applications of blockchain technology are expanding beyond traditional areas such as finance.

In Figure 5, we connect the data about the state of the application projects and the business categories. The cell coloring and its intensity reflect the relative share of the cell value within the number of dApps for a given year. It is provided solely for convenience to make it easier to identify trends. In order to obtain a comparable dataset between both data sources, we filtered out some sectors. Additionally, a number of sectors were grouped to form the item marked as others. This group contains related business activities like health and insurance or development and storage. These grouped sectors reflect a marginal part of identified dApps. Moreover, such business activities were well distinguished in the previous data source, but they are mostly neglected in the current one.

Building solutions on blockchain is not only an IT design decision but rather an architectural choice that shapes the way in which the business is organized. Technology is of foundational character and is believed to be capable of introducing some disruptive potential in a number of application areas. Only about 59% of dApps encountered in the study had “live” status in 2020, and this figure diminished to 19% in 2024. At the same time, however, the number of completely abandoned dApps fell from 23% to 7%.

4. Blockchain as a Business Model Enabler

There are not many publications about blockchain-oriented BMs.

Table 2. Critical analysis of the already identified BMs related to blockchain (Source: Own elaboration).

No.	Business Model	Interactions with BMs	Examples	Comment	Framework Alignment
1	Utility Token The model focuses on providing utility tokens that are partially distributed to customers (e.g., cryptocurrency), partially kept by the provider who can make a profit when the value of the utility token changes.	Often used with Development Platforms or Exchanges to ensure token utility and liquidity.	e.g., Ethereum (ETH), Binance Coin (BNB)	This is a new BM pattern. It will be explored in the following section.	Emerging, blockchain-native, compatible
2	Blockchain as a Service Distributed Assets as a Service The model provides blockchain solutions (or the whole “ecosystem”) for the customer, using “as a service” architecture.	Can integrate with Development Platforms for end-to-end blockchain solution provisioning.	IBM Blockchain Platform	This is not really a novel BM pattern; it is a standard software/platform as a service provider.	Legacy, generic, partially compatible
3	Development Platforms Merged Services Provides a complex blockchain-oriented infrastructure for customers who develop blockchain applications.	Frequently paired with Blockchain as a Service to streamline application deployment.	Hyperledger Fabric (https://hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io/en/latest/blockchain.html (accessed on 18 January 2025))	This is not really a novel BM pattern; it is a standard software/platform as a service provider.	Legacy, generic, partially compatible
4	Blockchain-based software products ICO as a Service Provides ready-to-use blockchain technology/blockchain-based applications to customers	Complements Professional Services, as customers may require training to implement solutions effectively.	ConsenSys (blockchain solutions) (https://consensys.io/solutions (accessed on 18 January 2025))	Basically a software provider, only focuses on a specific technology.	Emerging, generic, compatible
5	Network Fee Charge Generates revenues through transaction fees associated with the blockchain itself.	Works well with P2P Blockchain and Exchanges to support transactional use cases.	Bitcoin transaction fees, Ethereum gas fees	Some elements of this BM are very similar to previously known ones but putting them together with blockchain-specific technology makes it a new model.	Emerging, blockchain-native, compatible
6	Blockchain Professional Services Training services provided by domain experts to customers (usually startups or other businesses that want to implement blockchain solutions but do not have the required knowledge).	Often supports Blockchain-based Software Products or P2P Blockchain by offering expertise.	ConsenSys Academy (https://consensys.io/academy (accessed on 18 January 2025))	Mentoring/training providers.	Legacy, generic, partially compatible
7	P2P Blockchain Peer-to-peer powered business, enables end users to interact with each other directly.	Relies on Network Fee Charge model for transactional operations.	Binance P2P (https://p2p.binance.com (accessed on 18 January 2025))	Not really a BM, as this is part of all previous patterns.	Legacy, blockchain-native, compatible
8	Three-sided Platform Connects three types of actors: users, publishers, and advertisers.	Extends utility by integrating with Utility Token model for incentivization mechanisms.	Brave Browser (https://brave.com (accessed on 18 January 2025))	Not only for blockchain, known patterns.	Legacy, generic, partially compatible
9	Light Intermediation A variation of intermediary patterns, offering reduced intermediary involvement compared to traditional models.	Complements P2P Blockchain and Liquidity Providers for seamless transactions.	OpenSea (https://opensea.io/ (accessed on 18 January 2025)) (NFT platform)	Variation of intermediary patterns.	Emerging, generic, compatible
10	Mining: Solo mining Pool mining Cloud mining Mining marketplace	Works closely with Utility Token and Network Fee Charge models to sustain the network’s operation.	NiceHash (https://www.nicehash.com/ (accessed on 18 January 2025)) (mining marketplace)	This is a new BM. It will be explored in the following section.	Emerging, blockchain-native, compatible
11	Liquidity providers: Membership-based p2p lending Fly liquidity	Complements Exchanges and Development Platforms for enhanced financial interactions.	Balancer (https://balancer.fi/ (accessed on 18 January 2025))	Variation of intermediary patterns.	Legacy, blockchain-native, compatible
12	Exchanges: Centralized exchanged Wallet-to-wallet exchange	Works closely with Scalability Providers and Market Orchestration to bridge gaps between ecosystems.	Binance (https://www.binance.com/en (accessed on 18 January 2025)) (centralized exchange), Uniswap (https://app.uniswap.org/ (accessed on 18 January 2025)) (decentralized exchange)	New BM (a variation of the multi-sided platform).	Emerging, blockchain-native, compatible
13	Market Orchestration Focuses on coordinating blockchain network participants to create value. Not yet matured.	Might connect to Scalability Providers and Blockchain Connectors to maximize network efficiency.	Polkadot (https://polkadot.com/ (accessed on 18 January 2025))	New BM (a variation of the multi-sided platform).	Future, blockchain-native, compatible
14	Scalability Providers Focuses on enhancing the scalability of blockchain networks through technological innovations. Not yet matured.	Might work with Development Platforms and Market Orchestration to handle increased traffic efficiently	Layer 2 solutions, like the Lightning network (https://lightning.network/ (accessed on 18 January 2025))	Innovative BM. It will be covered later.	Future, blockchain-native, compatible
15	Blockchain Connectors An emerging model that enables seamless interactions between different blockchains or systems. Not yet matured.	Might work with Scalability Providers and Market Orchestration to bridge gaps between ecosystems.	Cosmos (https://cosmos.network/ (accessed on 18 January 2025))	Innovative BM. It will be covered later.	Future, blockchain-native, compatible

presents the BMs defined by Ferro and Singh [73,74]. A careful analysis concludes that some of the BMs described by different authors are in fact very similar and might be treated as the same. These are the following named patterns: Blockchain as a Service and Distributed Assets as a Service, Development Platforms and Merged Services, Blockchain-based Software Products, and ICO as a Service.

The classification presented in the following sections is driven by the research questions introduced in Section 1.1. It aims to fill the identified gap in the literature. The research questions focus on understanding how blockchain technologies influence business models, as they reflect the motivation behind the study and the specific way the models are grouped. The motivation is described in Section 1.2. On the one hand, from a researcher’s point of view, it should help to understand how innovative IT technologies, and specific features such as decentralization, transparency, and contracts automation, reshape business models and organizational structures. For businesses, the findings could transform how companies design their operations and strategies. By understanding blockchain’s role in industry disruption and the creation of more efficient, transparent, and trusted models, firms can better adapt to market changes.

The basic understanding of the business model was given in Section 2.2 and, for this analysis, the concept denotes four values: proposition, architecture, finance, and network. Figure 6 illustrates the conceptual framework outlining the interaction points between blockchain architecture and business models (BMs). This framework is structured as a three-dimensional cube defined by the following axes:

• Timeframe: differentiates between legacy models (existing and old), emerging models (existing but new), and future models.
• Tech-Focus: categorizes BMs as either generic (applicable across multiple domains) or blockchain-native (designed exclusively for blockchain ecosystems).
• Relation: captures the alignment of BMs with blockchain capabilities, distinguishing between compatible, partially compatible, and non-applicable models.

The intersections of these dimensions create a matrix of potential BM categories. However, not all intersections were relevant to this study. For instance, non-applicable and generic BMs were excluded as they do not align with blockchain technology. Similarly, intersections such as non-applicable and blockchain-only are inherently empty, as they represent incompatible configurations.

To enhance clarity, Figure 6 provides a visual representation of these dimensions and their intersections. This diagrammatic approach aids in understanding how blockchain influences BM evolution and highlights the focal areas of the analysis. Specifically, this paper focuses on three key groups of BMs:

• Existing and improved generic models: traditional BMs adapted to leverage blockchain technology (Section 4.1).
• Existing but blockchain-only models: BMs that emerged exclusively within blockchain ecosystems (Section 4.2).
• Future and introduced models: innovative BMs that are currently conceptual but demonstrate significant potential for blockchain application (Section 4.3).

By structuring the discussion along these axes, this framework ensures a rigorous and systematic exploration of blockchain’s impact on business models, offering a clear and comprehensive perspective on their classification and evolution.

Validation of the classification created further follows from the statistical review of sources described in Section 3. It is further strengthened by the business examples given in Table 2 and the cases of businesses or decentralized applications indicated in Section 5.

4.1. Business Models to Which Blockchain May Introduce Improvements

Usually, the BMs that constitute this group are BMs that were known earlier. They are not novel based on the literature analysis (Section 2.2). In such cases, these models can be assigned to one of three subsets: they can be unrelated to blockchain technology, they can be improved by blockchain, or they can be eliminated as obsolete. The first case means that decentralized technologies do not affect a particular BM. The cases belonging to the latter group are rather rare. The most numerous are the second group.

It is important to note that we consider all of these BMs as relevant in the discussion of blockchain solutions’ impact on BMs. The following is a short description of the existing BMs mentioned with potential for improvement:

• Model 2—the core element is to provide a specific service/product on the premises, usually in “as a service” architecture. The model has been defined and successfully used in the past. The difference is only the object being distributed—in this case, it is a blockchain-based solution. Thus, the value network and value finance are the same as in the “old” models, while the value technology and value proposition have the same assumptions, but the underlying technology is different.
• Model 3—the main value proposition is to provide a platform (including related services) for developing blockchain-based applications. This pattern is very similar to the platform provider. In fact, value technology is specific and shaped to support blockchain requirements; most insights from the original model might be adopted here.
• Model 4—it is a software developer/provider pattern but focused on blockchain-based applications. The value proposition is ready-to-install software, targeted at customers that are interested in adopting blockchain technologies but are not able to develop it themselves. However, blockchain-based software might be handled and distributed in the same manner as any other software.
• Model 6—the value proposition in this pattern is mentoring/advising services targeted at a customer who uses blockchain technologies but has no adequate skills or knowledge. However, in the mentor/educator model, the subject taught is for the most part irrelevant to the other elements of the BM.
• Model 7—this is a special case of other models, as P2P services are an integral element of blockchains.
• Model 8—the three-sided model has been defined previously and might be implemented for any type of platform and is not limited to blockchain-based platforms.
• Models 9 and 11—these are special cases of intermediary BMs.

4.2. Business Models Specific to Blockchain Architecture

All of the models presented in Table 1 can be summarized by five archetypic behavioral patterns, which are:

• Facilitator—provides value by improving or allowing functionality (e.g., oracles—which is another, not mentioned earlier business niche)—the BMs that follow this archetype are numbered 11, 13, 14, and 15.
• Enabler—lays the foundational ground (technology provider)—the BMs that follow this archetype are numbered 5 and 7.
• Trustee—provides value in the form of raised social capital (e.g., trust) by securing information (i.e., by mining)—the BMs that follow this archetype are numbered 9 and 10.
• Innovator (Visionary)—provides value by solving an issue in the given field in a decentralized manner—the BMs that follow this archetype are numbered 1 and 12b.
• Combinator (Orchestrator)—combines common BMs (of offering products or services) with new blockchain technology—the BMs that follow this archetype are numbered 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12a.

The abovementioned types of actors work in a three-layered environment, which is either outside of the technology (off-chain) or within a given technological stack (on-chain) (Figure 7). Additionally, some patterns are performed both independently and in relation to selected blockchain architecture. The latter are usually diversified types of inter- or info-mediaries. Two archetypes, namely Enabler and Visionary, are the most disruptive. The featured archetypes constitute a very generic abstraction over the BMs listed in Table 2. Thus, they may resemble the five basic patterns of Osterwalder and Pigneur that were described in Section 2.2 [22]. This time, however, the focus is on the introduction of blockchain systems.

Below, the selected blockchain-based BMs are presented. They are systematically covered using a value-oriented approach, which is consistent with the results of the critical discussion of BM definitions and approaches presented in Section 2.2.

4.2.1. Utility Token

This BM pattern is probably the most common one when it comes to discussing businesses concentrated around blockchain technology. Tokens like cryptocurrencies and other virtual assets can be stored, traded, or exchanged. They represent a specified value. This value is determined either by the mutual adjustment of market forces of demand and supply or descends directly from the value created by the tokenized business.

From the perspective of Figure 6, the Utility Token model is an emerging business model (

Table 3. Value-oriented BM matrix for the Utility Token model (Source: Own elaboration).

BM Element	Description
Value proposition	Introducing decentralization and/or automation
Value architecture	Token creation, smart contract, and dApps (decentralized applications)
Value finance	Token as a carrier of costs and revenues
Value network	Rules of conduct and transactions stored on the blockchain (all business aspects are on-chain); transactions agreed by chosen consensus protocol

), as it has gained widespread adoption but continues to evolve. It is blockchain-native, meaning it has no equivalent in traditional financial or economic systems. Furthermore, it is fully compatible with blockchain capabilities, as its functioning is inherently tied to decentralized networks, tokenized ecosystems, and smart contract mechanisms.

4.2.2. Network Fee

The Network Fee BM pattern has some similarities to the earlier one. The main resemblance is that cryptocurrencies and tokens are, from an economic point of view, much alike. They may both be treated as a kind of virtual asset. The main difference is that cryptocurrency is a native asset built in a particular blockchain system. Therefore, all the operations and functioning of the system are valued in this asset.

Based on the classification in Figure 6, the Network Fee model is also considered an emerging business model (

Table 4. Value-oriented analysis for Network Fee BM (Source: Own elaboration).

BM Element	Description
Value proposition	Unique feature-rich platform
Value architecture	Timestamped, graph of information blocks.
Value finance	Association of services with cryptocurrency
Value network	A network of peers; blockchain is more secure with a growing number of nodes

), as it builds upon blockchain-native mechanisms for economic exchange. It is blockchain-native, as traditional financial systems do not use decentralized transaction fees in the same manner. Additionally, it is fully compatible with blockchain technologies, as transaction validation and network security rely on this fee structure to incentivize participants.

4.2.3. Mining

Mining activity is mostly associated with blockchains that employ proof-of-work algorithms in order to achieve consensus within the network of peer nodes. By using computational power, the miner nodes compete with each other to create new blocks with submitted transactions. In this fashion, the chain is produced, and the network chooses the historical version that is the costliest from the point of view of computed operations

In the framework of Figure 6, Mining represents a legacy business model (

Table 5. Value-oriented analysis for Mining BM (Source: Own elaboration).

BM Element	Description
Value proposition	Provision of trust and security for immutable information storage/processing
Value architecture	Non-federated (solo) or intermediate (pool. cloud) computational resource sharing (within the pool and with the whole blockchain network)
Value finance	Costs generated by lost physical resources; incentives in cryptocurrency; intermediated form assumes both cost and revenue distribution
Value network	Full nodes realizing selected proof (work, stake, storage, etc.); federation by employing specific communication protocols (e.g., Stratum)

), as it has been integral to blockchain technology since its inception, though new consensus mechanisms (e.g., Proof-of-Stake) are emerging. It is blockchain-native, as it does not have a direct equivalent in traditional financial or computational systems. Finally, it is fully compatible with blockchain functionality, as mining secures decentralized networks, ensures transaction validation, and supports token issuance.

4.2.4. Exchanges

The appearance of exchanges is the natural way of expanding blockchain platforms and cryptocurrencies. For cryptocurrencies and tokens to become fluent assets and for the sake of their mutual quantifiability, a mechanism that quotes their values is needed. Exchanges provide not only flexible storage of value for crypto coins, but they allow tokens, cryptocurrencies, and fiats to be changed in almost every combination and at any time.

Traditional exchanges for stocks and currencies are kind of intermediaries, which organize and regulate the market so that other parties can position themselves on one of two market forces sides. Nonetheless, blockchain itself is about decentralization and disintermediation. That is why the concept of decentralized exchanges emerged. This type of exchange shares some features of a traditional BM. On a technological level, they are a rather specific type of decentralized organization, where participants agree on common terms of trading by using a set of smart contracts. Whereas, on the economic level, the issue of costs and revenues may be resolved in a similar manner as with their centralized counterparts. It may, however, be resolved in a very different way as well.

According to the framework in Figure 6, Exchanges—both centralized and decentralized—represent an emerging business model (

Table 6. Value-oriented BM matrix for Exchange model (Source: Own elaboration).

BM Element	Description
Value proposition	Measuring value and provision of means to exchange value nominated in digital money or fiat
Value architecture	Classic (centralized) platforms or decentralized applications running on the blockchain
Value finance	Normal costs of the centralized platform; decentralization externalizes most of the costs; costs of “frozen” capital can be minimized with prediction/data mining techniques
Value network	Networking of many tokens within one blockchain or networking of cryptocurrencies and tokens across two or more blockchains and forks; networking of information. Value transfer and users across blockchain platforms

), as they have matured significantly but continue to evolve with new innovations in DeFi. They are blockchain-native, as their core functions are designed to facilitate token and cryptocurrency trading within decentralized ecosystems. In terms of compatibility, they are fully aligned with blockchain capabilities, as they enhance liquidity, enable cross-platform asset transfers, and reinforce the decentralized financial infrastructure.

4.3. Toward New Business Models Possible with Blockchain

In addition to the BM patterns denoted in the previous subsection, another group of BM patterns can be pointed out. This group consists of emerging ones that have not been already well identified and described.

4.3.1. Market Orchestration

At a certain point, the advancement of decentralized environments will require not only a simple feature of token exchange. The exchange of metadata, information, logic, or events could be a necessity. Thus, different models of synchronization among platforms should be introduced.

The creation of mechanisms that allow for cooperation between smart contracts on single or multiple blockchain systems will trigger the possibility of higher-level business interactions in the form of sophisticated business processes.

According to Figure 6, the Market Orchestration model is a future business model (

Table 7. Value-oriented analysis for Market Orchestration BM (Source: Own elaboration).

BM Element	Description
Value proposition	Synchronization of services and introduction of a cause-and-effect chain between decentralized components executed within one or spanning across a couple of blockchain platforms
Value architecture	Loosely coupled services executed as part of blockchain platform logic or within blockchain network (smart contracts); possible execution as part of the consensus protocol
Value finance	Service subscription or pay-per-unit where a unit can be defined as a single synchronization operation or decentralized process instance execution
Value network	Synchronization and capability of collaboration among potentially anonymous parties within workflows. Value-added and extensive supply chains; provision of infrastructure to execute decentralized business processes

), as it is still in its early development phase and not widely implemented. It is blockchain-native, as it fundamentally relies on smart contracts, decentralized governance, and interoperability protocols. In terms of blockchain alignment, it is partially compatible, as the necessary technological frameworks for seamless market coordination across blockchains are still under development.

4.3.2. Scalability Providers

Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin were designed as a peer-to-peer network, which is well aligned with the requirements of flexibility and efficiency in terms of changing the number of network users. Still, it works well to a certain point. And above all, decentralized systems are hardly comparable to their centralized counterparts when it comes to system performance. Bitcoin has already hit this point, where certain design decisions constitute a bottleneck for further growth of its usefulness.

That is why there is an ongoing effort to eliminate or suppress the experienced or perceived scalability obstacles, e.g., the development of separated micropayment networks, like Lighting for Bitcoin.

In the classification presented in Figure 6, Scalability Providers represent a future business model, as they are still evolving and expanding in response to blockchain limitations (

Table 8. Value-oriented BM matrix for Scalability Provider model (Source: Own elaboration).

BM Element	Description
Value proposition	Removal of architectural flaws and bottlenecks from decentralized platforms
Value architecture	Service is an addition or extension to blockchain. Accessible and compatible with blockchain network; possibly blockchain-on-blockchain architectures
Value finance	R&D and development costs; revenues from temporal one’s or else’s value storage; fees in the form of tips from rounding-off micropayments
Value network	Temporal transfer of value outside blockchain; micropayments increase the liquidity of the network

). They are blockchain-native, as they directly address challenges unique to decentralized networks. Their alignment with blockchain capabilities is partially compatible since current solutions (e.g., layer 2 scaling technologies) that enhance scalability but are not yet universally adopted or fully integrated across all blockchain ecosystems.

4.3.3. Blockchain Connector

The mentioned earlier model of Market Orchestration is about connecting different decentralized platforms. However, even without such sophisticated approaches, one can imagine a more common synchronization requirement. In order to perform business logic on-chain, the contexts outside of the blockchain system have to be taken into account.

Using blockchain data only is enough when implementing a simple cryptocurrency system. But once smart contracts appear with the possibility of performing custom logic and arbitrarily regulating interactions between parties, there is a growing need to take into account the state of objects that are off-chain.

Based on Figure 6, the Blockchain Connector model is a future business model (

Table 9. Value-oriented analysis for Blockchain Connector BM (Source: Own elaboration).

BM Element	Description
Value proposition	Inter-blockchain network information transfer; provision of cross-border data or trigger of events caused by outside factors; revenues from service subscription or pay-per-unit where a unit is a single signal of the amount of relayed data
Value architecture	Service is an extension to the blockchain accessible through public API
Value finance	R&D and development costs; infrastructure costs
Value network	Binding outside data and events to blockchain users and smart contracts

), as it represents a relatively new and developing approach to cross-blockchain and off-chain interactions. It is blockchain-native, as it enables interoperability and bridges decentralized and centralized systems. Its compatibility with blockchain capabilities is partially compatible, as existing blockchain architectures do not yet fully support seamless cross-chain interactions without additional middleware solutions.

5. Business Model Applicability

In this section, matrices are created that combine all of the BMs distinguished in Section 4 and the business sectors (Section 3) that are most intense from the point of view of blockchain introduction (

Table 10. Matrix of blockchain BM applicability in sectors. F—finance, S—sharing economy, R—real estate, I—identity and security, L—legal applications, D—data storage and cloud computing, T—Internet of Things. (Source: Own elaboration).

No.	BMs	Potential Sectors of Use
		F	S	R	I	L	D	T
1	Utility Token	X	X		X		X	X
2	(a) Blockchain as a Service (b) Distributed Assets as a Service	X			X		X
3	(a) Development Platform (b) Merged Services				X		X	X
4	(a) Blockchain-based Software Products (b) ICO as a Service				X		X
5	Network Fee Charge		X	X			X	X
6	Blockchain Professional Services	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
7	P2P Blockchain	X	X	X		X	X
8	Three-sided Platform		X		X	X
9	Light Intermediation	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
10	Mining	X			X
11	Liquidity Providers	X	X	X
12	Exchanges	X	X			X
13	Market Orchestration	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
14	Scalability Providers	X	X					X
15	Blockchain Connectors		X	X	X	X		X

and

Table 11. Matrix of blockchain BM cases. Projects signed with + superscript are abandoned as of 2024. F—finance, S—sharing economy, R—real estate, I—identity and security, L—legal applications, D—data storage and cloud computing, T—Internet of Things. (Source: Own elaboration).

No.	Business Model	Business Cases
		F	S	R	I	L	D	T
1	Utility Token	Starbase, Bankex	Sikoba		LikeCoin		Witnet	IOTA
2	(a) Blockchain as a Service (b) Distributed Assets as a Service	Blogboard, Engrave+			ENS Nifty		Storj
3	(a) Development Platform (b) Merged Services				Open Zeppelin, Quixxi		WRIO OS+	TradeLens
4	(a) Blockchain-based Software Products (b) ICO as a Service	Iconomi			Slant		ICO Compiler+, tokenGen
5	Network Fee Charge		Sharpay	AcreWise+			Streamr Marketplace
6	Blockchain Professional Services	CuBE ON			SpringRole	Randao, blockchain-council	IPSE+	blockchaintrainingalliance
7	P2P Blockchain	WeiLend	StiB P2P+	blockimmo		Kleros	DIA data
8	Three-sided Platform					LegalContracts
9	Light Intermediation	Daxia+		BTU Hotel	Talao, OracleChain+	MarriageOnTheBlock+	MyWish	Aigang+
10	Mining	Mining Expert, NiceHash, AntPool			MonitorChain
11	Liquidity Providers	CashflowRelay		Doma
12	Exchanges	Optimum+, Teradex, SmartExchange				Law4all
13	Market Orchestration	Hydro+	Slock It+	FeeSimple+	SelfKey	T2CR	Azrael	Oaken+
14	Scalability Providers	mRaiden
15	Blockchain Connectors				NaviAddress+, Proof of Physical Address+, Provable			Interledger

). Beyond serving as a classification tool, these matrices function as an aggregated case study that empirically illustrates the practical applicability of the analyzed blockchain business models.

Table 10 includes the results of the entanglement. The rows of the table represent subsequent BMs, and the columns contain 7 potential business sectors of use. The cells contain crosses where the potential of the intersection of the model and the sector is expected to be high. Alternatively, empty cells symbolize low or no potential for employment of a given blockchain BM within a particular sector. This table not only categorizes the potential applicability of each business model but also serves as an aggregated case study, capturing the intersection of theoretical frameworks and real-world market potential.

The results of the real business case analysis are presented in Table 11. Its layout is similar to that of Table 10. Instead of the cells that indicate the level of probable applicability of a BM within a sector, their content is replaced with names of startups and decentralized applications both up-to-date or historical. These applications fit the descriptions of BMs presented in Section 4. Moreover, they belong to the relevant business sectors as described in Section 3. By linking theoretical business models to concrete examples, this table acts as a detailed case study, providing empirical evidence of the practical implementation of blockchain-based business models identified in this paper.

6. Conclusions and Future Works

In the paper, three novel BMs were elaborated using the value-oriented BM description framework. Additionally, four existing blockchain-related BMs were identified. In total, 15 Internet-related BMs were analyzed from the perspective of their compatibility and applicability with blockchain architecture.

Almost 40,000 decentralized applications from two independent data sources were taken into account to reinforce the presented arguments about the blockchain business perspectives in particular sectors. Finally, about 60 business cases were assigned as examples to the matrix of particular sectors and earlier identified BMs.

The literature review (Section 2.3), identification of trends in blockchain application, and analysis of existing business models (Section 4.1) provided an answer to Research Question 1 and indicated how the adaptation of blockchain technology influences the dynamics of industries.

The value-oriented framework was chosen for the BM description after a discussion of BM definitions and other comparable frameworks. During the analysis, it was considered to be the most proper for the task of high-level decentralized BM representation.

The research presented is important from a theoretical point of view. This is because there was no comprehensive elaboration of BMs and their compatibility with blockchain systems. The paper presents a taxonomy and characterizes BMs in a systematic and methodical way in the context of blockchain. Thus, analysis of the core features that distinguish blockchain-based business models provided in Section 4.2 answered Research Question 2.

The proposed blockchain-specific business model patterns expand the utility of the value-oriented framework, making it applicable to blockchain-based enterprises. By identifying how blockchain integrates with established business principles, this study provides actionable insights for entrepreneurs, researchers, and policymakers. The findings serve as a guide for startups to adopt relevant blockchain models, for regulators to create informed policies, and for academics to explore the evolution of decentralized business practices.

The analysis of the relationship between BMs and blockchain-based architectures should be performed with caution. This is because certain already identified BMs have, in fact, been known for some time. That is why they do not constitute a real novelty. In the text, such instances of BMs have been denoted.

Our research complements the work of [6], contributing additional perspectives to the ongoing discourse on blockchain-enabled business models. By identifying distinct patterns, we demonstrate the dynamic and versatile nature of blockchain technology in reshaping traditional business paradigms. This reinforces the value of a multifaceted approach to understanding blockchain’s role in contemporary business ecosystems.

The results presented are vital for business practices. One of the motivations of this paper was to propose blockchain-related BMs that might be adapted and implemented by entrepreneurs and thus might popularize blockchain applications in different domains. The blockchain-specific business model patterns identified in this study are highly adaptable and applicable across industries. For example, utility tokens are widely used in decentralized finance (DeFi), enabling secure and transparent transactions. Similarly, the P2P Blockchain model supports industries like energy trading, while the Blockchain as a Service (BaaS) model facilitates blockchain adoption for small businesses. These use cases illustrate how the proposed patterns extend the applicability of the value-oriented framework to real-world blockchain innovations.

The identification and critical analysis of emerging business models that depend entirely on blockchain technology and were not previously observed in the market (Section 4.3) prove that, in fact, blockchain contributes to the creation of new business models, answering Research Question 3.

Future research should focus on empirical verification of the identified business models through extended quantitative studies, such as surveys of companies using blockchain technologies or the inclusion of other sources of data. Expanding the research sample, as well as developing methods to include other sectors and better reflect and identify their structures, will help in detailed recognition of their specificity in the blockchain context. Analyzing the dynamics of business model changes over time, considering the impact of regulations and technological advances, is also an important direction.

In addition, future research should deepen the analysis of the added value blockchain brings to specific models, as well as examine the social and ethical aspects of its implementation, including the impact on sustainability. Finally, analyzing the impacts of interoperability and standardization on the adaptation of business models in the evolving blockchain ecosystem is a promising direction for further research.