Business model digitalization and decentralization through nonfungible tokens (NFTs): multicase research

Nonfungible tokens (NFTs) are marketable digital assets based generally on blockchain technology for high-level assurance via cryptoverification (Chen, 2018) and can include unique smart contract content (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016; Nofer et al., 2017). Nonfungibility is a key aspect of NFTs (Dowling, 2021a), as they represent a new way in which to certify the ownership of digital assets (Jones, 2021; Dowling, 2021a, 2021b). The use of NFTs has been pioneered by creative industry entrepreneurs seeking to generate new revenue streams and modes of stakeholder engagement (Chalmers et al., 2022).

Because of NFTs, content creators can quickly access the market, with transactions both in traditional and virtual currencies or cryptocurrencies, to sell photos, reproductions of images, art, music, written material, audio files or any other items that can be digitized. NFTs, therefore, have the advantage of breaking down barriers to market access for creators of new content (Morozov, 2021a, 2021b), aiding in the development of new business ideas on the basis of the concepts of nonreproducibility, uniqueness and exclusivity (Chalmers et al., 2022; Kaczynski and Kominers, 2021).

One of the first artworks ever created solely in the form of an NFT was “Everydays: The First 5000 Days,” which was sold in 2021 for $69m. Since then, the NFT market has expanded rapidly.

As affirmed by Horky et al. (2023, p. 799):

The initial growth has led to a dangerous speculative bubble, on the one hand, but has resulted in the expansion of various use cases, on the other hand. With respect to art, NFTs have extended to various fields and business concepts. The fundamental characteristics of each NFT are uniqueness and nonreplicability, as well as the exclusivity, unique ownership and authentication of an asset, whether material or digital and artistic or nonartistic.

By focusing on NFTs, the exploratory aim of this study is to understand whether and how NFTs can innovate the business models (BMs) of for-profit and nonprofit organizations in the digital marketplace ecosystem. Despite the bursting of the speculative bubble, we aim to understand the role of NFTs in enabling decentralization (dispersion of organizational communications) and distribution (dispersion of organizational decision-making) because of the digitalization of new products, services and processes (Vergne, 2020) with the aim of creating value.

This study uses a qualitative multicase methodology to examine BM innovation by NFTs across different market niches within the digital marketplace ecosystem, selecting first-mover examples within each niche. The selected case studies include Christie’s, OpenSea, Uffizi Gallery and Ticketmaster.

To our knowledge, only a few contributions in the business sciences literature empirically address the role of NFTs in BM innovation (Zarifis and Cheng, 2022; Li and Chen, 2023; Madanchian and Taherdoost, 2024). We specifically aim to contribute to the specialized literature on the topic of the relationships between digital NFT innovation and the related BM changes. In many industries, sectors and niches, BMs are being disrupted through, for example, technological advancements and digitization or other societal changes that involve substantial BM rethinking (Zott et al., 2011; Amit and Zott, 2001). The capacity of a BM to adapt to changes (e.g. in the availability, quality and affordability of critical resources) is likely to affect an organization’s longer-term resilience and viability (IFAC, 2020, p. 8).

As discussed in Cooper and Morgan (2008), exploratory case studies are valuable in accounting research because they provide deep, context-rich insights into complex organizational and social phenomena. These authors argue that such studies enable researchers to uncover new perspectives, generate theory and offer practical implications that might be overlooked based on more rigid approaches.

Conducting empirical analysis on NFTs presents some implications for accounting and finance that are better specified in the conclusions. From a finance standpoint, this research aligns with the recent discussions on NFTs in the literature (Bao and Roubaud, 2022; Nobanee and Ellili, 2023). Our focus is on the tokenomics literature (Freni et al., 2022). On the accounting front, NFTs represent a novel form of cryptoasset that entities need to evaluate and disclose. Thus, studying NFTs also contributes to the growing body of research on cryptoasset accounting (Ram et al., 2016; Procházka, 2018; Morozova et al., 2020; Ramassa and Leoni, 2022; Bellucci et al., 2022).

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next section reviews the literature on NFTs in business and management and discusses our conceptual framework inspired by the BM framework of Osterwalder and Pigneur (2004, 2010). Section 3 illustrates our methodology, which is based on multiple case studies. Section 4 discusses the case studies and summarizes our findings. Finally, Section 5 concludes the paper.

NFTs represent a new class of cryptoassets (Wang, 2021). The pivotal moment for NFTs materialized in 2017 with the widespread attention garnered by the CryptoKitties game (Wang, 2021; Belk et al., 2022). However, not until 2020 did NFTs truly seize the mainstream limelight, coinciding with the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (Bao and Roubaud, 2022). Remarkably, a series of high-profile NFT sales catapulted NFTs to the forefront of the arts and entertainment industries (Dowling, 2021b; Chalmers et al., 2022; Li and Chen, 2023).

Diverging from other types of cryptocurrencies, NFTs possess a unique quality, as they cannot be exchanged on a one-to-one basis (hence, they are nonfungible).

NFTs are digital certificates of ownership for specific digital assets, such as images, videos or pieces of music. This ownership does not prevent others from viewing, copying or sharing the digital asset itself. By their nature, digital files can be easily copied and shared. An NFT is a unique token that represents the asset, but the asset itself can still be duplicated, and the token does not stop others from accessing the digital file. Additionally, an NFT does not automatically grant copyright or exclusive usage rights to the digital asset. These rights are usually defined by the creator and can vary. In essence, NFTs provide a way in which to prove the ownership and authenticity of a digital asset but do not restrict the distribution or copying of the asset itself. Two recent literature reviews (Bao and Roubaud, 2022; Nobanee and Ellili, 2023) have highlighted the growing interest in NFTs within the fields of finance and economics. Bao and Roubaud (2022) identify the following three key directions for future NFT research: asset pricing, tokenomics and risk and regulation. Among these directions, this work specifically contributes to the expanding body of literature on tokenomics, which is defined as an economic system based on the tokenization process. This process encompasses token features, monetary policy and user incentive systems (Freni et al., 2022).

From a business perspective, one can distinguish various categories of tokens (Freni et al., 2022). Payment tokens are a means of payment for acquiring goods or services or a mode of money or value transfer. Utility tokens are cryptoassets designed to provide digital access to a specific good or service available on the blockchain and accepted by the issuer (Hacker and Thomale, 2018; European Commission, 2020). In the case of product tokens, the holder can redeem a predetermined quantity of product or service from the issuer or a designated service provider (Cong and Xiao, 2021). With securities tokens, token holders are entitled to certain rights to future cash flows from a business. These tokens essentially represent security contracts and should be subject to appropriate regulation under securities law (Hacker and Thomale, 2018; Subramanian, 2019).

Asset-backed tokens, including stablecoins and commodity-backed tokens, predate the advent of NFTs and derive their value from reserves of underlying assets guaranteed by their issuers. However, the introduction of NFTs, which are characterized by nonfungibility, has further advanced the blockchain-based representation of assets. According to Jenweeranon (2022), asset-backed tokens are directly tied to real-world assets, with tokenization serving as the process of linking tangible assets to virtual tokens (Dowling, 2021a; Chandra, 2022).

In recent years, researchers have begun exploring the pricing determinants and value propositions of NFTs. Rather than being solely based on a collective belief in NFTs as a viable product category, NFT prices are influenced by individuals’ willingness to pay, which is shaped by various well-established factors (Horky et al., 2022; Zhang, 2023). Yilmaz et al. (2023) demonstrate that all four types of value – monetary, functional, emotional and social value – play roles in different stages of the NFT customer journey. The pricing dynamics of NFTs appear to be distinct from those of cryptocurrencies, with differences in volatility transmission observed across NFT markets (Dowling, 2021a, 2021b; Karim et al., 2022; Vidal-Tomás, 2022).

Moreover, early research was dedicated to exploring the business implications of the NFT ecosystem. Belk et al. (2022) argue that fractional ownership can also apply to NFTs, allowing multiple owners to share in the financial gains from increases in artwork value upon resale. In this framework, specific property rights are transferred to NFT buyers, whereas other property rights remain with the artist. Wilson et al. (2021) and Malhotra et al. (2022) observe that the NFT ecosystem involves multiple stakeholders, including digital NFT creators; content owners; core intermediaries responsible for infrastructure and security; related intermediaries such as fintech companies and legal entities; and NFT marketplaces serving consumers, collectors, investors and speculators. In Wilson et al.’s (2021) model, content creators initiate content. If creators and owners are separate entities, then content creators are likely to form a subsumed relational class. Intermediaries play a crucial role in facilitating the process before NFTs reaching consumers, as they are necessary for completing NFT sales and exchange processes. Consumers represent a class of NFT stakeholders who use NFT assets to build portfolios, aiming to increase their value as investors or speculators. Moreover, Joy et al. (2022) delve into the use of NFTs by luxury brands to reshape brand images and enhance consumer experiences. Additionally, Colicev (2023) argues that brands can use physical products such as shoes, shirts or art as NFTs to boost brand awareness, create cross-selling opportunities and foster a stronger sense of ownership over specific brand elements. Chalmers et al. (2022) explore the opportunities that NFTs present for entrepreneurs in the creative industry, whereas Chandra (2022) suggest that NFTs have the potential to disrupt economies, cultures and societies at large. Moreover, Li and Chen (2023) explore the implications of NFTs for BMs, highlighting several key aspects. First, NFTs create value by introducing digital scarcity and providing proof of authenticity. Additionally, NFTs are programmable through blockchain-based smart contracts, enabling creators to design innovative agreements that govern NFT transactions. NFTs also enhance interoperability and portability for digital goods, allowing for broader use across platforms. By being stored on public blockchains, NFTs support decentralized ownership and control. Zarifis and Cheng (2022) identify and propose the following four distinct BMs related to NFTs:

1. NFT creators;

2. NFT marketplaces facilitating the sale of creators’ NFTs;

3. companies issuing their own NFTs, such as fan tokens; and

4. computer games incorporating NFT sales.

Madanchian and Taherdoost (2024), via a literature review on NFTs, the metaverse and BMs, argue that NFTs have the capacity to transform the concepts of ownership and monetization in the digital age. By enabling new revenue streams and offering distinctive digital assets, NFTs serve as catalysts for BM innovation (Madanchian and Taherdoost, 2024). Although the literature has already demonstrated interest in NFTs (Bao and Roubaud, 2022; Nobanee and Ellili, 2023) and their role in innovating BMs (Zarifis and Cheng, 2022; Li and Chen, 2023; Madanchian and Taherdoost, 2024), empirical research on this topic is lacking. Thus, this study seeks to contribute to bridging this gap in the literature.

One of the most widely recognized BM frameworks is that introduced by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2004, 2010), because of its broad acceptance, acknowledgment in academic circles, practical relevance and influence on business comprehension. The BM framework by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2004, 2010) has gained global traction and been implemented across diverse sectors, being adopted by numerous prominent private, public and nonprofit organizations as a tool for articulating, innovating and analyzing their BMs. From an academic perspective, this framework has been extensively referenced in scholarly studies (Bellucci et al., 2019; Bocken et al., 2014; Massa et al., 2017; Vial, 2019; Zott et al., 2011; Komatsu et al., 2016), underscoring its recognition as a valuable resource for researchers, educators and students. This framework consists of nine components grouped into four pillars – product, customer interface, infrastructure management and financial pillars – and is versatile and comprehensive. A discussion of each element can be found in Table 1.

Table 2 shows the related BM Canvas (BMC), which can help users visually represent the elements of a BM and its potential interconnections and impacts on value creation (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010; Joyce and Paquin, 2016).

BM innovation does not necessarily lead to the discovery of a new product or service; instead, such innovation emphasizes new ways in which to create and deliver the existing product or service, as well as new ways to capture value from it (Yang et al., 2017).

While digital transformation embraces changes at all societal levels, digitalization combines different technologies (e.g. cloud technologies, sensors, big data, three-dimensional printing, NFTs and machine learning) to open unforeseen possibilities for new products or services as well as their delivery (Matzler et al., 2016). Digitalization not only affects individual firms’ BMs but also requires the alignment of the BMs of other firms within the ecosystem (Kohtamäki et al., 2019).

Blockchain has the potential to enable new BM archetypes by maximizing operational efficiency and encouraging new digital and decentralized business strategies (Bai et al., 2020; Chen and Bellavitis, 2020; Calandra et al., 2023). Vergne (2020) demonstrates that blockchain enables platform operators that are both decentralized and distributed; decentralization refers “to the broad dispersion of the ability to exchange data and information within communication systems” (Vergne, 2020), whereas distribution refers to the dispersion of organizational decision-making (Lee, 2019). More specifically, decentralization refers to the distribution of decision-making power, data exchange and operational control across various nodes or participants within a system, rather than being concentrated in a single central authority. This broad dispersion allows for more flexible, resilient and adaptive business operations. Vergne (2020) emphasizes the importance of distributing the ability to share and process information across a network, which can enhance efficiency and innovation.

When discussing decentralization, it is essential to differentiate between technical decentralization and economic decentralization. Technical decentralization involves the distribution of technological infrastructure and data processing capabilities across multiple nodes. In a technically decentralized system, no single node has complete control over the entire network. Blockchain technology is a prime example; in this technology, data is stored across a distributed ledger, ensuring transparency and security (Tumasjan, 2024). On the other hand, economic decentralization refers to the distribution of economic power and resources among various participants. It involves the decentralization of financial transactions, ownership and economic decision-making. Decentralized finance exemplifies this type, as financial services are provided through decentralized networks, reducing the reliance on traditional financial institutions (Tapscott and Tapscott, 2016).

Decentralization can apply to various aspects of BMs, including ownership, governance, transaction facilitation and market access (Plekhanov et al., 2023). Decentralized ownership means that assets or resources are owned collectively by participants in the network, rather than by a single entity. NFTs exemplify this aspect by allowing individuals to own unique digital assets. Decentralized governance involves decision-making processes that are distributed among stakeholders. This aspect can be seen in decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), where governance is managed through smart contracts and community voting. Decentralized transaction facilitation removes intermediaries, enabling peer-to-peer transactions, without the need for a central authority. Decentralized market access ensures that all participants have equal opportunities to engage in the market (Kohtamäki et al., 2019).

In other words, NFTs decentralize BMs by eliminating intermediaries, enabling direct transactions between creators and buyers and reducing the need for intermediaries such as galleries or auction houses. They enhance ownership and provenance by providing verifiable ownership and provenance through blockchain, ensuring authenticity and reducing fraud. NFTs also create new revenue streams by opening up new markets for digital assets, allowing creators to monetize their work in innovative ways. Additionally, NFTs facilitate decentralized governance through DAOs, where NFT holders can participate in governance decisions, influencing the direction and policies of the platform or community.

By decentralizing these aspects, NFTs transform traditional BMs, fostering greater transparency, inclusivity and innovation. This shift goes beyond simply replacing intermediaries; it fundamentally changes how ownership, governance, transactions and market access are managed, leading to more democratic and resilient business ecosystems.

BMs based on blockchain are a realization of a specific organizational design where people, processes and tasks are decentralized without intermediation (Cai, 2018; Pereira et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019). Blockchain can increase the levels of social participation and innovation (Scekic et al., 2019; Calandra et al., 2023). Moreover, blockchain paves the way toward developing digitalized and decentralized BMs with new categories of partners, activities, resources, cost structures, revenue streams, channels, customer segments and value propositions (Abbas et al., 2020).

While research on digitalization in the context of BMs is now gaining increased attention (Schaltegger et al., 2016; Joyce and Paquin, 2016), a gap still exists in this field of research, as the number of empirical insights that focus on the differences and similarities regarding how digitalization influences an organization’s value creation is limited (Rachinger et al., 2019). Scant and fragmented scholarly work explaining how organizations can change their traditional BMs into digital and decentralized BMs through blockchain has been empirically carried out (Verhoef et al., 2021).

Inspired by domain theory (Lukka and Vinnari, 2014), this study leverages a specific body of knowledge from prior literature on BMs and NFTs to inform the research design, as outlined in the methodology discussed in the following section.

To pursue our explorative research aim, we opt for a qualitative methodology based on a multicase method. Our research question is exploratory in nature, and we aim to provide rich and deep insights to increase the knowledge of the business implications of NFT implementation.

The case study methodology holds significant value in research because of its ability to offer a deep, contextual understanding of accounting phenomena (Yin, 2017) and has frequently been used in the business and management literature to study BM innovation, that is, value creation in e-business (Amit and Zott, 2001), sustainable BMs (Iles and Martin, 2013; Keskin et al., 2013), how small and medium-sized enterprises approach Industry 4.0 (Müller et al., 2018) or blockchain and accounting (Cai, 2021). This methodology focuses typically on one or a few cases, allowing various aspects of the analyzed object to be investigated (Bell et al., 2019).

The case study methodology is the most suitable approach for addressing our explorative research questions, particularly because of its effectiveness in investigating explorative, contemporary phenomena. Furthermore, this methodology allows for a qualitative understanding of the value proposition. The analysis of NFTs across different niches of the digital marketplace ecosystem enhances our research by providing us with information on the differences and similarities in how NFTs generate value from different perspectives.

For each niche, we decided to focus on one specific case to study the first-mover advantage in depth and extract data on the opportunities and difficulties encountered by the organization during the process. We adopt a selection process of critical cases “on the basis of expectations about their information content” (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 230). The procedure involves two steps. First, we identify market niches within the digital marketplace ecosystem by conducting unstructured searches on Google and in newspaper articles about NFTs. This approach enables us to discover the most compelling stories relevant to our research. Through this process, we gather valuable insights into the potential various industries that are exploring NFT opportunities. Second, we detect the first mover and leader in NFT introduction in the selected niches. We download and manually scrutinize the most relevant reports. Furthermore, we conduct unstructured searches on online databases and in newspapers regarding NFT to identify the most interesting stories for our research. Finally, we select the cases included in Table 3.

Our research draws on a combination of primary and secondary data sourced from various outlets. By leveraging both primary and secondary data from multiple sources, we bolster the level of data triangulation (Hopper and Hoque, 2006) and ensure the robustness of our research findings. Our primary data sources are semistructured interviews, qualitative mail-customized open questionnaires, online communications from selected entities (through websites and social media) and annual reports. Our secondary data consist primarily of media news coverage. In addition, for the Uffizi case, we also use data from a parliamentary hearing. We emailed each case organization and asked for a one-hour online interview with an internal specialist or manager on NFT implementation in his or her organization’s BM or from his or her organization’s NFT technological partner. While our preferred method for conducting interviews was live semistructured sessions, in two out of five cases, we conducted asynchronous interviews because of organizations’ policies. The live and asynchronous interviews were conducted by the organization’s press or communication manager. Questions were designed to cover all the BM parts and to further investigate the preliminary findings that emerged from other sources. The interview schedules, included in  Appendix 1, outline the data collected directly from these interviews. Finally, in the OpenSea case, as a platform hosting numerous active artists, we interviewed three crypto artists who are active platform participants. In this context, as artists are the creators of the content traded on the platform, they can be considered active stakeholders within the OpenSea ecosystem. The data were collected between July 2022 and July 2023.

To further strengthen the inclusivity of the data and minimize selection bias, we adopted the following structured procedure to collect news and online communication:

• We extracted media news data from Nexis Uni Search (cf. Nandi et al., 2020).

• Using a Web scraper application, we collected relevant data from the websites of the organizations included in the case studies.

• We scanned official Facebook and Twitter profiles to gather information on NFT implementation (cf. Bellucci and Manetti, 2017).

To analyze the materials, we used a manual qualitative coding procedure (Saldaña, 2013), with each code representing a BM pillar. For each case, we then reorganized the coded text according to the assigned pillar, resulting in a comprehensive list of information for each BM pillar. We grouped similar information together and constructed a narrative description, focusing on the most relevant aspects to address our research question and highlight the specific innovations that the introduction of NFTs brought to the company’s BM.

In March 2021, Christie’s sold its first purely digital NFT-based artwork, and this record-breaking sale marked a significant milestone in the NFT world. The First 5000 Days created by Beeple was sold for more than US$69m and attracted the attention of 22 million people during the final moments of the auction. Christie’s acted as a first mover, and its success provoked reactions both within its sector and beyond. Indeed, in April 2021, Christie’s significant competitors, Sotheby’s and Philips, entered the NFT market; Sotheby’s sold the collection known as The Fungible by Pak for $16.8m, and on April 23, 2021, Phillips sold the Mad Dog Jones Replicator, fetching a total of $4.1m. By the end of 2021, Sotheby’s had sold $65m in NFTs, whereas Christie’s had sold more than $100m.

Christie’s presents a valuable opportunity to analyze the potential of NFTs for innovating existing BMs in the auction house market. This case is connected to a broader landscape of digitalization and decentralization in the art industry.

The value proposition of digital art has become a significant dilemma in the art industry. Thus, the question becomes how to attribute value to digital artwork, which lacks the tangible and physical properties of traditional art forms (Worthington and Higgs, 2004). NFTs serve as tools that increase the value and exchangeability of digital art (Li and Chen, 2023):

As noted by Christie’s (2024), by ensuring verifiable ownership and provenance, NFTs introduce a new layer of scarcity and authenticity to digital creations, thus attributing value in the digital art market.

The integration of NFTs into the auction house industry has had significant implications for the channel through which art is sold. The emergence of solely digital art has led to the increasing relevance of digital rather than physical channels. However, the degree to which auction houses integrate digital and physical channels, including physical art that uses the digital channel solely as a channel for holding the auction of a physical object, mixed digital-physical art and solely digital art, varies widely.

The successful establishment of a digital art market may attract a younger demographic, which represents a growing and influential segment of customers in the art market. This statement aligns with our findings from secondary data sources, including press articles on the NFT art market (Howcroft, 2021; Adam, 2021), which also explore Christie’s case as follows:

Furthermore, NFT buyers represent a new cohort in the art market; only three of the 33 bidders on the Beeple work, for instance, were previously known to Christie’s, and 30 were Millennials (born in 1981–96) or of Generation X (born in 1965–80) (Adam, 2021).

The emergence of digital technologies has brought about new key partners, including digital artists and technological experts. Digital artists bring a unique perspective to creative endeavors, using cutting-edge digital tools and techniques to create innovative works that push the boundaries of traditional art forms. Moreover, technological partners provide critical support in terms of the hardware, software and infrastructure necessary to bring these creative visions to life:

While highlighting the evolving relationship between Christie’s and its partners, Howcroft (2021) also presents an element of disintermediation. The quote above illustrates how auction houses, such as Christie’s, are increasingly bypassing traditional intermediaries such as galleries, assuming direct control over roles that were previously fulfilled by other entities within the art market ecosystem. Therefore, to sell NFT digital art, Christie’s needs to set and maintain a high level of direct collaboration with artists. In 2021, Christie’s began collaborating with OpenSea, the world’s leading NFT marketplace, relying on it as a trusted third party to handle NFT transactions. This partnership allowed the auction house to explore the NFT market without directly managing blockchain operations, which fall outside its core business. However, in September 2022, Christie’s took a significant step forward by launching Christie’s 3.0, an on-chain auction platform dedicated to NFT art. This move marked a shift from dependence on external platforms to an in-house solution, establishing a more direct presence in the NFT space. This point also underscores the decentralization effect of NFTs on changes in BMs. The shift from galleries to crypto artists has expanded the number of individuals with whom Christie’s needs to maintain relationships to operate its business effectively.

Moreover, as 2020 was characterized by the unprecedented outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic (Kober and Thambar, 2021), many offline auctions were limited and sometimes even banned. Christie’s strategic response was an:

As indicated in the quote above, following a significant increase in online sales in 2020, Christie’s strategically focused on channels that remained resilient and that were not limited by COVID-19 restrictions. Capitalizing on the opportunities presented by NFTs in the art market, the auction house launched a dedicated digital art business, marking a shift toward the digitalization of the industry.

The fundamental shift from a physical real-life channel to a digital metaverse channel has necessitated significant changes in how the auction house industry operates. One of the benefits of NFTs is their ability to transform digital art from a public good into an excludable good (Adams and McCormick, 1987) with significant value, thereby making it tradable. New key partners such as crypto artists who sell their artworks and technological platforms who host auctions are vital for auction houses to remain relevant. Finally, the incorporation of smart contracts into NFT transactions has strengthened the possibility of author fees for future resales, which represents a new opportunity for decentralization. NFTs can be embedded with smart contracts that allocate a percentage of the price to the original artist for each secondary sale (Li and Chen, 2023). This situation creates a profit-sharing mechanism between the auction house and the artist, thereby reducing the level of centralized economic control of the intermediary over resales.

Founded in 2017 at the onset of the NFT era, OpenSea has emerged as a leading NFT marketplace and exchange (CoinMarketCap, 2024). In the first half of 2022, it accounted for up to 90% of Ethereum-based transactions (Consensys, 2022). OpenSea’s strategy is becoming increasingly popular, and other entities are recognizing the vast opportunities that exist within the NFT space (CoinMarketCap, 2024). Among its noteworthy competitors, we cite the NFT marketplace launched by Rarible in November 2019; the offering by Binance launched in June 2021; and Coinbase, a prominent cryptocurrency exchange, which recently announced its plans to enter the NFT market.

As a marketplace, OpenSea’s value proposition revolves primarily around facilitating the matching of supply and demand for various types of NFTs. Specifically, OpenSea’s success hinges on the following:

As part of its value proposition, OpenSea provides access to the NFT realm to a broad audience, potentially contributing to building trust in NFTs among a wider demographic beyond early adopters. In an interview with Forbes (Ehrlich, 2021), Devin Finzer, one of OpenSea’s cofounders, discusses the platform, emphasizing the trust mechanism it establishes that may be observed as a key component of OpenSea’s value proposition as follows:

OpenSea and similar platforms serve as intermediaries in the NFT space, fulfilling many of the roles traditionally performed by galleries, such as curation, credibility, marketing and transaction facilitation. However, while OpenSea’s value proposition shares similarities with those of traditional intermediaries, it fosters a more direct relationship between artists and buyers. In many cases, OpenSea’s role is primarily limited to providing a secure environment where digital artworks are displayed and sold. In contrast, traditional galleries typically take on a more involved role, offering valuations, certifications and promotional efforts to enhance the visibility and perceived value of the artworks that they represent.

The OpenSea choice of being a general NFT marketplace has implications for the customer segment it covers. Indeed, instead of focusing on a niche of NFT enthusiastically, OpenSea serves a broader public that has decided to engage with NFT items. In a Forbes interview (Ehrlich, 2021), Devin Finzer describes the company’s customers as follows:

This mix of people and NFT subcategories also provides empirical evidence of multiple markets in which NFT is spreading (Chalmers et al., 2022). Furthermore, regarding the geographical collocation of clientele by questionnaires, Hackatao, an NFT digital artist active on OpenSea whom we interviewed, notes the following:

The statement above also suggests that the online NFT market has significantly reduced geographical barriers. In the realm of purely digital art, there is no need for the physical exchange of goods, and financial transactions can be seamlessly conducted online, often facilitated by digital payment systems or, in some cases, crypto currencies.

Aligned with their trust–provider value proposition, OpenSea’s activities also encompass monitoring market participants’ behavior and intervening when misconduct occurs. For instance, insights from the Finzer interview by Ehrlich (2021) reveal the following:

The quote above highlights both a key aspect of OpenSea’s BM, essential for building and maintaining trust and a characteristic of decentralization. Unlike traditional intermediaries that require all items to undergo a prescreening process, OpenSea allows users to freely publish their items. However, in cases of claim, OpenSea reviews and takes action accordingly. This approach mirrors decentralized systems, where users have the freedom to act independently, but a regulatory mechanism – akin to a police force – is necessary to mitigate misconduct. In this role, OpenSea not only facilitates transactions but also ensures platform integrity through its moderation efforts. As all activities between OpenSea’s customers occur through its website, it can be argued that the website serves as a key resource of OpenSea’s BM. The launch of OpenSea’s mobile application in 2021 underscored the website’s distinctiveness. Notably, this application does not provide a direct means through which to purchase NFTs, thereby preserving the website’s status as the sole channel through which transactions may be conducted on the OpenSea platform:

This decision may be based on two key factors (Campbell, 2021). First, app market owners such as Apple and Google impose a commission of 30%, which represents a significant cost. Second, it is not feasible to accept payments in the form of cryptocurrencies for in-app purchases. In the analysis of OpenSea’s BM, this highlights the critical role of its website platform as the sole channel through which sales occur. It also underscores the challenges of integrating intermediaries, such as Google and Apple, into this ecosystem. While a 30% commission may be sustainable in environments where intermediaries play a key role in commercialization, the same commission may not align with OpenSea’s BM, which primarily functions as a marketplace that provides a space for users to trade, rather than actively facilitating sales.

In terms of the revenue stream in interviews at Forbes (Ehrlich, 2021), Finzer, an OpenSea founder, stated the following:

The primary revenue source of OpenSea is fees, as the company charges a transaction fee of 2.5% on each sale, which represents its main revenue stream.

In terms of cost structure, the OpenSea BM requires investment in acquiring the technological expertise and resources necessary to build, update and maintain the platform, ensuring its functionality.

Overall, the OpenSea BM is characterized as serving many customer segments and as a streamlined revenue model that leverages fees as the primary revenue stream. Through an intuitive website interface, OpenSea has established a reliable and trustworthy platform for NFT exchange, positioning itself as a leading player in this emerging market.

In May 2021, Uffizi Gallery in Florence, Italy, sold a digital version of the Tondo Doni by Michelangelo for €140,000 (Artnet News, 2021). Soon after, in September 2021, the State Hermitage Museum sold a collection of five masterpieces minted as NFTs, collecting more than $440,000 (Partz, 2021). Moreover, the British Museum announced its involvement, with more than 200 Hokusai NFT artworks being put up for auction (Khomami, 2022). The museum sector represents a case of an existing traditional (and mostly nondigital) BM that integrates NFTs into its operations. To investigate the impact of NFTs on museum BMs, we choose to focus on the case of Uffizi Gallery, which was one of the first museums to embrace this new technology. Although the product adopted by Uffizi is not technically an NFT, as will become clear later, we have not excluded this case for several reasons. First, the case has been widely reported as an NFT by the press and general media, making it an NFT case in the eyes of the public and media. This situation highlights a possible generalization between the technical definition of an NFT and its broader understanding among the general public. Second, while NFTs are based on blockchain technology and Uffizi’s digital artworks (DAWs) operate on a centralized system, both serve the same purpose – enabling uniqueness, authenticity and ownership in the digital realm.

The primary product that emerged as an NFT was the sale of digital copies of the masterpiece Tondo Doni, which fetched 140 thousand euros in May 2021, attracting significant attention as a digital artwork sold as an NFT. However, despite this popular perception, the digital copies offered by Cinello, the main partner of Uffizi Gallery for this initiative, are not technically NFTs. During a parliamentary hearing (Camera dei Deputati, 2022), Alessandro Cavallini of Cinello clarified the following:

Despite the distinctions between DAWs and NFTs, both of them remain comparable within the scope of this study. While their technical definitions may set them apart, from an economic perspective, both function as technological artifacts capable of shaping interactions (Crilly, 2010). This study examines DAWs and NFTs as tools that influence BMs, particularly in their role in creating digital scarcity and establishing proof of ownership for digital items. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, the Uffizi case set a precedent, prompting other museums to explore NFT opportunities and consider their potential in the art and cultural heritage sectors. Drawing on a comparison with Li and Chen's (2023) proposition regarding NFT value, we note that the case of Uffizi Gallery exemplifies the creation of products and services with novel digital attributes aimed at enhancing product distinctiveness and innovation. While the sale of authenticated copies existed before the integration of NFTs, the transition to a digital format was spurred by the newfound potential to ensure uniqueness in these digital reproductions.

Regarding the customer segment interested in this piece, during an interview, Giacomo Nicolella, Head of Communication at Cinello, stated the following:

While this customer segment is not entirely novel within the broader art world, its significance within the museum sector is noteworthy. Traditionally, museum visitors are primarily tourists, but with the introduction of digital copies of artworks, museums have also attracted customers from the auction house realm. This shift can be seen as a form of disintermediation, aligning with the ability of digital artists to directly sell their work to the public. Similarly, museums can now certify copies of their artwork and bypass traditional auction houses, thereby eliminating an intermediary. This dynamic closely mirrors what is observed in the OpenSea case, where digital artists obtain direct access to their audience, bypassing the intermediation of galleries. Additionally, this disintermediation is shown in the financial dynamics of secondary resale fees, which allow museums and artists to continue earning a share of proceeds from resales, whereas, previously, their revenue was limited to the initial sale.

The emerging trend of selling NFTs not only presents museums with opportunities for alternative revenue streams but also entails legal risks concerning image licensing and copyright, potentially posing obstacles, particularly for state museums facing bureaucratic challenges (Valeonti et al., 2021; Batycka, 2022). While it may appear novel for museums to create and sell digital copies of their artworks, the director of Uffizi Gallery, during a parliamentary hearing, linked these activities to preexisting activities as follows:

As indicated in the quote above, the innovation introduced by DAWs stems not from the licensing activity itself but from the digital channel that enhances the accessibility of this process, accelerating its digitalization and eliminating physical barriers. Furthermore, what stands out as innovative in managing this activity is the pivotal role played by technological partners. In the case of Uffizi Gallery, for instance, Cinello, a company that has built its business on museum partnerships, serves as an exemplary model:

Cinello has structured its BM around providing services that expand the traditional activities of museums, positioning itself as a strategic partner for these institutions. With this new activity, museums not only need to acquire technological expertise but also should navigate a relationship with collectors.

Concerning the financial aspects of the Uffizi Gallery BM, the adoption of NFTs has helped the gallery alleviate the adverse economic impacts of tourism lockdowns on art-based businesses (Kober and Thambar, 2021; Manetti et al., 2023) while also offering long-term opportunities for additional revenue streams and monetization:

The Uffizi’s director’s comment highlights that, in the case of museums, NFTs will not disrupt the existing BM but expand it by introducing a new revenue stream. NFTs may also represent an additional revenue stream for museums regarding the resale of tickets in secondary markets, as suggested by the Uffizi Gallery director during the parliamentary hearing:

The proposed use of smart contracts to regulate the resale of museum access tickets presents an opportunity for further disintermediation, reducing the role of ticket scalpers, akin to similar initiatives proposed in the ticketing industry (Howell, 2022).

Overall, NFTs offer museums significant promise as a novel source of additional revenue streams without replacing primary revenue streams. With respect to costs, there are no significant considerations, as the introduction of NFTs is viewed as an opportunity to increase net profit. While profit-sharing programs with technological partners can be considered costs, as demonstrated in the case of Uffizi Gallery, they often result in a net positive effect through the generation of new revenue streams.

Ticketmaster, which merged with Live Nation in 2010, is one of the main actors in the ticketing market. Ticketmaster and Live Nation have already ventured into the NFT business. In October 2021, the two companies launched Live Stubs, aimed at transforming traditional tickets into unique digital assets. In November 2021, the National Football League (NFL) announced that in partnership with Ticketmaster, it would provide virtual commemorative tickets to fans for select NFL games (Smith, 2021), including Super Bowl LVI. In August 2022, Ticketmaster gained a new capability, its ability to issue digital collectible NFTs to fans, and in March 2023, the company launched token-gated sales, enabling artists to reward fans with prioritized ticket access and concert experiences through NFTs.

As shown by Klein (2010) and Schneiderman (2016), there are many predatory practices in ticket selling and distribution. Given their decentralized nature, the value proposition of NFTs may address market issues by increasing transparency and reducing the number of opportunities for predatory and anticompetitive practices. For example, NFTs could include restrictions on the number of times a ticket can be resold or, more critically, impose a cap on the maximum resale price (Howell, 2022). However, as Howell (2022, p. 17) notes:

Despite the theoretical value proposition mentioned above, our case reveals a different scenario. For Ticketmaster and Live Nation, the primary value proposition in introducing NFTs does not appear to focus on altering market behavior or decentralizing their BM. Instead, it is centered on offering additional collectible items to customers:

As stated in the quote above, NFTs have been used in the ticketing industry to digitize ticket collection, transforming tickets into lasting memorabilia of attended events while also strengthening the connection between artists and their fans beyond the events themselves.

NFTs in the realm of ticketing are believed to cater to the same audience that has already participated in such events. Notably, the aforementioned objectives aim primarily at enhancing the market rather than at broadening or captivating a new consumer base. Specifically, in the context of Ticketmaster’s employment of NFTs, it serves as a mechanism through which to increase the level of customer engagement. NFTs serve as instruments to reinforce customer loyalty and foster a stronger relationship between event organizers and their audience, not only during to access and attend events but also through the entire fan journey, which now includes the landscape of digital collectibles:

The statement above suggests that the digitalization of tickets as proof of participation and collectibles with value beyond the event itself creates opportunities for a secondary market where these digital assets can be traded independently of the event. This shift has the potential to bypass traditional event organizers, further driving decentralization within the ticketing industry. Indeed, while event organizers retain control over the venue and the right to attend the event, they may have little to no authority over what happens outside of it, particularly regarding the exchange of digital collectibles, which do not require physical transactions within the event space. Thus, even if the customer base remains the same, the pathway from artists to fans may evolve, potentially creating a space in which event organizers play a reduced role.

The issuance of digital ticket stubs by Ticketmaster involves a series of novel activities, including the creation and minting of NFTs, as well as the development of platforms that enable customers to receive, store and exchange these digital collectibles:

From this perspective, we also observe a decentralization effect within this BM. Once a ticket is issued within a decentralized ecosystem, such as an NFT on a blockchain system, ownership control over it relies on the consensus mechanism among the network participants. Furthermore, in the ticketing industry, while the traditional focus is on managing the relationship between events and their audiences, entering the collectibles market introduces a new dynamic. Here, the audience itself engages in transactions, resulting in a multitude of actors involved in the business that need to be effectively managed.

Before the creation of NFTs, digital ticketing was already opening up opportunities for Ticketmaster to consolidate its revenue streams by shifting from a paper-based system to a digital and remote market. While NFTs serve as an additional layer within the existing digital ticketing ecosystem, rather than being the primary driver of digital ticket adoption, they provide new functionalities, including resale tracking, secondary market royalties and digital collectibles. Similar to digital artists, Ticketmaster can charge a fee for secondary resales:

According to the extract above, the Live Stubs platform does not charge any fees to the buyer. Instead, it deducts its fees from the amount paid to the seller. Notably, in this scenario, the ticketing or event-organizing entity functions solely as a marketplace, facilitating exchanges between individuals without being involved in ticket issuance or event promotion. This model represents a step toward the decentralization of the relationship between event organizers and their customers, as the transaction is securely conducted between the buyer and seller on a hosted platform, with the event organizer having no direct involvement in the deal and only charging fees to have hosted the transaction on its platform. Ticketmaster has diversified its revenue streams by launching a new marketplace that extends beyond ticket sales, offering collectible items not only before and during events but also after them. This strategy allows the company to capitalize on fans’ ongoing interest in related memorabilia. This expansion marks a significant shift from the traditional ticketing model, where Ticketmaster’s involvement typically concludes once an event has taken place.

Our research provides insights into the role of NFTs in BM innovation across various niches of the digital marketplace ecosystem, including auction houses, museums, ticketing companies and online art exchanges.

By focusing on first-mover examples within each niche, this study primarily examines organizations shaped by the speculative bubble surrounding NFTs. The NFT bubble has been driven by several key motivations (Parker, 2023). Many investors entered the NFT market with the hope of making quick profits, and the rapid increase in NFT prices attracted speculators who believed they could buy low and sell high. NFTs are designed to be unique or scarce digital assets, and this scarcity creates a sense of exclusivity and value, driving demand among collectors and investors. Additionally, NFTs provide digital ownership and the possibility of trading digital assets, such as art, music and virtual real estate, conferring social status within specific communities. The underlying blockchain technology that powers NFTs has been a significant motivator for this exclusivity, as blockchain ensures authenticity and provenance, attracting tech enthusiasts and early adopters. Finally, some buyers are motivated by the potential future utility of NFTs, including their use in virtual worlds, games or other digital platforms.

However, a combination of factors has dampened the enthusiasm for NFTs. These factors include speculation frenzy, market saturation, a lack of intrinsic value or utility, regulatory concerns about the legality and security of NFT transactions, the environmental impact related to the high energy consumption of blockchain technology and natural market correction as prices are adjusted to more realistic levels.

In addition to the bursting of the speculative bubble, our findings elucidate the transformative potential of NFTs in driving decentralization (Cai, 2018; Chen, 2018; Lee, 2019; Pereira et al., 2019) and digitalization (Kohtamäki et al., 2019; Raimo et al., 2021) across diverse market niches (Bao and Roubaud, 2022). Through our case studies, we discuss the opportunities presented by NFTs for innovating traditional BMs (as in the case of Christie’s, Uffizi Gallery and Ticketmaster) and for creating new BMs from the ground up (OpenSea).

Table 4 provides a comprehensive summary of the key findings across different cases and pillars, offering valuable insights for a brief cross-case analysis. In Pillar 1 – Product, the innovation driven by NFTs in BMs focuses primarily on the digital landscape. NFTs enable the creation of value by introducing unique characteristics to digital items, transforming them into marketable, excludable goods (Adams and McCormick, 1987). For Pillar 2 – Customer Interface, NFTs can attract a new and younger clientele, as observed in the cases of Christie’s and OpenSea, or they can offer new products to an existing customer base, as seen with Uffizi and Ticketmaster. In Pillar 3 – Infrastructure Management, the adoption of NFTs necessitates a robust digital platform or channel, creating opportunities for new partnerships. Businesses may either seek technological partners to gain the required expertise or establish themselves as the technological partners, thus evolving or creating their BMs. Finally, Pillar 4 – Financial Aspects highlights that the introduction of NFTs is viewed as a chance to diversify and create new revenue streams. The costs for existing BMs are often tied to profit-sharing arrangements with technological partners, whereas for technological partners, the main expenses involve platform development and ongoing maintenance.

Building on our key findings summarized above, Figure 1 highlights the potential impact of NFTs on the decentralization and digitalization of the four foundational pillars of the BMs in our case studies – product, customer interface, infrastructure management and financial aspects. Furthermore, in  Appendix 2, we outline the transactional workflow for each case study, highlighting that once an NFT is created, the overall process remains fairly consistent across cases. Specifically, the NFT is minted within a blockchain ecosystem, and NFT exchange platforms facilitate the completion of digital sales, contributing to the broader digitalization of BMs.

In the context of existing BMs, NFTs present opportunities for decentralization. For instance, at Uffizi Gallery, NFTs enable the direct sale of digital copies of artworks, bypassing intermediaries such as auction houses. This direct interaction allows museums to cater directly to art collectors. In the case of Ticketmaster, NFTs serve as tools to increase customer engagement by offering digital collectibles and to generate additional revenue streams through the management of these markets. For Christie’s, NFTs represent an opportunity to establish a new channel for auctions, potentially enabling entirely digital auction processes.

NFTs have also contributed to digitalization, understood as the exploitation of digital opportunities (Rachinger et al., 2019). Digitalization not only impacts organization BMs but also necessitates the alignment of BMs across the broader ecosystem (Kohtamäki et al., 2019). In our cases, digitalization is observed in both ways – first, as a new product in the form of digital art or collectibles, which previously lacked value because of the inability to establish ownership of images given their ease of replication, and second, as a new delivery method via digital channels required to distribute these products. The ecosystem has also been influenced, as the expertise required to manage these digital channels has created opportunities for partnerships with technology firms capable of supporting this transition.

The analysis of both new (OpenSea) and existing BMs (Christie’s, Uffizi and Ticketmaster) also offers insight into their potential complementarity. Integrating NFTs into an existing BM highlights the need to acquire technological capabilities, thereby creating demand for key technological partners (such as Cinello in the case of Uffizi Gallery). Conversely, OpenSea’s BM revolves around a user-friendly platform offering tools to facilitate the creation and exchange of NFTs, and it may be seen as a technological partner in the NFT ecosystem.

Integrating NFTs into BMs requires technological support, a need that can be addressed by new BMs specializing in providing such services. The analysis of the impact of NFTs on BMs contributes to both the accounting (Ram et al., 2016; Procházka, 2018; Morozova et al., 2020; Ramassa and Leoni, 2022; Bellucci et al., 2022) and finance literature (Bao and Roubaud, 2022; Nobanee and Ellili, 2023) by providing empirical evidence on the influence of blockchain technology on BMs and enhancing our understanding of the NFT phenomenon.

In terms of practical implications, our study provides empirical insights to support the ongoing discussion of the below three topics.

First, NFTs create opportunities for new revenue streams and customer interfaces, particularly in the case of existing BMs (Chalmers et al., 2022). However, the sustainability of these revenue streams remains uncertain, as they are often influenced by speculative behavior and market volatility. The risk of overestimating their potential because of short-term hype needs to be carefully considered.

Second, NFTs have the potential to facilitate decentralization within existing BMs (Vergne, 2020; Wang et al., 2019; Saurabh et al., 2022). NFTs have replaced traditional gatekeepers with new digital entities, enabling more direct relationships between digital content creators and their buyers. NFTs also offer opportunities for technological partners to establish new BMs rooted in the NFT landscape. Nevertheless, decentralization is not without challenges, such as governance issues, technical scalability and uncertainty, which may hinder its broader adoption (Li and Chen, 2023).

Third, NFTs provide a secure and transparent mechanism for verifying the ownership and authenticity of digital assets. This is particularly relevant in industries such as digital art, where provenance and authenticity are critical (Wilson et al., 2021; Raimo et al., 2021). However, concerns regarding environmental impact, technological access and the potential for market manipulation (e.g. wash trading) highlight the need for a cautious approach to their adoption.

Our exploratory findings pave the way for future research endeavors. Blockchain technologies raise ethical and environmental concerns (Calandra et al., 2023; Parmentola et al., 2022), especially regarding the energy consumption associated with proof-of-work blockchain technologies (Niya et al., 2019; Rafati et al., 2019). However, while proof-of-work blockchains have historically consumed significant energy, many major blockchains supporting NFTs, including Ethereum, have transitioned to proof-of-stake (PoS), greatly reducing their carbon footprint. Therefore, the concern regarding the environmental impact of NFTs because of the high energy consumption of blockchain technology is now addressed, as numerous NFT blockchains (e.g. Solana, Tezos, Polygon and Flow) are already based on PoS and are energy efficient. For example, Ethereum, which facilitates the majority of NFT transactions, transitioned from proof-of-work to PoS in September 2022, cutting its energy consumption by 99.98% (Kapengut and Mizrach, 2023). Further studies could focus on how the transition to PoS may facilitate the adoption of blockchain technologies. Moreover, the decentralization and disintermediation inherent in NFT BMs warrant further exploration, particularly in their relationship with DAOs and peer-to-peer platforms.

Radical changes in BMs because of digitalization have significant implications for accounting and finance. The accounting of NFTs involves complex considerations, such as performance obligations, transaction prices, intellectual property licenses and principal–agent problems. NFTs may only grant a license to the underlying intellectual property rather than ownership. When intermediaries are involved, determining which party controls the NFT before transfer affects revenue recognition (Deloitte, 2022). Different organizations report values differently, leading to inconsistencies in financial reporting. As NFTs are not physical goods, determining fair value and the point of transfer is challenging and crucial for revenue recognition (Deloitte, 2022; Pandey and Gilmour, 2024).

Digitalization enhances the transparency and traceability of financial transactions, facilitating compliance with regulations and reducing fraud risk. It also leads to new BMs, such as NFTs, that require innovative accounting approaches. The rise of NFTs presents valuation challenges because of their unique nature and market volatility, necessitating clear regulatory frameworks for accounting and taxation. NFTs open up new investment opportunities in digital art, collectibles and virtual real estate, attracting investors seeking portfolio diversification. However, the illiquidity of NFTs poses a concern, affecting financial stability. Monitoring fraud and security risks is essential to maintain investor confidence and market integrity.

All these implications for accounting and finance require continuous adaptation and constant training for professionals in the sector to make the most of the opportunities offered by digitalization.

This study is not without limitations and provides space for further investigation. First, we resort to written asynchronous online interviews (with organizations’ representatives or their main partners) when organizations’ representatives are unavailable for a live interview. The questions are the same as those we would have asked in the interviews, but synchronous semistructured interviews would have allowed for more flexibility and depth. Second, although our research is based on four major case studies in four niches of the digital marketplace ecosystem that have been impacted by the introduction of NFTs, future research could continue to explore the impact of NFTs in other industries (e.g. utilities, real estate, value chains and certifications) and identify their real potential in terms of BM innovations. Given the functional similarities among the case studies, the findings of this study may not be directly applicable to other industries.

Third, this work does not address the distinction between owning an NFT and having control over the associated digital asset. The ownership of an NFT typically conveys rights to the token itself but not necessarily to the underlying asset’s usage, reproduction or licensing rights. This gap invites further research into how such distinctions affect legal, commercial and operational dynamics, particularly for stakeholders leveraging NFTs in BMs and partnerships.

The authors wish to thank Warren Maroun and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive suggestions, which strengthened our contribution. They are also thankful to the research unit BABEL (Blockchains and Artificial Intelligence for Business, Economics and Law) for the expert insights into the complex topic of blockchain technology.

1. What makes Christie’s 3.0 business model (BM) innovative? What role does blockchain play in this context?

2. What role do nonfungible tokens (NFTs) play in Christie’s 3.0 BM?

3. Regarding their value proposition, why do people buy NFTs?

4. Who are Christie’s key partners in dealing with NFTs? Why?

5. What is the main difference between Christie’s previous experience and its experience with NFTs?

6. What services will Christie 3.0 provide, and what will its revenue streams be?

7. In terms of the customer segment, what kind of people buy NFTs (age, interest, and geographical collocation)? What is the aim of Christie's 3.0?

8. What makes a platform for NFT exchanges better than other types of platforms?

9. What risks are associated with NFTs, and how are they managed?

10. What role does decentralization play in the NFT market? Could NFTs exist without decentralization?

11. What about the future? Will NFTs replace physical art markets?

12. What will be the future evolution of blockchain and NFTs in auction house BMs?

1. What makes your BM so innovative? What role does blockchain play in this process?

2. What are your main revenue streams?

3. Regarding their value proposition, why do people buy NFTs?

4. Regarding your value proposition, why should people buy NFTs from you and not from others?

5. Regarding the customer segment, why did you choose not to specialize in a market niche such as games or artworks?

6. In terms of the customer segment, what kinds of people buy NFTs (age, interest, and geographical collocation)? What kind(s) are more profitable for you?

7. How important is your website for your business? Could it be considered a key resource for your business? What are the most critical factors that make your website so important?

8. You have recently launched a new mobile app. Why is it not possible to buy NFTs directly through that app? Are you planning to add this functionality?

9. Have you ever thought about investing in a physical market? Do you see your future only in the digital world? What are your strategies for physical and digital markets?

10. What will be the future evolution of your BM? What about NFT exchanges in general?

1. What are the BM implications of introducing NFTs into the museum and art gallery sector?

2. What are the main risks regarding this technology that you have identified? Is the devaluation of key assets such as owned artistic heritage one such risk?

3. In assessing the risks and opportunities of NFTs, have you partnered with technology companies?

4. As an alternative to NFTs, what are the possible ways for museums and art galleries to compete in the digital age and in the metaverse?

5. Could NFTs be considered a way to attract different audience segments, such as millennials? Does foregoing NFTs mean choosing to forgo their attractiveness to these customer segments?

6. From your analysis, with the introduction of NFTs, what new revenues and new costs will emerge?

7. Cinello, the technological partner of Uffizi Gallery, claims that it does not create NFTs but, rather, creates DAWs, which are centralized ownership certificates. How do you interpret this difference?

1. What are the consequences in terms of BMs brought by the introduction of NFTs into the ticketing sector?

2. What is the role of NFTs in ticketing? Do you predict that in the future, tickets will be issued as NFTs, or will NFTs represent a collectible accessory to be paired with traditional tickets?

3. Why would or should a Ticketmaster customer desire an NFT?

4. What is the role of Ticketmaster in a decentralized ticketing system with NFTs?

5. How could NFTs increase transparency in the ticketing sector? Are they suitable tools for preventing ticket scalping?

6. Have new partners (for example, technology companies) emerged in the management of NFTs for Ticketmaster?

7. In some sectors, such as the art industry, NFTs are proposed as tools that allow for the transition to digital channels. What effects do NFTs have on the digitization process in ticketing?

8. What are the new revenues and costs that emerge for Ticketmaster from the introduction of NFTs?

9. In terms of customer relations, what does the introduction of NFTs entail?

10. What kind of assistance does Ticketmaster offer its customers for managing NFTs?

The steps highlighted in light orange represent the one-time actions required to initiate the process, while the blue-colored steps are also involved in the secondary resale process.

Figure A1