SHEDDING LIGHT ON THE BLOCKCHAIN

DISINTERMEDIATION MYSTERY:
A REVIEW AND FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA

Research Paper

Simon Feulner, Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences, Frankfurt am Main, Germany,

Project Group Business & Information Systems Engineering of the Fraunhofer FIT,
Bayreuth, Germany, simon.feulner@fit.fraunhofer.de
Tobias Guggenberger, FIM Research Center, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Bavaria,
Germany, Project Group Business & Information Systems Engineering of the Fraunhofer
FIT, Bayreuth, Germany, tobias.guggenberger@fit.fraunhofer.de
Jens-Christian Stoetzer, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany, Project Group Business
& Information Systems Engineering of the Fraunhofer FIT, Bayreuth, Germany,
jens.stoetzer@fim-rc.de
Nils Urbach, Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences, Frankfurt, Germany, Project Group
Business & Information Systems Engineering of the Fraunhofer FIT, Bayreuth, Germany,
nils.urbach@fit.fraunhofer.de

Abstract
Blockchain technology has been in the interest of IS researchers and practitioners for several years. One
key reason for this curiosity is the possibility to carry out peer-to-peer transactions without a trusted
intermediary. Building upon this capability, many researchers posited that blockchain technology would
remove traditional intermediaries from their market position. This process has been described in
electronic markets literature as Disintermediation. However, other researchers proposed a more distinct
perspective by proposing that blockchain technology will not facilitate Disintermediation in all settings.
Thus, no unified view on this topic exists yet. Our literature review identifies three dominating concepts
in blockchain literature: Extensive Disintermediation, Limited Disintermediation, and Re-
Intermediation. We further highlight in our findings that most of the identified literature does not
consider all market functions as described in the electronic markets literature. Hence, we provide a
structured overview of the field and possibilities for future research.
Keywords: Intermediation, Electronic Markets, Blockchain, Research Agenda; Literature Review.

1 Introduction
Blockchains are at the center of the academic (Chong et al., 2019) and public discourse (Gartner, 2021)
regarding the impact of emerging technologies on society, businesses, and individuals. Since the first
publication on blockchain in 2008 (Nakamoto, 2008), researchers and practitioners have highlighted the
disruptive potential of the technology for business models and industries (Beck et al., 2018). By the
decentralized design of blockchain technology, participants facilitate transactions directly without a
trusted third party. Thus, many blockchain use cases consider the removal of intermediaries as a key
aspect of this technology (Chalmers et al., 2021).

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timișoara, Romania 1

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

Intermediation is the "[…] bridging of incompatibilities between two (market) sides involved in a
transaction" (Wigand, 2020, p. 39). Building on established definitions, we define intermediaries as third
parties that provide services for market participants through the administration and execution of
transactions (Datta and Chatterjee, 2008; Bhargava et al., 2000; Grover and Teng, 2001). Following the
widely adopted transaction-cost-focused view (Coase, 1937), intermediaries fulfill the role of carrying
out transactions by reducing the cost of the transaction between two sides, compared to a situation
without any intermediary. With the introduction of electronic markets, companies sought the
opportunity to further reduce the cost of transactions by removing intermediaries in the value chain. This
process is called Disintermediation and directly connects two (market) sides (Wigand, 2015).
Subsequently, this process has the potential to disrupt established market structures (Gomber et al.,
2018). Even though the widespread assumption in literature posited that through the evolvement of
electronic markets, the majority of intermediaries would be removed entirely from the value chain
(Malone et al., 1987), many intermediaries found possibilities to reposition themselves in value chains
(e.g., through the provision of value-added services) (Giaglis et al., 2002).
Research on the how, what, and why of intermediation concerning blockchain technology is highly
fragmented. While many researchers over the years posit that Disintermediation is a key characteristic
of blockchain technology (Chalmers et al., 2021; Pereira et al., 2019; Werner et al., 2020), some
researchers take a different view by proposing that organizations might adopt the technology to derive
novel business models for themselves (Chong et al., 2019). Hence, there is no unified understanding of
how intermediaries are affected by blockchain technology and no overview of different research streams
in this field. Addressing this research gap helps companies identify the possible effects of blockchain
technology on their business models, in particular, as well as the impact on market structures. Rossi et
al. (2019) and Lumineau et al. (2021) also highlight the need to further investigate how blockchain
technology will impact institutional intermediaries in their traditional responsibilities within markets
and possible future business strategies. To answer these calls for future research, we aim to provide a
comprehensive overview of how literature conceptualizes intermediation in blockchain systems. We,
therefore, state the following research question:
Which concepts and paths for future research for intermediation within blockchain systems exist?
To answer our research question, we carry out a structured literature review. A review of the state of
literature is highly recommended when investigating how a research field is structured (Webster and
Watson, 2002). By applying a systematic approach that incorporates a defined protocol, we ensure the
accuracy and validity of our findings. We, therefore, adopt the methodological guidelines of Webster
and Watson (2002).
Our findings provide a structured overview of the research field by identifying different research streams
that stem from conceptual as well as real-world studies. We define those research streams into three key
concepts. Afterward, we compare those concepts with literature from electronic markets research to
provide further insights for academia and practice. Lastly, we derive a framework that serves as guidance
for future research by following Alvesson and Sandberg (2011).
The structure of the paper is as follows. First, we provide the theoretical background on blockchain
technology and intermediation theory in Section 2. In Section 3, we describe our research method for
carrying out our structured literature review. Next, Section 4 presents our identified publications as well
as the current state of research. Section 5 discusses our findings from theoretical and managerial
perspectives and presents our research agenda. Finally, we present a conclusion to our research in
Section 6 and outline the limitations.

2 Foundations

2.1 Blockchain technology

In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto introduced the first blockchain to the public with the cryptocurrency Bitcoin
(Nakamoto, 2008). In the following years, different organizations developed a subset of technologies

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 2

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

that follow the same or similar principles as the Bitcoin blockchain (so-called distributed ledger
technologies). We follow the terminology of blockchain technology which incorporates all technologies
that build on the following principles (Chanson et al., 2019): From a technical perspective, blockchain
technology is a retroactively tamper-resistant distributed ledger. In contrast to centralized ledgers, the
data is stored separately by each participant in the network of connected computers. To ensure the
validity of the data, consensus mechanisms are in place. These mechanisms ensure that all participants
agree on the rightfulness of new data in the ledger before adding it to the network (Andersen and Bogusz,
2019). Thereby, blockchain technology was originally proposed to remove central intermediaries
(Nakamoto, 2008). Building on this idea, various applications that incorporate different technological
requirements have since been proposed (Lumineau et al., 2021). Therefore, developers introduced
various technologies that enhance the technical design of the original Bitcoin blockchain and now
include the support of arbitrary logic (e.g., Ethereum), upgraded privacy features (e.g., Zcash), or
address the specific needs of corporations (e.g., Hyperledger) (Guggenberger et al., 2021a). The most
common classification for blockchain technology builds upon the right to validate new data on the ledger
(permissioned/permissionless) and the possibility to access and write data (public/private) (Beck et al.,
2018). As noted by Bakos et al. (2021), this decision fundamentally influences the degree of
decentralization and, thus, the possibility to remove institutional intermediaries.
Even though blockchain technology has its origin in the peer-to-peer cryptocurrency network Bitcoin,
developers invented applications across industries. The most prominent use cases are supply chain
management, decentralized identity management, logistics, energy, and mobility (Chong et al., 2019).
Many companies started investing in blockchain technology to gain competitive advantages in the
market. Surprisingly, in contrast to the widespread public attention, the number of productive blockchain
use cases remains low (Rossi et al., 2019; Guggenberger et al., 2021b), and the impact on businesses is
not always as disruptive as originally proposed (Fridgen et al., 2021). Further, blockchain technology is
still in an early stage of technological development and maturity. Research and practice still need to
address various challenges to bring the technology to its full potential (Rossi et al., 2019). These
challenges include the scalability and privacy of DLT. However, more recent achievements in the field
of applied cryptography might lower the barriers for productive systems soon (Guggenberger et al.,
2021a).
Due to the technological properties, many researchers suggested that blockchains will disrupt business
models and industries (Gomber et al., 2018). Since blockchain technology enables peer-to-peer
transactions without a central trust-building institution, researchers proposed that blockchain technology
allows for Disintermediation (Chalmers et al., 2021; Pereira et al., 2019; Schlecht et al., 2020). This
assumption builds on the capability to facilitate transactions between two participants without requiring
a central entity that protects all participants against malicious behavior. Even though this perspective
became prominent within the information systems (IS) community, some researchers propose a more
distinct view on the Disintermediation capabilities of blockchain technology (Chong et al., 2019). One
example for the promises of Disintermediation through the distributed facilitation of transactions is
Decentralized Finance (DeFi). DeFi promises to establish a new financial system that does not rely on
banks or insurances and, thus, aims to remove institutional intermediaries from the financial system
(Chen and Bellavitis, 2020).

2.2 Intermediation theory

The first theories on market intermediation date back to the roots of economics research (Coase, 1937).
Since then, the introduction of different technologies enabled new possibilities and, thus, led to
fundamental changes. With the introduction of electronic commerce to the wider public, electronic
markets emerged and received widespread attention from scholars. Academic literature on the – now
electronic – interaction between buyers and sellers to facilitate transactions in markets developed in the
1990s (Chircu and Kauffman, 1999). To understand the role of intermediaries in electronic markets, it
is crucial to consider the functions of markets. Bakos (1998) summarizes the market mechanisms
(whether electronic or not) to the following three primary functions: matching of buyers and sellers,

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 3

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

facilitation of transactions, and institutional infrastructure. Each primary function consists of several
subfunctions, which are depicted in Table 1.
Primary market
Subfunction Influence of electronic markets
function

Determination of
 Customization, Aggregation, and Disaggregation
product offerings
Matching buyers and
sellers Searching  Reduction of search costs

Price discovery  Easier access to information

Logistics  Cost reduction

Facilitation of
transactions
Settlement  Automation & cost reduction

Trust  Increasing importance

Legal
Institutional
 Increasing relevance of authentication and guarantees
infrastructure
Regulatory

Table 1. Market functions (own depiction, based on Bakos (1998) and Giaglis et al. (2002)).
In the following, we discuss the impact of electronic markets on the function of intermediaries based on
the work of Giaglis et al. (2002). This approach allows us to understand how electronic markets work
and which impact blockchain technology might have on the respective market functions.
The following aspects affect the market function of matching buyers and sellers. Three major
developments influence product offerings in electronic markets: (1) enhanced possibilities regarding
customization of particularly digital products and services, (2) the aggregation and disaggregation of
products to create new product bundles, and (3) the reduction of costs for demand aggregation which
subsequently leads to cheaper products (Giaglis et al., 2002). As electronic markets drastically reduce
searching costs, many researchers expected the searching function to become obsolete as buyers and
sellers interact directly. However, the vast majority of information within (international) electronic
markets cannot be processed by a market participant. This challenge led to the emergence of new roles
for intermediaries to aggregate and consolidate market information. Even though price discovery
mechanisms profit from easier access to information, price discovery in electronic markets does not
substantially differ from analog markets. Still, electronic markets formed new possibilities for
intermediaries to provide formerly non-electronic price discoveries in the electronic market (e.g.,
electronic auctions) (Klein, 1997). Those mechanisms profit from the easier access to information.
Further, the facilitation of transactions is affected through the following influences. As with other
functions, logistics are driven by a reduction of transaction costs. The direct exchange of orders between
buyers and sellers pressures wholesalers but at the same time provides opportunities for specialized
intermediaries like logistic companies. The widespread adoption of electronic systems provides
numerous possibilities to automate payment transactions and, at the same time, reduce costs drastically.
Namely, most previous analog services have been moved by traditional intermediaries to the electronic
market, for example, application processes (Kleider et al., 2021). Nonetheless, also new specialized
intermediaries emerged that provide a whole range of new services to customers (MacCarthy, 2010).
Finally, electronic markets also affect the institutional infrastructures. The provision of trust in electronic
markets, thus, the protection against the leverage of information asymmetries, has attracted various
research (Fuller et al., 2007). Giaglis et al. (2002) posit that trust in electronic markets becomes more
relevant than in analog markets. Henceforth, intermediaries can adopt new roles in the market by
leveraging new technological or institutional safeguards to protect market participants from malicious
behavior (Datta and Chatterjee, 2008). Those safeguards include, for example, refund guarantees like

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 4

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

the PayPal buyer and seller protection. Intermediaries, in most cases, have provided legal or regulatory
boundaries in markets. This function receives even higher importance in electronic markets, where the
relevance of authentication systems and guarantees increases.
Following the assessment of the subfunctions, early research underpinned the hypothesis of a threat of
Disintermediation for traditional intermediaries (Chircu and Kauffman, 1999) as electronic markets
decrease transactions costs (Malone et al., 1987). Disintermediation describes the removal of established
intermediaries from the market process. This scenario can be explained through a decline in transaction
costs to a level where a market clears itself (Giaglis et al., 2002) or the extrusion through the technologies
(Chircu and Kauffman, 1999). Nonetheless, later research proposes two future scenarios, aside from
Disintermediation, on how intermediaries are affected by electronic markets: Re-Intermediation and
Cybermediation. (Sarkar et al., 1998; Chircu and Kauffman, 1999; Giaglis et al., 2002).
Re-Intermediation occurs when an institutional intermediary finds a new position or function in the
market. Examples of such behavior are further market differentiation (e.g., providing value-added
services) or concentrating on a market niche. One example of Re-Intermediation is the e-commerce
retailer Amazon. While Amazon initially took over the retail process for many producers, the cost of
setting up and running individual e-commerce solutions declined over the last years. Thus, many
producers started to set up their own e-commerce while still using Amazon Web Services for their cloud
infrastructure. Electronic markets literature further describes the facilitation of market transactions by
solely electronic intermediaries. Therefore, scholars proposed the term Cybermediation (Giaglis et al.,
2002). These intermediaries account for electronic systems that administer the infrastructure and
intermediation process in electronic markets (e.g., the provision of trust) (Sarkar et al., 1998, 1995).
Chircu and Kauffman (1999) and Giaglis et al. (2002) highlight that no uniform outcome of electronic
market scenarios exists. Instead, each market shows its own consolidation of scenarios between
Disintermediation, Re-Intermediation, and Cybermediation. However, through the evolving
development in digitalization, the boundaries between traditional and electronic markets vanish
(Rahmati et al., 2021). Some scholars even posit that electronic markets create and shape the physical
world (Baskerville et al., 2020). With this digital-first paradigm, the distinction between organizations
acting as analog or electronic intermediaries and the distinction between Cybermediation and other
scenarios becomes obsolete. Subsequently, we refer to the organization that fulfills market functions as
institutional intermediaries, regardless of whether in the physical world or electronic markets.

3 Method
To carry out our literature review, we followed established guidelines. In our approach, we apply the
eight-step procedure as proposed by Okoli (2015). Senior scholars recommend this approach to assess
the current body of knowledge of a research field and gain a holistic insight into the existing literature
(Webster and Watson, 2002). Hence, a literature review fits our research question. By applying a
systematic approach that incorporates a well-defined and structured protocol, we ensure the accuracy
and validity of our findings. We display our procedure in Figure 1.
To get an overview of existing literature that incorporates the topic of Disintermediation, as well as
possible findings regarding Re-Intermediation and cyber-mediation, we focused on the search term
"intermedia* OR disintermedia* OR re-intermedia* OR cyber*media*" as different authors describe
different concepts of intermediation in the context of blockchain or use terms synonymously. To
systematically extract concepts in the scope of blockchain technology from the literature, we have added
the term "DLT OR blockchain OR "distributed ledger*" OR "smart contract*" to the search string. The
Boolean operator AND is used for connecting those terms. According to these considerations, the search
string aims to ensure an extensive but specific number of results. The search string was applied to the
abstract, title, and keywords. Next, we defined the inclusion criterion to English articles. We purposely
did not only search for journal articles or a specific field of science since we did not want to limit our
sample ex-ante.

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 5

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

AISeLibary Scopus webofscience

n = 492 n = 683 n = 312

Literature Identification (n = 1.488)

Removing duplicates

Literature Selection (n = 1.091)

Screening title and abstract

Literature Inclusion (n = 155)

Inclusion of relevant articles regarding concepts
of intermediation for blockchain technologies
Forward & Backward Search
n=2
Data Extraction (n = 90)

Figure 1. Methodological procedure for the structured literature review.

We followed a twofold approach for the in-depth literature search: First, we used the Web of Science
and Scopus search engines as both have a broad and interdisciplinary database. Next, we included data
from the IS domain (AISeLibary), since it is predestined as it combines the perspectives of "the natural
world, the social world, and the artificial world of human constructions" (Gregor, 2006, p. 613) and
takes into account socio-technical change (Rowe, 2018). We identified 492 articles in the Web of
Science, 683 articles in Scopus, and 312 articles in AISeL. In the next step, we removed 397 duplicates
from our sample based on the title and the digital object identifier. This led us to a sample of 1.091
contributions.
Subsequently, we first screened the titles and the abstracts of the contributions for their relevance
(exclusion criterion). To answer our research question, we incorporated articles with a focus on
disruption through blockchain technology (e.g., business model perspective), articles with Design
Science Research approaches (e.g., application-focused), and articles with (multiple) case studies. Here,
we excluded 935 articles from our sample, which resulted in a remaining sample of 155 articles for full-
text analysis. In this step, we further refined our sample by excluding 65 articles that did not contribute
to the stated research objectives. Finally, we conducted a forward and backward search to identify
relevant articles that we missed. Our final sample consists of 90 articles that we consider in our in-depth
analysis.

4 Findings
In the following, we present our descriptive and our qualitative analysis of our final article sample.

4.1 Descriptive analysis

While the first identified article was published in 2016, we observe an increase in interest in the topic
over the following years until the year 2019. For the year 2020, we identified fewer articles. Figure 2
provides an overview of all articles sorted by their publication year. While 64 articles were published in

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 6

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

scientific journals, 25 articles were presented in conference proceedings. Thereby, two of the leading
conferences of the Association of Information Systems (AIS), the European Conference on Information
Systems (ECIS), and the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) each provide
four articles for our review. We also find articles in leading journals like the IEEE Access (n=4),
Business & Information Systems Engineering (n=3), MIS Quarterly Executive (n=2), and the Journal of
the AIS (n=2). Thus, although we did not define an ex-ante focus on the IS and computer science domain,
nearly all articles can be classified there.
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Figure 2. Overview of article publication years.

We further analyzed the identified articles by their research method (Gregor, 2006) and the industry
field (Chiasson and Davidson, 2005). Here, we observe a focus on Design Science Research (n=26) and
conceptual papers (n=24). Considering the still rather early stage in the technological development of
blockchain technology, it is not surprising that most articles take an explorative approach by designing
new applications through these methods. The industry classification shows a focus on established use
cases of blockchain technology in finance (n=10), logistics (n=9), and energy (n=9). Nonetheless, the
largest group of articles are not classified to a specific industry (n=23) and, thus, consider blockchain
technology in general.

4.2 Conceptual analysis

In the following, we analyzed the articles from a conceptual perspective by evaluating which concepts
of intermediation were proposed by the authors. Thereby, we found three different concepts: Extensive
Disintermediation, Limited Disintermediation, and Re-Intermediation depicted in Table 2.

Concept # Articles
Al Barghuthi et al. (2018), Ali et al. (2021), Āriņš (2019), Arndt (2019),
Avantaggiato and Gallo (2019), Bailon (2019), Bdiwi et al. (2019),
Beverungen et al. (2021), Boreiko and Vidusso (2019), Casado-Vara and
Corchado (2019), Chalmers et al. (2021), Chang et al. (2019), Dakhli et al.
(2019), de Boissieu et al. (2021), Dilawar et al. (2019), Egelund-Müller et al.
(2017), Esmat et al. (2021), Faizan et al. (2019), Fu (2018), Gomber et al.
(2018), Gong et al. (2021), Gurtu and Johny (2019), Hasan et al. (2019),
Extensive Hassija et al. (2019), Heck et al. (2021), Hoess et al. (2021), Hrga et al.
61 (2020), Jabbarpour et al. (2020), Jaiswal et al. (2019), Khosla et al. (2019),
Disintermediation
Labazova (2019), Larios-Hernández (2017), Lohmer and Lasch (2020),
Madhusudan et al. (2019), Magyar (2017), Makridakis and Christodoulou
(2019), Mengelkamp et al. (2018), Mika and Goudz (2021), Murray (2019),
Nasarre-Aznar (2018), Norta et al. (2018), Notheisen et al. (2017), Nowiński
and Kozma (2017), Pereira et al. (2019), Perscheid et al. (2020), Philipp et al.
(2019), Queiroz et al. (2019), Rashideh (2020), Rejeb and Rejeb (2020),
Saichua et al. (2019), Salah et al. (2019), Saurabh and Dey (2021), Schlecht et
al. (2020), Schmidt et al. (2019), Soto et al. (2021), Tian et al. (2020), Wang

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 7

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

et al. (2019), Werner et al. (2020), Ying et al. (2018), Zhao and O'Mahony
(2018), Zielinska et al. (2019)
Al-Shaibani et al. (2020), Beck et al. (2018), Cai (2018), Catalini and Gans
(2020), Chong et al. (2019), Frolov (2021), Fridgen et al. (2021), Garcia-
Limited Teruel (2020), Guo and Liang (2016), Hawlitschek et al. (2020), Lacity and
20
Disintermediation van Hoek (2021), Mehrwald et al. (2019), Risius and Spohrer (2017),
Trabucchi et al. (2020), Wang et al. (2021), Weking et al. (2020), Wilkinson
et al. (2020), Yue (2020), Zavolokina et al. (2020), Ziolkowski et al. (2018)
Abbatemarco et al. (2020), Chiu and Shang (2019), Collao and Winship
(2019), Lindman et al. (2017), O’Dair and Owen (2019), Owen and O'Dair
Re-Intermediation 9
(2020), Tönnissen and Teuteberg (2020), Tseng and Shang (2021), Zamani
and Giaglis (2018)

Table 2. Overview of concepts.

Extensive Disintermediation
We find the concept of Extensive Disintermediation to be the most prominent in our literature review
(n=61). The articles put forward the idea that institutional intermediaries are removed from the markets
or processes through blockchain technology. This idea can either apply to a specific use case
(Beverungen et al., 2021; Notheisen et al., 2017) or a generic attribute of the technology (Labazova,
2019; Chalmers et al., 2021). Among the most present use cases for this concept is supply chain
management, where all authors who focus on this use case (n=9) present the idea that in some way,
blockchain will remove institutional intermediaries from the markets by making their function obsolete
(de Boissieu et al., 2021; Salah et al., 2019). Some even see Extensive Disintermediation as the main
reason for blockchain adoption (Chang et al., 2019) or the advent of a new industry system (Egelund-
Müller et al., 2017). Within this concept group, most articles either use a design science research
approach (n=23) or are purely conceptual (n=15). Qualitative-empirical (n=13) and quantitative-
empirical approaches (n=3) are less represented. This stream of literature builds their argument for
Extensive Disintermediation upon the inherent attributes of blockchain technology: transparency (Heck
et al., 2021), immutability (Murray, 2019), decentralization (Nowiński and Kozma, 2017), security
(Schmidt et al., 2019), and trust (Dilawar et al., 2019). Thereby, this technical perspective barely takes
into account the complex market processes.
Limited Disintermediation
The second-largest group of articles highlights the idea that blockchain technology might have the
possibility to remove institutional intermediaries in certain limited use cases but cannot be attributed to
the characteristic of Disintermediation per se (Catalini and Gans, 2020; Cai, 2018; Fridgen et al., 2021;
Lacity and van Hoek, 2021; Trabucchi et al., 2020; Mehrwald et al., 2019; Ziolkowski et al., 2018).
Mehrwald et al. (2019) posit that blockchain technology can surrogate institutional intermediaries
because the technology can replace institutional coordination mechanisms. However, the authors
highlight that institutions will not be replaced entirely by blockchain technology since blockchain
technology cannot take over functions like matching buyers and sellers. Al-Shaibani et al. (2020) further
add the perspective of institutional infrastructures in the case of a decentralized stock exchange. The
authors highlight that a fully decentralized exchange would not comply with the regulatory boundaries
of the market, and henceforth a blockchain solution cannot disintermediate all functions of an
institutional intermediary. Other research finds several possibilities for institutional intermediaries to
gain a competitive advantage through blockchain technology (Trabucchi et al., 2020). Due to the inter-
organizational character of the technology, institutional intermediaries often collaborate in consortia to
implement solutions that improve processes but do not remove their market position (Wang et al., 2021;
Zavolokina et al., 2020; Guggenberger et al., 2021b).

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 8

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

Re-Intermediation
Lastly, the concept of Re-Intermediation extends the perspective of Limited Disintermediation by
proposing scenarios of how institutional intermediaries change their role within markets. Drawing on
interdisciplinary literature, Zamani and Giaglis (2018) suggest that complete Disintermediation is
unlikely to happen in their conceptual paper. The authors propose different scenarios for institutional
intermediaries based on Giaglis et al. (2002). While blockchains theoretically could form an Internet of
Value that operates without any institutional intermediaries, it is more likely that existing intermediaries
find new business models that leverage the advantages of blockchain technology (e.g., banks enhancing
processes through blockchain-backed systems). Through the implementation of blockchain networks,
also new intermediaries might emerge that provide new services in the market (e.g., wallet providers)
that did not exist before. The authors thereby adopt the perspectives of the theory of electronic markets
on intermediaries as proposed by Wigand (2015). Chiu and Shang (2019) further develop this
perspective, and the preliminary results of their case study approach imply that institutional
intermediaries are not removed entirely by blockchain technology but find new roles within the value
chain. Tseng and Shang (2021) expand this perspective by proposing a set of five different outcomes
for institutional intermediaries when adopting blockchain technology from their multiple case study.
Owen and O'Dair (2020) follow the argumentation that blockchain technology is unlikely to completely
remove institutional intermediaries in value chains but rather change their role in creating value for
customers. Their case study in the music industry finds that blockchain technology enables new
possibilities for companies to act as infomediaries in the music industry whereby companies create new
services and thus, find new blockchain-enabled business models (O’Dair and Owen, 2019).
Further examples can also be found in the context of blockchain-enabled fundraising. Companies find
priorly unknown business models by acting as an auditor to verify new coins in the market (Collao and
Winship, 2019). This perspective of evolving business models has also been proposed for law firms
(Abbatemarco et al., 2020), finance (Lindman et al., 2017), and supply chain (Tönnissen and Teuteberg,
2020).

4.3 Qualitative synthesis

Next, we decided to gather further insights by exploring the scope of our identified concepts. Therefore,
we analyzed each article based on the mentioned functions of an intermediary. To provide a
comprehensive overview, we followed the framework of Bakos (1998). While initially proposed as a
generic framework, it also applies electronic markets (Giaglis et al., 2002). Henceforth we consider it to
analyze our identified blockchain literature. Table 3 presents the identified concepts based on the
analysis of the respective articles and their focus on different market functions.1 The values show the
percentual value of articles from a concept incorporating the perspective of a market subfunction.
Therefore, one article might incorporate the perspective of multiple market subfunctions.

1 The complete overview of the 90 identified articles can be accessed under the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5708484

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 9

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

Extensive Limited
Concept Re-Intermediation
Disintermediation Disintermediation
Primary market
Subfunction n = 61 n = 20 n=9
function
Matching Det. of p. offering 1 of 61 (2%) 12 of 20 (60%) 8 of 9 (89%)
buyers and Searching 1 of 61 (2%) 15 of 20 (75%) 7 of 9 (78%)
sellers Price discovery 2 of 61 (3%) 8 of 20 (40%) 2 of 9 (22%)
Logistics 48 of 61 (79%) 12 of 20 (60%) 7 of 9 (78%)
Facilitation of
Settlement 55 of 61 (90%) 19 of 20 (95%) 8 of 9 (89%)
transactions
Trust 56 of 61 (92%) 19 of 20 (95%) 8 of 9 (89%)
Institutional Legal 0 of 61 (0%) 0 of 20 (0%) 1 of 9 (11%)
infrastructure Regulatory 0 of 61 (0%) 0 of 20 (0%) 1 of 9 (11%)

Table 3. Percentage of articles based on market functions and the proposed concept.

First, we find articles with the concept of Extensive Disintermediation to predominantly only cover one
primary market function. Thereby, the articles following this concept focus on the facilitation of
transactions through logistics, settlement, and trust (Schlecht et al., 2020). This focus can be found
across many different blockchain use cases and applications (Perscheid et al., 2020), e.g., in the energy
(Faizan et al., 2019) or finance industry (Gomber et al., 2018). Since most articles follow a Design
Science Research approach, the focus on these technical attributes is not surprising since they are well
documented in the literature (Rossi et al., 2019). Through the decentralized nature of blockchain
technology and the retroactive immutability of the ledgers, trust-free transactions are enabled (Chanson
et al., 2019). Since the first blockchain application was a peer-to-peer transaction system (Nakamoto,
2008), whereas other market functions are less important, the focus of articles on the facilitation of
transactions is reasonable from a technical perspective. However, we observe that this narrow
perspective leaves out other functions of an intermediary beyond the facilitation of transactions. Only
two articles incorporate mechanisms for price discovery in their research (Jaiswal et al., 2019; Zielinska
et al., 2019). We identified no articles that discuss the perspective of institutional infrastructures in this
context.
Second, the concepts Limited Disintermediation and Re-Intermediation have a wider focus by
incorporating the functions of matching buyers and sellers and institutional infrastructure. For example,
Catalini and Gans (2020) incorporate those functions in their economist perspective to propose a change
in the role of institutional intermediaries rather than their removal from the market. Those functions are
further displayed in the business model taxonomy of Weking et al. (2020). Tönnissen and Teuteberg
(2020) develop this perspective in their multiple case study in the supply chain sector. Thereby, the
authors find that institutional intermediaries still administer the matching of buyers and sellers, while
blockchains predominantly facilitate transactions between the participants. Following those research
streams could lead to a more distinct discussion over the possibilities of Disintermediation through
blockchain technology. While it is easy to replace institutional intermediaries for the facilitation of
transactions with blockchain technology, it seems more difficult to determine the product offering,
search for new products, set prices, and provide legal and regulatory infrastructures.

5 Discussion

5.1 Theoretical contribution

Our article sample demonstrates a strong rise in scholarly interest in the topic of intermediation in the
context of blockchain technology over the years. This is not surprising since, with the rising maturity of
technologies and the respective literature, more theory-driven questions get into the focus of scholars
(Gregor, 2006). Our findings show that most articles dealing with blockchain technology and its impact

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 10

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

on institutional intermediaries focus on Extensive Disintermediation as a key characteristic or

consequence.
While blockchain applications may render institutional intermediaries obsolete from a technical point
of view, this research stream does not incorporate the complex functions of intermediaries in markets
(Giaglis et al., 2002). This technical perspective only takes into account the market function of
facilitating transactions. The settlement of transactions, the provision of trust, and the facilitation of
(digital) transfers and logistics are key functions of markets and have been described as the key attributes
of blockchain technology (Lumineau et al., 2021). However, as shown in the literature (Bakos, 1998),
intermediaries also fulfill more complex market functions like matching buyers and sellers or providing
institutional infrastructures. Further, most articles do not yet consider the required governance to
implement decentralized and inter-organizational technologies (Zavolokina et al., 2020; Lumineau et
al., 2021). Thus, the implementation and the primary market functions of blockchain technology require
some form of institutional intermediary. Our findings show that researchers mainly focused on (dis-
)intermediation from a laboratory or theoretical perspective. Even though methods like Design Science
Research approaches are highly recommended to investigate the potential of blockchain technology in
application domains, they cannot replace empirical work to study complex market mechanisms. Those
real-world observations provide valuable and strongly needed insights into how institutional
intermediaries behave when blockchain technology is applied.
Literature in the stream of Limited Disintermediation considers the more complex market structures and
functions of intermediaries. The articles highlight that the Extensive Disintermediation of markets
through blockchain technology is highly unlikely. All articles highlight that Extensive Disintermediation
might not be achievable for their application in focus or as a general characteristic. This finding is
consistent with research on electronic markets, which posits that Disintermediation is not inevitable
(Chircu and Kauffman, 1999; Wigand, 2020). However, this stream of literature largely leaves out the
critical question of how institutional intermediaries behave when blockchain technology is
implemented. Limited Disintermediation focuses on the barriers of Disintermediation.
The stream of Re-Intermediation complements this missing perspective. Several researchers proposed
different possibilities for institutional intermediaries to react to the threat of Disintermediation. While
some articles aim to explore future roles and business models, only a minority consider electronic
markets theory to identify perspectives for institutional intermediaries. We posit that incorporating
electronic markets theory on Disintermediation serves as a theoretical fundament on which the case of
blockchain technology could be discussed. Nonetheless, the vast majority of researchers ignore this
literature stream.
Our findings highlight the urgent need for further research on the impact of blockchain technology on
institutional intermediaries. Therefore, we propose the following research framework that serves as a
guideline for future research avenues.

5.2 Research agenda

Building upon our theoretical contribution, we aim to identify paths for future research (Webster and
Watson, 2002). Therefore, we adopt Alvesson and Sandberg (2011) in their approach to problematize
existing assumptions in literature to develop our research agenda. This disruptive mode of determining
research questions is particular suited to challenge existing assumptions in a research field (Sandberg
and Alvesson, 2011). Our findings show that many researchers only consider intermediation functions
in a limited scope. Instead of adopting this widespread focus on transaction cost we seek to problematize
this stream of research. Therefore, we present a set of actionable paths for other researchers to follow in
the future. To provide a structured overview, we follow the conceptualization of our findings section.
Table 4 presents our research framework.
First, we follow the Extensive Disintermediation concept. Building on electronic markets literature,
researchers should investigate if Disintermediation removes the functions of (institutional)
intermediaries or transfers them to the technology. This could shed further light on whether the concept

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 11

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

of Extensive Disintermediation is appropriate in the context of blockchain technology, as it takes over

certain functions rather than removing them. Thus, blockchain technology itself might serve as an
algorithmic intermediary. Researchers should also address the question of how companies find new
functions within markets. This question is strongly related to the following area of research.
Second, we encourage future projects to address the antecedents and barriers for Disintermediation
through blockchain technology in contingency models. Such models for Disintermediation in electronic
markets might serve as a starting point for researchers (Giaglis et al., 2002). Future research should also
investigate why blockchain use cases rarely reach a productive state, even though many researchers
underpin the disruptive potential of the technology. Our results serve as a starting point by highlighting
that many researchers focus on blockchain technology as a transaction system, thus, disregarding other
market functions. We further urge researchers to think of blockchain technology beyond the facilitation
of transactions. Future technological developments might include other markets functions and thus, fuel
the dissemination of decentralized marketplaces.
Third, future research projects should investigate how institutional intermediaries use blockchain
technology strategically to reposition themselves within the market. Also, researchers could investigate
other patterns in business models stemming from Disintermediation. Observations from blockchain-
based markets, e.g., cryptocurrencies, show that institutional intermediaries aim to gain market functions
that can be classified as value-added services, e.g., the provision of digital wallets. This research should
apply either qualitative- or quantitative-empirical methods to address the drawbacks of the yet mainly
conceptual work in the field. Further research could also investigate which technological properties of
blockchains promote which archetypes of businesses.

Concept Possible further research avenues for the identified concepts

 Does Disintermediation of institutional intermediaries remove the functions of

Extensive intermediaries or shift them towards the technology?
Disintermediation  How can institutional intermediaries find new functions once they are
disintermediated?
 What are the drivers and barriers for Disintermediation?
 Do inflated expectations regarding the disruptive potential of the technology
Limited
limit the implementation of blockchain projects?
Disintermediation
 Can blockchain technology replace institutional intermediaries' functions
beyond the facilitation of transactions?
 How can institutional intermediaries facilitate a strategic repositioning in the
value chain by using blockchain technology?
 Which technological properties of blockchains facilitate which archetypical
Re-Intermediation
business models?
 Which archetypes of Re-Intermediation from electronic markets literature can
be transferred to the case of blockchain technology?

Table 4. Research framework.

5.3 Managerial implications

Our findings further provide important practical implications. First, our literature review provides
valuable insights for corporations when dealing with blockchain technology. The results show that even
though many studies in an experimental setting suggest the threat of Disintermediation, most studies
with real-world observations posit that this is a very unlikely outcome for institutional intermediaries.
Henceforth, companies that might fear adopting disruptive technologies should engage more openly
with blockchain technology.

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 12

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

Second, we find several possibilities for institutional intermediaries to leverage blockchain technology
to develop their business models. Thereby, companies could use the capabilities of blockchain
technology to automate processes, in particular, the facilitation of transactions. Thus, practitioners
should not just consider the threat of Disintermediation but also the possibilities of blockchain
technology. Here, we propose a more specific perspective not only for incumbents but also for
established corporations. Other authors also support this perspective (Lacity and van Hoek, 2021;
Fridgen et al., 2021; Mattke et al., 2019).

6 Conclusion
Blockchain technology is still at the center of interest in academia and practice. Much of the expectations
regarding the disruptive potential of the technology build upon the capability to facilitate peer-to-peer
transactions without a trust-providing central entity. While many researchers build upon this capability
to foresee the removal of institutional intermediaries in different use cases, our research identifies three
different concepts in the literature. Thereby, we find Extensive Disintermediation to be the most
prominent concept, followed by Limited Disintermediation and Re-Intermediation. Comparing our
identified set of articles with literature about the functions of intermediaries in electronic markets shows
that the concept of Extensive Disintermediation largely focuses on the facilitation of transactions.
Therefore, the key functions of intermediaries are only partly considered. Building upon these findings,
we propose several avenues for future research. While our research provides substantial benefit to
research and practice, we acknowledge several limitations to our results, which we elaborate on in the
following.
First, our findings are limited to our applied search string and the selected databases. We followed a
highly structured approach in our methodology by applying established best practices for literature
reviews (Webster and Watson, 2002). Nonetheless, we might miss studies that provide further insights.
Second, due to the ongoing technological development, our paper only assesses the current body of
knowledge. Future generations of blockchain technology might enable other functions of intermediaries,
thus facilitating the removal of additional intermediaries. Third, the selection of the articles was only
conducted by one author. Even though the selection criteria had been discussed iteratively with all
authors to achieve a high degree of objectivity, the selection process itself is limited to some subjectivity
of the responsible researcher. Finally, selecting the framework to assess the market functions of each
identified concept (Giaglis et al., 2002) limits the breadth of our insights. Other theoretical lenses might
yield further insightful results.
Our overview and assessment of existing intermediation scenarios serves as an important building block
for a more theoretically founded discussion about the impact of blockchain technology on institutional
intermediaries. Thereby, we provide a starting point for researchers to assess the impact of blockchain
technology on real-world applications and continue to develop the research field onward.

Acknowledgment
We gratefully acknowledge the Bavarian Ministry of Economic Affairs, Regional Development and
Energy for their support of the project “Fraunhofer Blockchain Center (20-3066-2-6-14)” that made this
paper possible.

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 13

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

References
Abbatemarco, N., L. M. de Rossi, A. Gaur and G. Salviotti (2020). “Beyond a Blockchain Paradox:
How Intermediaries Can Leverage a Disintermediation Technology”. In: Proceedings of the 53rd
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. URL:
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/64397.
Al Barghuthi, N. B., H. J. Mohamed and H. E. Said (2018). “Blockchain in Supply Chain Trading”.
In: 2018 Fifth HCT Information Technology Trends (ITT): IEEE, pp. 336–341.
Ali, M. S., M. Vecchio and F. Antonelli (2021). “A Blockchain-Based Framework for IoT Data
Monetization Services” The Computer Journal 64 (2), 195–210.
Al-Shaibani, H., N. Lasla and M. Abdallah (2020). “Consortium Blockchain-Based Decentralized
Stock Exchange Platform” IEEE Access 8, 123711–123725.
Alvesson, M. and J. Sandberg (2011). “Generating Research Questions Through Problematization”
Academy of Management Review 36 (2), 247–271.
Andersen, J. V. and C. I. Bogusz (2019). “"Self-Organizing in Blockchain Infrastructures:
Generativity Through Shifting Objectives and Forking"” Journal of the Association for Information
Systems 20 (9), 1242–1273.
Āriņš, A. (2019). “Blockchain Architecture in Smart Pedagogy”. In: Innovations, Technologies and
Research in Education, 2019: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds.
Arndt, T. (2019). “An Overview of Blockchain for Higher Education”. In: Proceedings of the 11th
International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge
Management: SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications, pp. 231–235.
Avantaggiato, M. and P. Gallo (2019). “Challenges and Opportunities using MultiChain for Real
Estate”. In: 2019 IEEE International Black Sea Conference on Communications and Networking
(BlackSeaCom): IEEE, pp. 1–5.
Bailon, M. R. M. (2019). “International Roaming Services Optimization Using Private Blockchain and
Smart Contracts” International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering
8 (3), 544–550.
Bakos, Y. (1998). “The emerging role of electronic marketplaces on the Internet” Communications of
the ACM 41 (8), 35–42.
Bakos, Y., H. Halaburda and C. Mueller-Bloch (2021). “When permissioned blockchains deliver more
decentralization than permissionless” Communications of the ACM 64 (2), 20–22.
Baskerville, R. L., M. D. Myers and Y. Yoo (2020). “Digital First: The Ontological Reversal and New
Challenges for Information Systems Research” MIS Quarterly 44 (2), 509–523.
Bdiwi, R., C. de Runz, A. A. Cherif and S. Faiz (2019). “Blockchain-Based Platform for Smart
Learning Environments”. In W. Abramowicz and R. Corchuelo (eds.) Business Information
Systems, pp. 487–499. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Beck, R., C. Müller-Bloch and J. L. King (2018). “Governance in the Blockchain Economy: A
Framework and Research Agenda” Journal of the Association for Information Systems 19 (10),
1020–1034.
Beverungen, D., S. Overhage, A. Gorlick', P. Moerchel and S. Schuermann (2021). “Blockchains for
Pay-Per-Use Business Models: Insights from a Design Research Study”. In: Proceedings of the 54th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Bhargava, H. K., V. Choudhary and R. Krishnan (2000). “Pricing and Product Design: Intermediary
Strategies in an Electronic Market” International Journal of Electronic Commerce 5 (1), 37–56.

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 14

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

Boreiko, D. and G. Vidusso (2019). “New Blockchain Intermediaries: Do ICO Rating Websites Do
Their Job Well?” The Journal of Alternative Investments 21 (4), 67–79.
Cai, C. W. (2018). “Disruption of financial intermediation by FinTech: a review on crowdfunding and
blockchain” Accounting & Finance 58 (4), 965–992.
Casado-Vara, R. and J. Corchado (2019). “Distributed e-health wide-world accounting ledger via
blockchain” Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 36 (3), 2381–2386.
Catalini, C. and J. S. Gans (2020). “Some simple economics of the blockchain” Communications of
the ACM 63 (7), 80–90.
Chalmers, D., R. Matthews and A. Hyslop (2021). “Blockchain as an external enabler of new venture
ideas: Digital entrepreneurs and the disintermediation of the global music industry” Journal of
Business Research 125, 577–591.
Chang, S. E., Y.-C. Chen and M.-F. Lu (2019). “Supply chain re-engineering using blockchain
technology: A case of smart contract based tracking process” Technological Forecasting and Social
Change 144, 1–11.
Chanson, M., A. Bogner, D. Bilgeri, E. Fleisch and F. Wortmann (2019). “"Blockchain for the IoT:
Privacy-Preserving Protection of Sensor Data"” Journal of the Association for Information Systems
20 (9), 1272–1307.
Chen, Y. and C. Bellavitis (2020). “Blockchain disruption and decentralized finance: The rise of
decentralized business models” Journal of Business Venturing Insights 13, e00151.
Chiasson, M. W. and E. Davidson (2005). “Taking Industry Seriously in Information Systems
Research” MIS Quarterly 29 (4), 591.
Chircu, A. M. and R. J. Kauffman (1999). “Strategies for Internet Middlemen in the
Intermediation/Disintermediation/Reintermediation Cycle” Electronic Markets 9 (1-2), 109–117.
Chiu, S. H. and S. Shang (2019). “Can Blockchain Really Remove All Intermediaries? A Multiple-
Case Study in Different Industries” International Conference on Information Systems Development
(ISD).
Chong, A. Y. L., E. T. K. Lim, X. Hua, S. Zheng and C.-W. Tan (2019). “Business on Chain: A
Comparative Case Study of Five Blockchain-Inspired Business Models” Journal of the Association
for Information Systems 20 (9), 1308–1337.
Coase, R. H. (1937). “The Nature of the Firm” Economica 4 (16), 386–405.
Collao, V. V. and V. Winship (2019). “The New ICO Intermediaries” Italian Law Journal.
Dakhli, Z., Z. Lafhaj and A. Mossman (2019). “The Potential of Blockchain in Building Construction”
Buildings 9 (4), 77.
Datta, P. and S. Chatterjee (2008). “The economics and psychology of consumer trust in
intermediaries in electronic markets: the EM-Trust Framework” European Journal of Information
Systems 17 (1), 12–28.
de Boissieu, E., G. Kondrateva, P. Baudier and C. Ammi (2021). “The use of blockchain in the luxury
industry: supply chains and the traceability of goods” Journal of Enterprise Information
Management.
Dilawar, N., M. Rizwan, F. Ahmad and S. Akram (2019). “Blockchain: Securing Internet of Medical
Things (IoMT)” International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications 10 (1).
Egelund-Müller, B., M. Elsman, F. Henglein and O. Ross (2017). “Automated Execution of Financial
Contracts on Blockchains” Business & Information Systems Engineering 59 (6), 457–467.

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 15

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

Esmat, A., M. de Vos, Y. Ghiassi-Farrokhfal, P. Palensky and D. Epema (2021). “A novel

decentralized platform for peer-to-peer energy trading market with blockchain technology” Applied
Energy 282, 116123.
Faizan, M., T. Brenner, F. Foerster, C. Wittwer and B. Koch (2019). “Decentralized bottom-up energy
trading using Ethereum as a platform” Journal of Energy Markets 12 (2), 19–48.
Fridgen, G., S. Radszuwill, A. Schweizer and N. Urbach (2021). “Blockchain Won’t Kill the Banks:
Why Disintermediation Doesn’t Work in International Trade Finance” Communications of the
Association for Information Systems 49 (1).
Frolov, D. (2021). “Blockchain and institutional complexity: an extended institutional approach”
Journal of Institutional Economics 17 (1), 21–36.
Fu, M.-H. (2018). “Donation Model Development Based on the Methodologies of Blockchain”
International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design 9 (4), 20–36.
Fuller, M. A., M. A. Serva and J. “. Benamati (2007). “Seeing Is Believing: The Transitory Influence
of Reputation Information on E-Commerce Trust and Decision Making” Decision Sciences 38 (4),
675–699.
Garcia-Teruel, R. M. (2020). “Legal challenges and opportunities of blockchain technology in the real
estate sector” Journal of Property, Planning and Environmental Law 12 (2), 129–145.
Gartner (2021). 3 Trends Surface in the Gartner Emerging Technologies Hype Cycle for 2021. URL:
https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/3-themes-surface-in-the-2021-hype-cycle-for-
emerging-technologies (visited on 09/20/2021).
Giaglis, G. M., S. Klein and R. M. O'Keefe (2002). “The role of intermediaries in electronic
marketplaces: developing a contingency model” Information Systems Journal 12 (3), 231–246.
Gomber, P., R. J. Kauffman, C. Parker and B. W. Weber (2018). “On the Fintech Revolution:
Interpreting the Forces of Innovation, Disruption, and Transformation in Financial Services”
Journal of Management Information Systems 35 (1), 220–265.
Gong, Y., S. van Engelenburg and M. Janssen (2021). “A Reference Architecture for Blockchain-
Based Crowdsourcing Platforms” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce
Research 16 (4), 937–958.
Gregor, S. (2006). “The Nature of Theory in Information Systems” MIS Quarterly 30 (3), 611.
Grover, V. and J. T. C. Teng (2001). “E-commerce and the information market” Communications of
the ACM 44 (4), 79–86.
Guggenberger, T., J. Lockl, M. Röglinger, V. Schlatt, J. Sedlmeir, J.-C. Stoetzer, N. Urbach and F.
Völter (2021a). “Emerging Digital Technologies to Combat Future Crises: Learnings From
COVID-19 to be Prepared for the Future” International Journal of Innovation and Technology
Management 18 (04), 2140002.
Guggenberger, T., J.-C. Stoetzer, L. Theisinger, J. Amend and N. Urbach (2021b). “You Can't Manage
What You Can't Define: The Success of Blockchain Projects Beyond the Iron Triangle”. In:
Proccedings of the Forty-Second International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS).
Guo, Y. and C. Liang (2016). “Blockchain application and outlook in the banking industry” Financial
Innovation 2 (1).
Gurtu, A. and J. Johny (2019). “Potential of blockchain technology in supply chain management: a
literature review” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 49 (9),
881–900.
Hasan, H., E. AlHadhrami, A. AlDhaheri, K. Salah and R. Jayaraman (2019). “Smart contract-based
approach for efficient shipment management” Computers & Industrial Engineering 136, 149–159.

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 16

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

Hassija, V., M. Zaid, G. Singh, A. Srivastava and V. Saxena (2019). “Cryptober: A Blockchain-based
Secure and Cost-Optimal Car Rental Platform”. In: 2019 Twelfth International Conference on
Contemporary Computing (IC3): IEEE, pp. 1–6.
Hawlitschek, F., B. Notheisen and T. Teubner (2020). “A 2020 perspective on “The limits of trust-free
systems: A literature review on blockchain technology and trust in the sharing economy””
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 40, 100935.
Heck, K., E. Mengelkamp and C. Weinhardt (2021). “Blockchain-based local energy markets:
Decentralized trading on single-board computers” Energy Systems 12 (3), 603–618.
Hoess, A., V. Schlatt, A. Rieger and G. Fridgen (2021). “The Blockchain Effect : From Inter-
Ecosystem to Intra-Ecosystem Competition”. In: Proceedings of the 29th European Conference on
Information Systems (ECIS). URL: https://eref.uni-bayreuth.de/id/eprint/65991.
Hrga, A., T. Capuder and I. P. Zarko (2020). “Demystifying Distributed Ledger Technologies: Limits,
Challenges, and Potentials in the Energy Sector” IEEE Access 8, 126149–126163.
Jabbarpour, M. R., M. Z. Joozdani and S. Seyed Farshi (2020). “Blockchain Applications in Power
Industry”. In: 2020 28th Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE): IEEE, pp. 1–5.
Jaiswal, A., S. Chandel, A. Muzumdar, M. G.M., C. Modi and C. Vyjayanthi (2019). “A Conceptual
Framework for Trustworthy and Incentivized Trading of Food Grains using Distributed Ledger and
Smart Contracts”. In: 2019 IEEE 16th India Council International Conference (INDICON): IEEE,
pp. 1–4.
Khosla, D., M. Sharma, A. Sharma, A. Budhiraja and S. Singh (2019). “Blockchain based supply
chain management: an overview” International Journal of Control and Automation 12 (5), 424–
430.
Kleider, E., T. Kreuzer, B. Lösser, A. M. Oberländer and T. Eymann (2021). “Drivers and Barriers of
the Digital Innovation Process – Case Study Insights from a German Public University”. In:
Business Process Management. 19th International Conference, BPM 2021, Rome, Italy, September
06–10, 2021, Proceedings. Ed. by A. Polyvyanyy, M. T. Wynn, A. van Looy, M. Reichert. Cham:
Springer International Publishing; Imprint Springer, pp. 437–454.
Klein, S. (1997). “Introduction to Electronic Auctions” Electronic Markets 7 (4), 3–6.
Labazova, O. (2019). “Towards a framework for evaluation of blockchain implementations”. In:
Proceedings of the Fortieth International Conference on Information Systems. URL:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/301384314.pdf.
Lacity, M. and R. van Hoek (2021). “How Walmart Canada Used Blockchain Technology to
Reimagine Freight Invoice Processing” MIS Quarterly Executive 20 (3).
Larios-Hernández, G. J. (2017). “Blockchain entrepreneurship opportunity in the practices of the
unbanked” Business Horizons 60 (6), 865–874.
Lindman, J., V. K. Tuunainen and M. Rossi (2017). “Opportunities and Risks of Blockchain
Technologies: A Research Agenda”. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences (2017): Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Lohmer, J. and R. Lasch (2020). “Blockchain in operations management and manufacturing: Potential
and barriers” Computers & Industrial Engineering 149, 106789.
Lumineau, F., W. Wang and O. Schilke (2021). “Blockchain Governance—A New Way of Organizing
Collaborations?” Organization Science 32 (2), 500–521.
MacCarthy, M. (2010). “What payment intermediaries are doing about online liability and why it
matters” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 25 (2), 1038–1119.

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 17

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

Madhusudan, A., I. Symeonidis, M. Mustafa, R. Zhang and B. Preneel (2019). “SC2Share: Smart
Contract for Secure Car Sharing”. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Information Systems Security and Privacy: SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications,
pp. 163–171.
Magyar, G. (2017). “Blockchain: Solving the privacy and research availability tradeoff for EHR data:
A new disruptive technology in health data management”. In: 2017 IEEE 30th Neumann
Colloquium (NC): IEEE, pp. 135–140.
Makridakis, S. and K. Christodoulou (2019). “Blockchain: Current Challenges and Future
Prospects/Applications” Future Internet 11 (12), 258.
Malone, T. W., J. Yates and R. I. Benjamin (1987). “Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies”
Communications of the ACM 30 (6), 484–497.
Mattke, J., C. Maier, A. Hund and T. Weitzel (2019). “How an Enterprise Blockchain Application in
the U.S. Pharmaceuticals Supply Chain is Saving Lives” MIS Quarterly Executive 18 (4), 245–261.
Mehrwald, P., T. Treffers, M. Titze and I. Welpe (2019). “Blockchain Technology Application in the
Sharing Economy: A Proposed Model of Effects on Trust and Intermediation”. In: Proceedings of
the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Mengelkamp, E., B. Notheisen, C. Beer, D. Dauer and C. Weinhardt (2018). “A blockchain-based
smart grid: towards sustainable local energy markets” Computer Science - Research and
Development 33 (1-2), 207–214.
Mika, B. and A. Goudz (2021). “Blockchain-technology in the energy industry: blockchain as a driver
of the energy revolution? With focus on the situation in Germany” Energy Systems 12 (2), 285–355.
Murray, M. (2019). “Tutorial: A Descriptive Introduction to the Blockchain” Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 464–487.
Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. URL:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (visited on 11/01/2021).
Nasarre-Aznar, S. (2018). “Collaborative housing and blockchain” Administration 66 (2), 59–82.
Norta, A., C. Fernandez and S. Hickmott (2018). “Commercial Property Tokenizing With Smart
Contracts”. In: 2018 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). 2018
proceedings. Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE, pp. 1–8.
Notheisen, B., J. B. Cholewa and A. P. Shanmugam (2017). “Trading real-world assets on blockchain-
an application of trust-free transaction systems in the market for lemons” Business & Information
Systems Engineering 59 (6), 425–440.
Nowiński, W. and M. Kozma (2017). “How Can Blockchain Technology Disrupt the Existing
Business Models?” Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review 5 (3), 173–188.
O’Dair, M. and R. Owen (2019). “Monetizing new music ventures through blockchain: Four possible
futures?” The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 20 (4), 263–276.
Okoli, C. (2015). “A Guide to Conducting a Standalone Systematic Literature Review”
Communications of the Association for Information Systems 37, 879–910.
Owen, R. and M. O'Dair (2020). “How blockchain technology can monetize new music ventures: an
examination of new business models” The Journal of Risk Finance 21 (4), 333–353.
Pereira, J., M. M. Tavalaei and H. Ozalp (2019). “Blockchain-based platforms: Decentralized
infrastructures and its boundary conditions” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 146,
94–102.

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 18

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

Perscheid, G., N. Ostern and J. Moormann (2020). “Towards a Taxonomy of Decentralized Platform-
Based Business Models”. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eigth European Conference on
Information Systems. URL: https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2020_rp/149.
Philipp, R., G. Prause and L. Gerlitz (2019). “Blockchain and Smart Contracts for Entrepreneurial
Collaboration in Maritime Supply Chains” Transport and Telecommunication Journal 20 (4), 365–
378.
Queiroz, M. M., R. Telles and S. H. Bonilla (2019). “Blockchain and supply chain management
integration: a systematic review of the literature” Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal 25 (2), 241–254.
Rahmati, P., A. Tafti, J. C. Westland and C. Hidalgo (2021). “When All Products Are Digital:
Complexity and Intangible Value in the Ecosystem of Digitizing Firms” MIS Quarterly 45 (3),
1025–1058.
Rashideh, W. (2020). “Blockchain technology framework: Current and future perspectives for the
tourism industry” Tourism Management 80, 104125.
Rejeb, A. and K. Rejeb (2020). “Blockchain and supply chain sustainability” Logforum 16 (3), 363–
372.
Risius, M. and K. Spohrer (2017). “A Blockchain Research Framework - What We (don’t) Know,
Where We Go from Here, and How We Will Get There” Business & Information Systems
Engineering 59 (6), 385–409.
Rossi, M., C. Mueller-Bloch, J. B. Thatcher and R. Beck (2019). “Blockchain research in information
systems: Current trends and an inclusive future research agenda” Journal of the Association for
Information Systems 20 (9), 1388–1403.
Rowe, F. (2018). “Being critical is good, but better with philosophy! From digital transformation and
values to the future of IS research” European Journal of Information Systems 27 (3), 380–393.
Saichua, P., S. Khunthi and T. Chomsiri (2019). “Design of Blockchain Lottery for Thai
Government”. In: 2019 Joint International Conference on Digital Arts, Media and Technology with
ECTI Northern Section Conference on Electrical, Electronics, Computer and Telecommunications
Engineering (ECTI DAMT-NCON): IEEE, pp. 9–12.
Salah, K., N. Nizamuddin, R. Jayaraman and M. Omar (2019). “Blockchain-Based Soybean
Traceability in Agricultural Supply Chain” IEEE Access 7, 73295–73305.
Sandberg, J. and M. Alvesson (2011). “Ways of constructing research questions: gap-spotting or
problematization?” Organization 18 (1), 23–44.
Sarkar, M., B. Butler and C. Steinfield (1995). “Intermediaries and cybermediaries: a continuing role
for mediating players in the electronic marketplace” Journal of computer-mediated communication
1 (3), 1–14.
Sarkar, M., B. Butler and C. Steinfield (1998). “Cybermediaries in Electronic Marketspace: Toward
Theory Building” Journal of Business Research 41 (3), 215–221.
Saurabh, S. and K. Dey (2021). “Blockchain technology adoption, architecture, and sustainable agri-
food supply chains” Journal of Cleaner Production 284, 124731.
Schlecht, L., S. Schneider and A. Buchwald (2020). “Creating Value through Blockchain Technology:
A Delphi Study”. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eigth European Conference on Information
Systems. URL: https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2020_rp/164.
Schmidt, R., M. Möhring, B. Keller and A. Zimmermann (2019). “Potentials of Smart Contracts-based
Disintermediation in Additive Manufacturing Supply Chains” AMCIS 2019 Proceedings.

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 19

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

Soto, E. A., L. B. Bosman, E. Wollega and W. D. Leon-Salas (2021). “Peer-to-peer energy trading: A
review of the literature” Applied Energy 283, 116268.
Tian, Y., Z. Lu, P. Adriaens, R. E. Minchin, A. Caithness and J. Woo (2020). “Finance infrastructure
through blockchain-based tokenization” Frontiers of Engineering Management 7 (4), 485–499.
Tönnissen, S. and F. Teuteberg (2020). “Analysing the impact of blockchain-technology for operations
and supply chain management: An explanatory model drawn from multiple case studies”
International Journal of Information Management 52, 101953.
Trabucchi, D., A. Moretto, T. Buganza and A. MacCormack (2020). “Disrupting the Disruptors or
Enhancing Them? How Blockchain Reshapes Two‐Sided Platforms” Journal of Product Innovation
Management 37 (6), 552–574.
Tseng, C.-T. and S. S. C. Shang (2021). “Exploring the Sustainability of the Intermediary Role in
Blockchain” Sustainability 13 (4), 1936.
Wang, L., L. Xu, Z. Zheng, S. Liu, X. Li, L. Cao, J. Li and C. Sun (2021). “Smart Contract-Based
Agricultural Food Supply Chain Traceability” IEEE Access 9, 9296–9307.
Wang, Y., J. H. Han and P. Beynon-Davies (2019). “Understanding blockchain technology for future
supply chains: a systematic literature review and research agenda” Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal 24 (1), 62–84.
Webster, J. and R. T. Watson (2002). “Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature
review” MIS Quarterly 26 (2), 13–26.
Weking, J., M. Mandalenakis, A. Hein, S. Hermes, M. Böhm and H. Krcmar (2020). “The impact of
blockchain technology on business models – a taxonomy and archetypal patterns” Electronic
Markets 30 (2), 285–305.
Werner, J., S. Frost and R. Zarnekow (2020). “Towards a Taxonomy of Decentralized Platform-based
Business Models”. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eigth European Conference on Information
Systems. URL: https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2020_rp/26/.
Wigand, R. T. (2015). “Electronic Markets and Intermediation”. In P. H. Ang and R. Mansell (eds.)
The International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society, pp. 1–6: Wiley.
Wigand, R. T. (2020). “Whatever happened to disintermediation?” Electronic Markets 30 (1), 39–47.
Wilkinson, S., K. Hojckova, C. Eon, G. M. Morrison and B. Sandén (2020). “Is peer-to-peer electricity
trading empowering users? Evidence on motivations and roles in a prosumer business model trial in
Australia” Energy Research & Social Science 66, 101500.
Ying, W., S. Jia and W. Du (2018). “Digital enablement of blockchain: Evidence from HNA group”
International Journal of Information Management 39, 1–4.
Yue, K.-B. (2020). “Blockchain-Augmented Organizations” AMCIS 2020 Proceedings.
Zamani, E. D. and G. M. Giaglis (2018). “With a little help from the miners: distributed ledger
technology and market disintermediation” Industrial Management & Data Systems 118 (3), 637–
652.
Zavolokina, L., R. Ziolkowski, I. Bauer and G. Schwabe (2020). “Management, Governance, and
Value Creation in a Blockchain Consortium” MIS Quarterly Executive 19 (1).
Zhao, S. and D. O'Mahony (2018). “BMCProtector”. In: Proceedings of the 2018 International
Conference on Blockchain Technology and Application - ICBTA 2018. New York, New York,
USA: ACM Press, pp. 1–5.

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 20

Blockchain Disintermediation Mystery

Zielinska, A., M. Skowron and A. Bien (2019). “The concept of the blockchain technology model use
to settle the charging process of an electric vehicle”. In: 2019 Applications of Electromagnetics in
Modern Engineering and Medicine (PTZE): IEEE, pp. 271–274.
Ziolkowski, R., G. Miscione and G. Schwabe (2018). “Consensus through Blockchains: Exploring
Governance across inter-organizational Settings”. In: Proceedings of the 39th International
Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). URL:
https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2018/governance/Presentations/10.

Thirtieth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timisoara, Romania 21