Purpose This study aims to explore the potential of blockchain technology for venture capital and entrepreneurship. We hypothesize that the adoption of blockchain in finance has vast potential for research in entrepreneurship and venture capital. Design/methodology/approach We conducted a bibliometric study of 416 articles retrieved from the Web of Science database, and performed descriptive and evaluative analyses. We also used factor analysis to identify discussion questions for the intersection of blockchain and entrepreneurship. Additionally, we employed bibliometric techniques and VOSviewer software to generate scientific maps highlighting current research streams and identifying gaps. Findings While blockchain-related topics are widely documented in industry reports, we found a clear void in academic literature, particularly in the areas of venture capital and entrepreneurship. Several factors may explain this finding: the lack of integration between technological and financial research, the collapse of ICOs and the tendency for adoption primarily in response to crises. Our analysis reveals three dominant research streams: (1) technological adoption, (2) entrepreneurial funding (including Initial Coin Offerings, ICOs) and (3) decentralized finance (DeFi). We identified gaps and opportunities for research on decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), the democratization of entrepreneurial finance, trust-enabling mechanisms through smart contracts and the development of standards and taxonomies for firms. Originality/value Unlike existing bibliometric reviews, this study specifically examines the intersection of blockchain, DeFi, entrepreneurship and venture capital, and identifies regulatory and adoption-related research gaps. Our findings underscore the interdisciplinary nature of the domain, highlight the need for deeper inquiry into these evolving topics and contribute to the development of future literature.
Kvedaravičiūtė et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: