The Commonplace
Home Papers Evidence Explore Trends Syntheses Digests References Docs 🎲 Workforce Futures
← Papers
Direction, evidence grade, and study type are AI-generated labels (gpt-5-mini), not human-verified. Syntheses are LLM-written. "Tensions" are machine-detected candidates, not confirmed contradictions. A research-acceleration tool, not peer review. How this is built →

Tokens can build or hollow out Web3 communities: well‑designed incentives foster authentic trust and sustained contribution, while speculative token dynamics create illusory trust that boosts participation but undermines long‑term value.

THE ILLUSION OF TRUST IN WEB3 MARKETING: RECONFIGURING VALUE CO-CREATION THROUGH TOKENIZED INCENTIVES IN CRYPTO ECOSYSTEMS
Nafissa Aisyah Fitri Br Sitepu, Muhammad Dharma Tuah Putra Nasution, Fadli · August 30, 2026 · International Journal of Accounting Management Economics and Social Sciences (IJAMESC)
openalex theoretical n/a evidence 7/10 relevance Summary only summary available; pdf_status=paywall DOI Source PDF

Structured author observations

Linked only from stored provider relations; the raw author line above is never matched by name.

OpenAlex

Latest observation:

  1. Nafissa Aisyah Fitri Br Sitepu provider ID
  2. Muhammad Dharma Tuah Putra Nasution provider ID
  3. Fadli provider ID

Semantic Scholar

Latest observation:

  1. Nafissa Aisyah Fitri Br Sitepu unresolved corpus identity
  2. Muhammad Dharma Tuah Putra Nasution unresolved corpus identity
  3. Fadli unresolved corpus identity
Tokenized incentives produce two opposing forms of trust — authentic trust that supports durable, high-quality value co-creation and illusory trust that drives opportunistic, low-quality participation — with outcomes depending on participant motives, community identification, and incentive design.

Citation observations

Cumulative provider counts captured on specific dates; providers are never combined.

This study develops a conceptual framework explaining the reconfiguration of value co-creation in Web3 marketing through the mediating mechanisms of authentic trust and illusory trust. The study is motivated by the growing prevalence of tokenized incentives in decentralized digital ecosystems and the lack of theoretical understanding of how these incentives simultaneously enable and distort participation, trust formation, and value co-creation processes. The framework integrates Trust Theory, Service-Dominant Logic, Self-Determination Theory, and Signaling Theory to articulate the relationships between tokenized incentives, dual trust forms, value co-creation quality, and moderating conditions. The results indicate that tokenized incentives positively influence both authentic trust and illusory trust formation, with authentic trust grounded in genuine relational evaluation and system assessment, and illusory trust constructed through incentive-driven signals and economic expectations. Authentic trust positively influences value co-creation quality by enabling meaningful collaboration and sustained engagement, while illusory trust negatively influences value co-creation quality by promoting opportunistic, short-term participation. Furthermore, authentic trust mediates the positive relationship between tokenized incentives and value co-creation quality through an enabling mediation pathway, while illusory trust mediates the negative relationship through a distorting mediation pathway. The framework also identifies that speculative motivation and community identification moderate these relationships. Three structural paradoxes the Incentive–Trust Paradox, the Participation–Value Paradox, and the Growth–Sustainability Paradox illuminate the non-linear and potentially self-undermining dynamics of incentive-driven Web3 ecosystems. These findings suggest that managing Web3 ecosystems effectively requires moving beyond participation metrics toward a deeper understanding of how incentive structures shape the quality of trust and sustainability of engagement.

Summary

Main Finding

Tokenized incentives in Web3 ecosystems create two distinct forms of trust — authentic trust and illusory trust — that operate as opposing mediators of value co-creation. Tokens can both enable meaningful, sustained collaboration (via authentic trust) and drive short-term, opportunistic participation (via illusory trust). Which pathway dominates depends on participant motivations, community identification, and incentive design; mismanaged token economies risk self-undermining growth despite high participation.

Key Points

  • Conceptual distinction
    • Authentic trust: grounded in relational evaluation and system reliability (social norms, shared purpose, stable governance).
    • Illusory trust: constructed from incentive-driven signals and economic expectations (token price/speculation, short-term payoffs).
  • Causal architecture
    • Tokenized incentives → authentic trust → higher quality value co-creation (enabling mediation).
    • Tokenized incentives → illusory trust → lower quality value co-creation (distorting mediation).
  • Moderators
    • Speculative motivation amplifies illusory-trust pathways and the risk of opportunistic behavior.
    • Community identification amplifies authentic-trust pathways and supports sustained, meaningful participation.
  • Structural paradoxes (non-linear/systemic risks)
    • Incentive–Trust Paradox: stronger incentives increase participation but can erode authentic trust by shifting motives.
    • Participation–Value Paradox: rising participation metrics can mask falling quality of co-created value.
    • Growth–Sustainability Paradox: rapid token-driven growth may be unsustainable if value co-creation quality is low.
  • Managerial insight: evaluating Web3 success requires measuring trust quality and contribution quality, not just raw participation or token velocity.

Data & Methods

  • The study is primarily conceptual/theoretical. It integrates and synthesizes four theoretical lenses: Trust Theory, Service‑Dominant Logic, Self‑Determination Theory, and Signaling Theory.
  • Methods used: literature synthesis and model development to articulate mechanisms (dual trust forms), mediating pathways, and moderating conditions; resulting claims are framed as propositions about how tokenized incentives reconfigure trust and value co-creation.
  • The paper appears to produce testable hypotheses rather than report a large-scale empirical estimation; it suggests directions for empirical validation (e.g., experiments, field studies, platform data analyses).

Implications for AI Economics

  • Design of tokenized AI markets and platforms
    • Incentive architecture should prioritize mechanisms that build authentic trust (long-term reputation, identity-anchored contributions, governance participation, vesting/lockups) over pure speculative stimuli.
    • Token utility should be aligned with durable productive behaviors (model improvement, high-quality labels, meaningful governance) to reduce illusory-trust effects.
  • Measurement & evaluation
    • Platforms and researchers should measure value co-creation quality (contribution accuracy, retention, downstream performance of AI models) in addition to participation metrics (transactions, active wallets, token transfers).
    • Econometric analyses should distinguish between volume-driven signals and quality-driven outcomes; naive metrics (trades, MAUs) can be misleading.
  • Policy & market stability
    • Regulatory and governance interventions may be warranted to limit harmful speculation (disclosure, limits on token sale mechanics, anti‑wash trading measures) that promote illusory trust and reduce long-term value.
    • DAO governance and on-chain reputation systems can be structured to reward authenticity (proofs of contribution, staking tied to outcomes).
  • Empirical research agenda for AI economists
    • Test the dual-trust mediation model using platform-level panel data, randomized incentive changes, or field experiments that vary token utility, vesting, reputational visibility, or governance rights.
    • Identify causal effects of speculative vs intrinsic motivations (survey instruments, exploited price shocks, IV designs) on contribution quality and platform welfare.
    • Quantify the paradoxes: analyze whether surges in token-driven participation correlate negatively with downstream measures of AI product quality or long-run retention.
  • Practical trade-offs
    • Short-term growth via aggressive token rewards can bootstrap activity but risks attracting opportunistic actors and degrading long-run AI product value; careful calibration and complementary non‑monetary incentives (recognition, meaningful roles) are essential.

If you want, I can (a) translate these propositions into testable hypotheses with suggested empirical designs, or (b) draft a short list of platform-level KPIs that capture authentic-trust and value-co-creation quality for use in AI marketplaces.

Assessment

Paper Typetheoretical Evidence Strengthn/a — The paper is conceptual and synthesizes existing theories to produce testable propositions; it does not present empirical identification or causal estimation. Methods Rigormedium — Arguments are grounded in four established theoretical lenses (Trust Theory, Service‑Dominant Logic, Self‑Determination Theory, Signaling Theory) and articulate clear mediating and moderating mechanisms and paradoxes, but the work lacks empirical validation, formal modeling, or robustness checks that would strengthen causal claims. SampleNo empirical sample; the paper is a theory-driven synthesis combining literature from Trust Theory, Service‑Dominant Logic, Self‑Determination Theory, and Signaling Theory to propose a dual-trust mediation model for tokenized incentives and value co-creation. Themesgovernance org_design GeneralizabilityNo empirical tests — applicability to specific platforms, jurisdictions, or user populations is unverified, Abstract framing may overlook platform-specific mechanics (token design, smart contract enforceability, secondary markets), Cultural and sectoral differences in trust and motivations not empirically addressed, Dynamics over time (e.g., market cycles, regulatory changes) are theorized but not validated

Claims (10)

ClaimDirectionOutcomeConfidence & EvidenceDetails
Tokenized incentives create two distinct forms of trust in Web3 ecosystems: authentic trust and illusory trust, which operate as opposing mediators of value co-creation. Output Quality mixed Quality of value co-creation
Reading fidelity high
Study strength speculative
not reported
0.02
Tokenized incentives can increase the quality of value co-creation through authentic trust, which is grounded in relational evaluation, social norms, shared purpose, and stable governance. Output Quality positive Quality of value co-creation
Reading fidelity high
Study strength speculative
not reported
0.02
Tokenized incentives can reduce the quality of value co-creation through illusory trust, which is based on incentive-driven signals, token-price expectations, speculation, and short-term payoffs. Output Quality negative Quality of value co-creation
Reading fidelity high
Study strength speculative
not reported
0.02
Speculative motivation amplifies illusory-trust pathways and increases the risk of opportunistic participation. Output Quality negative Quality and meaningfulness of participant contributions
Reading fidelity high
Study strength speculative
not reported
0.02
Community identification amplifies authentic-trust pathways and supports sustained, meaningful participation. Task Allocation positive Sustained and meaningful participation
Reading fidelity high
Study strength speculative
not reported
0.02
Stronger token incentives may increase participation while eroding authentic trust by shifting participant motivations toward external rewards. Adoption Rate mixed Participation and authentic trust
Reading fidelity high
Study strength speculative
not reported
0.02
Increasing participation metrics can coexist with declining quality of co-created value, so high participation does not necessarily indicate high-quality ecosystem performance. Output Quality negative Quality of co-created value relative to participation
Reading fidelity high
Study strength speculative
not reported
0.02
Rapid token-driven growth may be unsustainable when the quality of value co-creation is low. Organizational Efficiency negative Long-run sustainability of ecosystem growth
Reading fidelity high
Study strength speculative
not reported
0.02
Evaluating Web3 ecosystem success using only participation or token-velocity metrics can be misleading; evaluation should also measure trust quality and contribution quality. Decision Quality negative Accuracy of ecosystem performance evaluation
Reading fidelity high
Study strength low
not reported
0.06
Token incentive architectures that emphasize long-term reputation, identity-anchored contributions, governance participation, and vesting or lockups are expected to build more authentic trust than purely speculative incentives. Governance And Regulation positive Authentic trust and durable productive participation
Reading fidelity medium
Study strength speculative
not reported
0.01

Notes