Beyond platforms — Growing distributed transaction networks for digital commerce

Context We talk of the internet as digital infrastructure; but we leave the building of rails and roads to the quasi-monopolistic platform providers that benefit from both vendor and customer log-in. Decentralised architectures provide a number of advantages: They are potentially more inclusive for small players; more resilient against adversarial events, and seem to generate more innovation. However, it is not well understood how to evolve, adapt and govern decentralised infrastructures. Objective This article reports empirical qualitative research on the development and governance of the Beckn Protocol, an open source protocol for decentralised transactions, the successful development of domain-specific adaptations, and implementation and scaling of commercial infrastructures based on it. It explores how the architecture and governance support local innovation for specific business domains, and how the domain-specific innovations feed back into the development of the core concept Method The Beckn Protocol is researched as a defining element of a software ecosystem underpinning infrastructures for digital commerce. The research applied a case study approach, combining interviews with core members of the Beckn community; triangulated by interviews with community leaders of domain specific adaptations and by analysis of online documents and the protocol itself. Results The article shows the possibility of a decentralised approach to IT Infrastructures. It analyses the Beckn Protocol, domain specific adaptations, and networks built on them with respect to architecture and evolution, community and governance, the outcome, and communication and collaboration. Based on this analysis, a number of generative mechanisms, socio-technical arrangements that support adoption, innovation, and scaling of infrastructures are highlighted. Conclusion The article discusses the importance of governance also concerning security of decentralised networks. It emphasises the importance of feedback loops to both provide input for technical evolution and to recognise misconduct and develop means to address it. Implications for practice and research are highlighted.