The complexity of blockchain technologies is reflected in the various ways in which social actors operate with crypto transactions, and this is seen in the wide range of discourses and practices adopted on the crypto market. Using social constructivism, this study highlights the fact that social practices in the crypto area respect certain thematic ideologies, through which individual discourses reflect different pragmatic expectations in relation to virtually encrypted transactions. Drawing on inductive thematic analysis based on 38 semi-structured interviews with Romanian investors, four major themes emerge: (1) unbreakable power of code encompasses rather libertarian discourses on potential state policies, (2) key role of peers explains the investments in the crypto market as a form of community membership, (3) assuming plenty of risks highlights the discourses focused on substantial and unpredictable gains, and (4) preferring safety above all encompasses discourses on financial stability through rather conservative behaviors.
BeckU (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.
3.
BeneaI (2021) Tun pe piața crypto din România: zeci de milioane de dolari produși cu „boți” în câteva minute [Cannon on the Romanian crypto market: tens of millions of dollars produced with “bots” in a few minutes]. Europa Liberă România, 21December. Available at: https://romania.europalibera.org/a/lansare-ride-maiar-exchange/31616379.html (accessed 31 January 2022).
4.
BergerPLuckmannT (1967) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor.
5.
BijkerWEHughesTPinchT (1999) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
6.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
BruntonF (2019) Digital Cash. The Unknown History of the Anarchists, Utopians, and Technologists Who Built Cryptocurrency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
CalvãoF (2019) Crypto-miners: Digital labor and the power of blockchain technology. Economic Anthropology6(1): 123–134.
De FilippiPMannanMReijersW (2020) Blockchain as a confidence machine: The problem of trust & challenges of governance. Technology in Society62: 101284.
DonaldsonDRConwayP (2015) User conceptions of trustworthiness for digital archival documents. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology66(12): 2427–2444.
17.
EarleTC (2009) Trust, Confidence, and the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Risk Analysis29(6): 785–792.
18.
EloSKyngäsH (2008) The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing62(1): 107–115.
19.
GiddensA (1991) Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity.
20.
JanuaryB (2021) Cryptocurrencies and the Blockchain Revolution: Bitcoin and beyond. Minneapolis, MN: Twenty-First Century Books.
21.
KarlstrømH (2014) Do libertarians dream of electric coins? The material embeddedness of Bitcoin. Distinktion15(1): 23–36.
22.
KjærlandFMelandMOustA, et al. (2018) How can bitcoin price fluctuations be explained. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues8: 323–332.
23.
LeeJY (2019) A decentralized token economy: how blockchain and cryptocurrency can revolutionize business. Business Horizons62(6): 773–784.
24.
MarellaVUpretiBMerikiviJ, et al. (2020) Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin. Electronic Markets30: 259–271.
25.
MaurerBNelmsTSwartzL (2013) “When perhaps the real problem is money itself!” The practical materiality of Bitcoin. Social Semiotics23(2): 261–277.
26.
MorkunasVJPaschenJBoonE (2019) How blockchain technologies impact your business model. Business Horizons62(3): 295–306.
NakamotoS (2008) Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Available at: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (accessed 10 September 2021).
29.
PlantinJCLagozeZEdwardsPN, et al. (2018) Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society20(1): 293–310.
30.
RaduB (2021) Non-fungible tokens (NFTs)–regulation vacuum and challenges for Romania. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International RAIS Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities, 15-16 August, pp. 137–143. Scientia Moralitas Research Institute. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/smo/lpaper/0102.html
TapscottDTapscottA (2016) Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World. London: Penguin.
37.
VidanGLehdonvirtaV (2018) Mine the gap: Bitcoin and the maintenance of trustlessness. New Media & Society21(1): 42–59.
38.
WinnerL (1980) Do artifacts have politics?Daedalus109(1): 121–136.
39.
WoodallARingelS (2019) Blockchain archival discourse: Trust and the imaginaries of digital preservation. New Media & Society22(12): 2200–2217.
40.
ZookMABlankenshipJ (2018) New spaces of disruption? The failures of Bitcoin and the rhetorical power of algorithmic governance. Geoforum96: 248–255.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
