The first type of governance structure, participant-governed network structure, has no separate management entity; and each of the organizations in the network is responsible for decision-making and managing the network.
Indeed, the combination of a participant-governed network and relational governance was present in 15 of the 22 cases; and lead organization and network-administrative organization networks were combined with hierarchical coordination.
However, only in two cases did governance structure and governance mechanism clearly contradict each other, namely through a combination of a participant-governed network and low relational governance.
The most frequent governance structure was the participant-governed network.
There are three generic types of governance structure, namely the participant-governed network, the lead organization form, and the network-administrative organization [ 12].
To code governance structure into network-administrative organization, participant-governed network, and lead organization, the criteria of Provan and Kenis [ 12] for these three types were used.
In the participant-governed network structure, trust is important and network governance is dominated by the relational governance mechanism.
Most networks had the participant-governed network form (17/22).
Furthermore, Provan and Kenis [ 12] suggest that in participant-governed networks, internal legitimacy is more easily established than is external legitimacy [ 12].
While it has its limitations, cryptonetworks promise to take the best of both worlds by forming a community-governed, decentralized network, with the incentives to create and develop services that could one day exceed even the most sophisticated services we use today.
