The Impact of Blockchain on Enterprises Sharing Real Data Based on Dynamic Evolutionary Game Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well written and I like the concept of the paper.
1. Abstract could be improved by providing more detail on the specific methods and techniques used in the study, such as the modeling approach and simulation methodology.
2. Introduction could benefit from a more explicit statement of the novelty and contribution of the study to the existing literature on blockchain technology.
3. Methods section can be explained better and results from the simulation can be represented in more meaningful way to cater the broader research audience.
4. Please re-read and correct the grammatical and minor spelling mistakes.
Author Response
The paper is well written and I like the concept of the paper.
Thank you for your affirmation.
- Abstract could be improved by providing more detail on the specific methods and techniques used in the study, such as the modeling approach and simulation methodology.
Reply: Thank you for your pertinent comments. We have revised the summary section. We have increased the comparison between the blockchain supply chain and the traditional supply chain. In addition, we have increased the discussion of the distribution proportion. We mark the modified part in the original text in red font.
- Introduction could benefit from a more explicit statement of the novelty and contribution of the study to the existing literature on blockchain technology.
Reply: In the Introduction, we added the introduction of dynamic evolutionary game and compared the dynamic evolutionary game with the static game. We summarize the characteristics and advantages of the dynamic evolutionary game. Our research content is relatively new and highlighting the influence of core enterprises on SMEs. At the same time, we emphasized the importance of synergy payoff and fairness.
- Methods section can be explained better and results from the simulation can be represented in more meaningful way to cater the broader research audience.
Reply: We have added more detailed explanations in Section 2.2 and added Figure 1 to illustrate the changes in the dynamic evolutionary game. At the same time, in Section 4, we made a more detailed sensitivity analysis for different initial values and variable values.
- Please re-read and correct the grammatical and minor spelling mistakes.
Reply: We carefully read the paper and revised it in detail.
Reviewer 2 Report
Why this approach was selected? Did you test other models? Did you test other configurations in your research?
What are the limitations of your model? How does complexity influence efficiency? How does the number of features influence efficiency?
How to set optimal coefficients in your system?
You have not referred any recent paper from 2022,2021
Author Response
Why this approach was selected? Did you test other models? Did you test other configurations in your research?
Reply: Compared to classical game theory, the dynamic evolutionary game can more accurately reflect the real world. In the static game, the actor is completely rational. The dynamic evolutionary game weakens players into bounded rationality. At the same time, dynamic evolutionary game uses the idea of continuous evolution of biology as a reference and can carry out repeated game under the condition of incomplete information. The use of dynamic evolutionary games is more in line with the actual situation. In the dynamic evolutionary game model, players change their action strategies dynamically over time by learning and adapting to each other's strategic decisions.
We added sensitivity analysis in the paper to test the impact of other configurations on dynamic evolutionary games. The sensitivity test will make the paper more convincing.
What are the limitations of your model? How does complexity influence efficiency? How does the number of features influence efficiency?
Reply: The limitation of the paper is that there is no sufficient data for empirical analysis. In order to make the conclusion of the paper more convincing, we have made a three-party evolutionary game in the Appendix and made a sensitivity analysis in Section 4. In the Sensitivity Analysis section, we can see the impact of initial value and variable changes on efficiency.
How to set optimal coefficients in your system?
Reply: The variables in each model have conditions that must be met. We have explained them in the Appendix before. To better emphasize the conditions that variables meet, we have added the corresponding descriptions in the numerical simulation section. We mark the above changes in red font.
You have not referred any recent paper from 2022,2021
Reply: We add references [23], [32], [33], and [34] for 2021 and 2022. In the Introduction, we introduce the method of dynamic evolutionary games in detail. We carefully studied the methods in the above documents and further revised the paper. For example, the dynamic evolutionary game is described in more detail in Section 2.2. Sensitivity analysis was carried out using the methods in the references.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors propose three game models to analysis the impact of data sharing choices. The authors derive income matrix and use steady-state analysis for local maximum. They also simulate three models and present the impact of different strategies. Generally speaking, the analysis is convincing, but the conclusion is somewhat intuitive. My comments are as follows.
1. Frankly speaking, the whole paper is almost irrelevant to blockchain. The authors simply treat blockchain as an immutable and public storage. The model, hypothesis and analysis have nothing to do with blockchain. Since there is a word "blockchain" in the title, I think it should play an important role in this work. I suggest that the authors should highlight the importance of blockchain in this topic or simply removing this word from the topic.
2. The authors propose three models which include three different entities, the core company, the SME and the financial institution. Each model describe the behaviors between two entities. However, there is no model to include all these three entities. If a core company makes a decision according to model 2/3, this decision definitely affect the SME's decision. Therefore, I think it is necessary to integrate model 1/2 and model 1/3 and make an overall analysis. I know the authors claim that the SME will follow the core company's strategy but I do not see the reason.
3. The authors use Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 to show two mechanisms between the core company and the financial institution respectively. I suggest that the authors should make a new figure to show two strategies at the same time for readers to easily compare their difference. The authors also need more description about the difference. For example, the authors claim that the synergy benefit mechanism is more effective. However, it is not clear to me about the definition of effectiveness.
4. SME is not defined in this paper.
5. Tables, figures and equations should be placed on the center of the page. Besides, the caption of table 2 should be on the same page with the table content.
6. Since there are many notations, I suggest that the authors should summarize them in one table for each model to increase readability.
Author Response
The authors propose three game models to analysis the impact of data sharing choices. The authors derive income matrix and use steady-state analysis for local maximum. They also simulate three models and present the impact of different strategies. Generally speaking, the analysis is convincing, but the conclusion is somewhat intuitive. My comments are as follows.
Reply: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have carefully reviewed the insufficient part.
- Frankly speaking, the whole paper is almost irrelevant to blockchain. The authors simply treat blockchain as an immutable and public storage. The model, hypothesis and analysis have nothing to do with blockchain. Since there is a word "blockchain" in the title, I think it should play an important role in this work. I suggest that the authors should highlight the importance of blockchain in this topic or simply removing this word from the topic.
Reply: We have added Section 2.1 to compare the blockchain supply chain with the traditional supply chain using the three-party dynamic evolutionary game. We conclude that the blockchain supply chain will bring more benefits to core enterprises, SMEs, and financial institutions. The subsequent analysis of the paper will be carried out in the context of the blockchain supply chain.
- The authors propose three models which include three different entities, the core company, the SME, and the financial institution. Each model describes the behaviors between two entities. However, there is no model to include all these three entities. If a core company makes a decision according to model 2/3, this decision definitely affect the SME's decision. Therefore, I think it is necessary to integrate model 1/2 and model 1/3 and make an overall analysis. I know the authors claim that the SME will follow the core company's strategy but I do not see the reason.
Reply: According to your opinion, we have calculated the three-party evolutionary game in the Appendix. The results of the three-party evolutionary game are similar to Propositions 2 and 3. We have detailed the impact of core enterprises on SMEs in the text. In the supply chain, SMEs lack sufficient capital flow and need orders from core enterprises to survive. SMEs lack independence and need to rely on core enterprises. If SMEs choose the action strategy of uploading false data, core enterprises can terminate their cooperation with SMEs, and SMEs will be on the verge of bankruptcy.
- The authors use Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 to show two mechanisms between the core company and the financial institution respectively. I suggest that the authors should make a new figure to show two strategies at the same time for readers to easily compare their difference. The authors also need more description about the difference. For example, the authors claim that the synergy benefit mechanism is more effective. However, it is not clear to me about the definition of effectiveness.
Reply: In Section 4, we put the reward mechanism and the synergy payoff mechanism in the same chart when we perform the sensitivity analysis. The reason why we did not put the punishment mechanism in is that the punishment mechanism and the reward mechanism have similar results.
The reward and punishment mechanism can promote enterprises to upload real data under certain conditions, but sometimes it does not work. The reason is that the reward mechanism will reduce the payoff of financial institutions, and the punishment mechanism will reduce the payoff of core enterprises. When the reward and punishment mechanism increases the economic interests of one player, it will inevitably reduce the economic interests of another player, so it does not always play a role. As long as the synergy payoff is large enough, the synergy payoff mechanism can always encourage enterprises to upload real data. The reward and punishment mechanism is a zero-sum game, while the synergy payoff mechanism is not a zero-sum game. The synergy benefit mechanism can increase the payoffs of both players. Thus, the synergy payoff mechanism is more effective than the reward and punishment mechanism.
- SME is not defined in this paper.
Reply: In the first paragraph of the Introduction, we give a detailed description of SMEs. In the supply chain, there are core enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The core enterprises have the characteristics of high industry status, large market influence, strong economic strength, and high integrity. Core enterprises are recognized as high-quality customers by financial institutions such as banks. SMEs usually refer to independent companies with fewer than 50 employees. However, each country/region has different definitions of SMEs. For most enterprises, the upper limit is about 250 people. The United States defines SMEs as no more than 500 employees. SMEs have the characteristics of low industry status, weak economic strength, and low financial transparency. They are often identified as high-risk customers by financial institutions such as banks. In the supply chain, SMEs often need to rely on core enterprises to carry out business and lack independence. [1-3].
- Tables, figures and equations should be placed on the center of the page. Besides, the caption of table 2 should be on the same page with the table content.
Reply: We carefully reviewed the format of the chart.
- Since there are many notation, I suggest that the authors should summarize them in one table for each model to increase readability.
Reply: Based on your valuable suggestions, we have listed the symbols in each model in a separate table.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Most of my previous concerns are well addressed. Though I still think blockchain is irrelevant to this work. I know that the authors list some advantages for the blockchain usage, but it has little to do with the core concept of this work.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have learned a lot and made corresponding modifications. We explained the shortcomings of traditional models and pointed out the advantages of blockchain technology in data sharing. The detailed modifications have been annotated in the main text and listed below.
The traditional Internet suffers from several shortcomings when it comes to data sharing. Firstly, the dispersion of data across various organizations, coupled with the absence of standardized data formats and protocols, poses challenges for the circulation and sharing of data. Secondly, variations in data sources, collection methods, and processing stages result in differing data quality among organizations, making it arduous to share data effectively. This issue becomes particularly problematic when attempting to share data between different sources. Thirdly, the sensitive and valuable nature of data necessitates the consideration of privacy and security concerns during the sharing process. Any data leaks or misuse can lead to severe losses for both organizations and individuals. Lastly, a lack of mutual trust between organizations acts as a deterrent to data sharing. Many organizations are reluctant to share their data with others due to concerns that it may undermine their competitive advantage [3].
To address these challenges and ensure the security and reliability of data, blockchain technology can be employed in the following ways. Firstly, decentralized storage allows for the distribution of data across multiple nodes instead of relying on a central authority, ensuring both decentralization and security of data. Secondly, a distributed ledger created using blockchain technology enables multiple participants to record transactions involving shared data. This approach guarantees data transparency, authenticity, and prevents tampering and data leakage. Thirdly, smart contracts can be utilized to establish rules and conditions that grant access and usage rights exclusively to authorized users. By automating contract execution and minimizing manual intervention, smart contracts mitigate risks and reduce operational costs. Lastly, encryption algorithms can be employed to encrypt data, ensuring privacy and data security. Access to and decryption of data is restricted to users with appropriate permissions. In summary, blockchain technology offers a more secure, decentralized, and reliable means of sharing data. However, it is important to note that data-sharing solutions leveraging blockchain technology must strike a balance between multiple factors such as cost, efficiency, scalability, and more [4].
