Amidst the rise of Web3, a technology transforming user interactions and challenging corporate control, this study uses a hybrid model of appreciative inquiry that matches the remote and decentralized nature of Web3 communities, to investigate the formation of a blockchain startup and its emergent culture and values. Despite limited resources, the company has built a diverse, global community via digital platforms, exceeding stakeholder expectations. This appreciative inquiry uncovers a community manifesting five core values: excellence, sustainable innovation, inclusivity, continuous learning, and creativity, challenging stereotypes often associated with the Web3 industry. This work advances participative research by introducing a hybrid model of appreciative inquiry tailored for remote and decentralized Web3 communities. By adapting appreciative inquiry to the unique dynamics of blockchain-dependent organizations, this study extends the methodology’s applicability and demonstrates its effectiveness in uncovering and fostering core communal values within cutting-edge technological contexts.

1.       Murray A, Kim D, Combs J. The promise of a decentralized internet: What is Web3 and how can firms prepare?. Business Horizons; 2023; 66(2): 191-202. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2022.06.002

2.       Ray PP. Web3: A comprehensive review on background, technologies, applications, zero-trust architectures, challenges and future directions. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems. 2023; 3: 213-248. doi: 10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.05.003

3.       Wahyuningsih E, Baidi B. Scrutinizing the potential use of Discord application as a digital platform amidst emergency remote learning. Journal of Educational Management and Instruction. 2021; 1(1): 9-18. doi: 10.22515/jemin.v1i1.3448

4.       Wan S, Lin H, Gan W, et al.Web3: The Next Internet Revolution. arxiv. 2023; preprint. doi: 10.48550/arxiv.2304.06111

5.       Klenke K, Wallace JR, Martin SM (editors). Qualitative Research in the Study of Leadership, 2nd ed. Emerald; 2015.

6.       Torbert WR. The practice of action inquiry. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (editors). Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. SAGE; 2001. Chapter 18. pp. 250-260.

7.       Cooperrider EL, Whitney DK. Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler; 2005.

8.       Lewin K. Psychology and the process of group living. The Journal of Social Psychology. 1943; 17(1): 113-131. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1943.9712269

9.       Cooperrider DL. A contemporary commentary on appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In: Avital M, Brodie B, Godwin LN, et al. (editors).Organizational Generativity: The Appreciative Inquiry Summit and a Scholarship of Transformation. Bingley, UK: Emerald; 2013.

10.    Cooperrider DL, Srivastva S. Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In: Woodman RW, Pasmore WA (editors). Research in Organizational Change and Development. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; 1987. Volume 1. pp. 129-169.

11.    Kelsey-Sugg A, Dunne N, Fennell M. Labelling cryptocurrency as ‘gambling’ shows lack of understanding and misses the solution, expert says. ABC News. Available online: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-15/cryptocurrency-gambling-regulations-not-right-fit-says-expert/102439880 (accessed on 25 December 2025).

12.    Lewis S, Passmore J, Cantore S. Using appreciative inquiry in sales team development. Industrial and Commercial Training. 2008; 40(4): 175-180. doi: 10.1108/00197850810876217

13.    Sargent J, Casey A. Appreciative inquiry for physical education and sport pedagogy research: A methodological illustration through teachers’ uses of digital technology. Sport, Education and Society. 2021; 26(1): 45-57. doi: 10.1080/13573322.2019.1689942

14.    Nabben K. Web3 as ‘self-infrastructuring’: The challenge is how. Big Data & Society. 2023; 10(1): 1-6. doi: 10.1177/20539517231159002

15.    Mulaji SM, Roodt S. Factors affecting organisations’ adoption behaviour toward blockchain-based distributed identity management: The sustainability of self-sovereign identity in organisations. Sustainability. 2022; 14(18): 11534. doi: 10.3390/su141811534

16.    Rao L. Here’s how the Metaverse enables inclusivity for genderqueer people. Cointelegraph: The future of money. Available online: https://cointelegraph.com/news/here-s-how-the-metaverse-enables-inclusivity-for-genderqueer-people (accessed on 25 December 2025).

17.    Hogan B. The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 2010; 30(6): 377-386. doi: 10.1177/0270467610385893

18.    Cederblom JB, Paulsen DW. Critical reasoning: Understanding and criticizing arguments and theories. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 1982.

19.    Gold RL. Roles in Sociological Field Observations. Social Forces. 1958; 36(3): 217-223. doi: 10.2307/2573808

20.    Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches, 4th ed. SAGE; 2018.

21.    Johnson P, Duberley. Reflexivity in management research. Journal of Management Studies. 2003; 40,(5): 1279-1303. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00380

22.    SoedirgoJ, Glas A.Toward active reflexivity: Positionality and practice in the production of knowledge. Political Science & Politics. 2020; 53(3): 527-531. doi: 10.1017/S1049096519002233

23.    Baxter P, Jack S. Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report. 2008; 13(4): 544-559.

24.    Lincoln YS, Guba EE. Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE; 1985.

25.    Taylor SJ, Bogdan R, DeVault M. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource. Wiley; 2015.

26.    Glaser B, Strauss AL. Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Somerset: Taylor & Francis; 1967.

27.    Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory (Introducing Qualitative Methods), 2nd ed. SAGE; 2014.

28.    Saldaña J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 3rd ed. SAGE; 2016.

29.    Mihas P. Load-bearing codes: Coding the connections. In: International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry. Urbana; 2014. Volume 22.

30.    Williams M, Moser T. The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. International Management Review. 2019; 15(1): 45-55.

31.    Glaser BG. Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press; 1978.

32.    Strauss AL. Qualtitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge University Press; 1987.

33.    Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldaña J. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2014.

34.    Kendall J. Axial coding and the grounded theory controversy. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 1999; 21(6): 743-757. 1999, doi: 10.1177/019394599902100603

35.    Corbin JM,  Strauss AL. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd ed. SAGE; 2008.

36.    Boyd NM, Bright DS. Appreciative inquiry as a mode of action research for community psychology. Journal of Community Psychology. 2007; 35(8): 1019-1036. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20208

37.    Sandberg K. Web3 and sustainability. February 2023. Available online: https://project.linuxfoundation.org/hubfs/LF%20Research/Intel%20Web3%20and%20Sustainability%20-%20Report.pdf (accessed on 6 January 2026).

38.    Bambysheva N. Web3 growth stymied by scarcity of programmers. Forbes.  Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ninabambysheva/2022/08/29/web3-growth-stymied-by-scarcity-of-programmers/ (accessed on 6 January 2026).

39.    Bannermanquist J. Women in Web3 advocate for increased diversity in the ecosystem. Cointelegraph: The future of money. Available online: https://cointelegraph.com/news/women-in-web3-advocate-for-increased-diversity-in-the-ecosystem (accessed on 25 December 2025).

40.    Chau L. Diversity is key to Web3’s success. Forbes. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/zengernews/2023/02/09/diversity-is-key-to-web3s-success/ (accessed on 25 December 2025).

41.    Shifman L. Memes in a digital world: Reconciling with a conceptual troublemaker. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2013; 18(3): 362-377. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12013

42.    Grundlingh L. Memes as speech acts. Social Semiotics. 2018; 28(2): 147-168. doi: 10.1080/10350330.2017.1303020

43.    Quiniou M. Immersion in Web3 and DeGen community. Presented at the EUTIC 2022; 13-15 October 2022; Ionian University, Corfu.

44.    Spitzmüller C, Glenn DM, Sutton MM, et al. Survey nonrespondents as bad soldiers: Examining the relationship between organizational citizenship and survey response behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 2007; 15(4): 449-459. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00403.x

45.    Tuckett AG. Part II. Rigour in qualitative research: Complexities and solutions. Nurse Researcher. 2005; 13(1): 29-42.

46.    Bassey M. Case Study Research in Educational Settings. McGraw-Hill Education; 1999.

47.    Yeager DS, Dweck CS. What can be learned from growth mindset controversies?. American Psychologist. 2020; 75(9):1269-1284. doi: 10.1037/amp0000794