Brandless by design: NFTs and the digital nomad economy in Web3

This article examines how “brandless by design” strategies in Web3, particularly among digital nomads and creators of non-fungible tokens (NFTs), reshape consumer behavior, market intermediation, and governance. Using a structured thematic synthesis of interdisciplinary academic and gray literature, we integrate five analytical lenses: affordances (provenance, programmability, composability, and token-gated access), signaling (credibility through on-chain histories and disclosures), consumer identity (the extended self in digital ownership and display), parasocial interaction (attachment without human embodiment), and governance (smart contract terms, platform policies, and community charters). Three primary themes emerge. First, creative autonomy and disintermediation, as NFTs enable direct creator-to-consumer exchange and programmable provenance. Second, engagement and authenticity, as communities cohere around transparent access and shared utility rather than traditional brand logos. Third, sustainability and decentralization, which highlight tensions around environmental impact, intellectual property, cultural legitimacy, and consumer protection. Cross-cutting subthemes, including parasocial credibility, accessibility and cultural sensitivity, and brand control versus co-creation, explain why brandlessness can appear simultaneously intimate and precarious. We propose a conceptual framework that links brandlessness to decentralized identity and on-chain governance, clarifying when provenance signals, token-bound permissions, and community norms substitute effectively for legacy brand cues. The review concludes with implications for practice and policy, such as standardized licenses, clear disclosures, participatory design, on-chain royalty registries, and interoperable memberships that balance value capture with oversight. Future research should prioritize cross-cultural adoption, sustainability auditing that incorporates off-chain infrastructure, and mixed-methods designs combining on-chain telemetry with ethnography and experiments to assess trust, authenticity, and wellbeing.

1 Introduction

The digital landscape is undergoing a profound transformation, with a notable shift towards brandlessness, particularly among digital nomads and NFT (non-fungible token) creators. This trend is indicative of broader changes in consumer preferences, work models, and digital ownership paradigms. Digital nomads, who prioritize mobility and flexibility, are increasingly drawn to unbranded products and experiences that align with their values of individuality and authenticity (Joy et al., 2022). Concurrently, the emergence of NFTs has revolutionized the concept of digital ownership, providing a decentralized and transparent platform that resonates with the ethos of brandlessness (Wilson et al., 2022).

This study aims to investigate the growing trend of brandlessness among digital nomad consumers and NFT retail creators, focusing on the motivations behind this shift and its impact on consumer behavior and the digital retail environment. The emergence of brandlessness is rooted in larger societal changes, such as the growth of the gig economy, decentralized work models, and a shift toward digital consumption, all of which favor personalization and authenticity over traditional brand identities (Flick, 2022).

While there is emerging interest in NFTs and their applications, existing research has primarily focused on technological aspects (Rehman et al., 2021), financial implications (Alawadhi and Alshamali, 2022), and digital consumption (Alkhudary et al., 2023). The relationship between NFTs and brandlessness, particularly in the context of digital nomad consumers, remains under-researched. This study addresses this gap by presenting a structured, thematic review of the fragmented literature in this field (Alshater et al., 2024).

The significance of this research lies in its potential to shed light on the evolving dynamics of consumer behavior in the digital era. As traditional brand loyalties are challenged and new forms of digital ownership emerge, understanding the motivations and preferences of digital nomads and NFT enthusiasts is crucial for businesses, marketers, and policymakers. This study aims to offer insightful observations about the future of digital retail and the changing landscape of brand perception in an increasingly decentralized and personalized marketplace. Yet this rise of brandlessness introduces unresolved tensions around sustainability, consumer protection, and governance that remain insufficiently theorized.

The paper is structured as follows. First, we provide a comprehensive review of the literature on NFTs and brandlessness, examining how these concepts intersect with digital nomadism, consumer identity, and decentralized ownership. We then describe the structured review approach adopted in this study, outlining the process of identifying and thematically synthesizing relevant academic and gray literature. Next, we present our findings, organized into six thematic clusters: creative autonomy and brandlessness, consumer engagement and authenticity, sustainability and decentralization, parasocial interactions and credibility, accessibility and cultural sensitivity, and brand control and content creation. These themes are interpreted through five theoretical lenses: affordances, signaling, consumer identity, parasocial interaction, and governance, which together provide the conceptual scaffolding for the analysis. Finally, we discuss the broader theoretical, managerial, legal, and financial implications of these findings and conclude by identifying research gaps and directions for future inquiry into brandlessness and decentralized consumer practices.

2 Conceptual framework

We frame “brandless by design” as a socio-technical configuration in which NFT affordances (provenance, programmability, composability, and token-gated access) enable new forms of authenticity signaling that can substitute for legacy brand cues. Building on signaling theory, we treat on-chain provenance, wallet history, and disclosure practices as credibility signals that shape consumer trust in the absence of logos. Complementing this, consumer identity perspectives (e.g., the extended self) explain how ownership, display, and community rituals allow digital nomads to perform identity work through brandless assets. To account for intimacy without human embodiment, we draw on parasocial interaction research, which clarifies how consistency, transparency, and relatability, not human-ness per se, support attachment. Finally, institutional and governance lenses situate brandlessness within platform policies, smart-contract terms, and community charters (e.g., DAOs), highlighting how rules, rights, and accountability mechanisms reconfigure the functions traditionally served by brands. This integrated framework organizes our three primary themes (autonomy, engagement, and sustainability) and three cross-cutting subthemes (parasocial credibility, accessibility/culture, and brand control/content) into a coherent account of how trust, identity, and coordination are produced in Web3.

To prevent conceptual ambiguity and ensure that our framework can be empirically evaluated, we now delineate the construct with boundaries and testable implications. We define “brandless by design” as a deliberate strategic choice in which creators intentionally replace traditional brand identifiers (e.g., trademarks, logos, institutional provenance) with Web3-native trust signals, such as on-chain provenance, token-gated utility, transparent smart-contract rules, and community co-governance. In this sense, brandlessness is not an absence of brand but a substitution and redistribution of branding functions into protocol design, wallet reputation, and collective identity work. This construct is bounded by three conditions: (1) value attribution is grounded primarily in code and community, rather than institutional market reputation; (2) identity validation is enacted through token-mediated access and contribution, not through legacy brand affiliation; and (3) creator legitimacy is procedurally verifiable rather than symbolically signaled.

This conceptualization enables future testable implications: if “brandless by design” holds, then (i) on-chain provenance and governance clarity should predict trust more strongly than legacy brand familiarity, (ii) token-gated memberships should predict retention and co-creation outcomes more than logo-based affinity, and (iii) modular licensing and standardized disclosure should moderate consumer risk perception.

3 Literature review

3.1 Brandlessness and digital nomads

Brandlessness is characterized by a preference for unbranded products that align with one’s personal values and lifestyles. This trend is particularly prevalent among digital nomads who prioritize mobility and flexibility in their work and lifestyle choices. These consumers tend to favor personalized and unique products over mass-produced ones, reflecting a shift away from traditional brand loyalty (Joy et al., 2022).

The appeal of brandlessness for digital nomads is similar to the attraction of virtual influencers (VIs). In both cases, authenticity and personal connections were key to consumer engagement. Similar to VI followers, digital nomads are drawn to products and experiences that reflect their individuality and enable them to break free from corporate-driven branding constraints (Nguyen, 2023).

This shift towards brandlessness among digital nomads is not merely a rejection of traditional brands but rather a reflection of a deeper desire for authenticity, personalization, and meaningful connections. Digital nomads often seek products and experiences that align with sustainability, minimalism, and global citizenship values. The absence of prominent branding allows these consumers to focus on the intrinsic qualities and functionality of products rather than being swayed by marketing narratives or brand associations.

Moreover, the brandless movement aligns with the digital-nomad ethos of freedom and flexibility. By choosing unbranded or minimally branded products, digital nomads can curate a lifestyle that is not tied to specific brand identities, allowing greater adaptability and personal expression as they move between different cultures and environments.

3.2 NFTs and digital ownership

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have transformed the concept of digital ownership by offering decentralized, blockchain-based platforms that provide unparalleled transparency and security. NFTs strongly appeal to digital nomads who appreciate the ability to personalize and verify their digital assets (Hofstetter et al., 2022). The use of NFTs in digital fashion and retail allows consumers to interact with brandless products that emphasize the individuality and uniqueness of the product. This trend mirrors how virtual influencers use NFTs to fuse their digital personas with exclusive digital goods (Arsenyan and Mirowska, 2021).

The growing interest in NFTs reflects a broader shift toward decentralized ownership and peer-to-peer interactions, aligning with the rising demand for non-branded products (Chohan and Paschen, 2023). NFTs offer a new paradigm of ownership that is particularly appealing to digital nomads and tech-savvy consumers who value digital assets as much as they do physical ones.

The unique properties of NFTs, such as their indivisibility and non-interchangeability, create a sense of scarcity and exclusivity in the digital world. This aspect aligns well with the desire for unique and personalized experiences that drive the brandless movement. For digital nomads, NFTs represent a way to own and carry digital assets that reflect their identity and experiences without the need for physical storage or transportation.

Furthermore, the blockchain technology underlying NFTs provides a level of transparency and authenticity that resonates with consumers seeking genuine and verifiable products. This technology allows for the creation of digital provenance, tracking the ownership and history of digital assets in a manner that was previously impossible. For digital nomads and other consumers embracing brandlessness, this transparency offers a new form of trust and authenticity that does not rely on traditional brand reputations.

3.3 Marketing implications of brandlessness

From a marketing perspective, brandlessness presents both opportunities and challenges for companies. Major brands such as Gucci and Nike have begun experimenting with NFTs, using them to enhance consumer engagement through unique, digital-first experiences (Taylor, 2023). NFTs enable direct interaction between creators and consumers, bypassing traditional brand structures. This mirrors the parasocial relationships fostered by virtual influencers, wherein consumers build personal connections with digital personas. The appeal of brandless NFTs lies in their ability to enable intimate and personalized exchanges, challenging conventional branding and marketing models (Nguyen, 2023; Arsenyan and Mirowska, 2021).

However, brandlessness presents challenges, especially in sustainability and regulation. The NFT market faces ongoing questions related to fraud, intellectual property, and environmental sustainability. The high energy consumption associated with blockchain technology has raised concerns about the long-term environmental impact of NFTs (Ante, 2022). Despite these challenges, the development of more sustainable blockchain solutions could enable NFTs to reduce physical production, particularly in sectors such as digital fashion (Adru et al., 2023).

Furthermore, the rise of responsible digital platforms in places such as China is fostering innovation in the NFT space, potentially addressing some environmental and regulatory concerns. These developments suggest that the future of brandlessness and NFTs may involve balancing technological innovation, sustainability, and consumer-driven personalization.

The shift towards brandlessness and the rise of NFTs are forcing marketers to rethink traditional branding strategies. Instead of focusing on building brand loyalty through repetitive messaging and logo placement, marketers should emphasize creating unique, personalized experiences that resonate with individual consumers. This could involve leveraging NFT technology to offer exclusive, limited-edition digital products or experiences that align with the values and preferences of digital nomads and other brandless consumers.

Moreover, the direct-to-consumer nature of NFTs and brandless products challenges the traditional role of intermediaries in retailing. Marketers may need to explore new ways of reaching and engaging consumers, potentially through decentralized platforms and peer-to-peer networks that align with the values of transparency and authenticity that drive the brandless movement.

In conclusion, the intersection of brandlessness, digital nomadism, and NFTs represents a significant shift in consumer behavior and the concept of digital ownership. This trend challenges traditional marketing paradigms and offers new opportunities for personalized and authentic consumer experiences. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, understanding and adapting to these changes will be crucial for businesses and marketers seeking to engage with the growing community of digital nomads and tech-savvy consumers embracing brandlessness and digital ownership through NFTs.

4 Review approach and methods

This article employs a structured, integrative literature review approach to examine the emerging phenomenon of brandlessness in relation to digital nomads and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) within Web3 environments. The review is designed to synthesize interdisciplinary insights and develop a conceptual framework that connects brandless strategies to digital ownership, consumer behavior, and decentralized governance.

Following guidance from Van Wee and Banister (2016), Snyder (2019), and Ramdhani et al. (2014), the methodology is structured into four phases: designing the review, conducting the search, data abstraction and thematic synthesis, and reporting. We follow the general principles of structured reviewing proposed by Denyer and Tranfield (2009) and Paul and Criado (2020), while allowing for the interpretive flexibility that is necessary when addressing novel and still-fragmented research areas.

4.1 Phase 1: designing the review

The review was guided by three central research questions.

1. How do digital nomads engage with brandless NFTs?

2. How do NFT creators incorporate brandless strategies in decentralized marketplaces?

3. What are the broader implications of these practices for consumer behavior and digital ownership?

To ensure conceptual clarity and added value, the review integrates five analytical lenses, namely affordances, signaling, consumer identity, parasocial interaction, and governance, into a coherent framework. The scope was intentionally interdisciplinary, drawing from marketing, digital culture, information systems, and business studies.

4.2 Phase 2: literature search strategy

A systematic search was conducted across major academic databases, including Google Scholar, Scopus, and FindIt@Bham, complemented by gray literature from industry reports, blogs, and practitioner essays. The following keyword combinations were used.

• “brandlessness” AND “NFTs”

• “digital nomads” AND “Web3”

• “consumer engagement” AND “decentralized identity”

• “parasocial interaction” AND “NFT creators”

Boolean operators (AND, OR) were applied to refine results. No date restrictions were imposed, but the final selection emphasized literature from 2021 to 2025 to reflect the most recent developments.

Inclusion criteria.

• Peer-reviewed journal articles and credible gray literature

• English language publications

• Relevance to consumer behavior, branding, NFTs, and decentralization

Because the concept of brandlessness in digital retail is still nascent, gray literature was also included, specifically industry reports, blogs, and practitioner essays, to capture real-time debates and developments not yet represented in scholarly journals (Adams et al., 2017). No restrictions were placed on publication date, as the intention was to reflect the most recent advances and discussions in this rapidly evolving space.

Exclusion criteria.

• Purely technical blockchain engineering papers

• Non-English sources

• Duplicate or derivative works

A total of 34 sources were selected: 23 academic articles and 11 gray literature contributions.

To maintain the focus on consumer behavior and managerial implications, purely technical discussions of blockchain engineering or cryptographic mechanisms were excluded. Only works published in English were included, ensuring consistency in interpretation and synthesis. This balance of academic and practitioner-oriented material was deemed essential, given that much of the discourse around NFTs, digital nomadism, and brandlessness is taking place at the intersection of theory and practice.

Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the inclusion/exclusion criteria above. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and, where necessary, full-text inspection. For grey literature, provenance (source, authorship), evidentiary grounding (data, analysis detail), and purpose (reporting vs. opinion) were documented to ensure credibility. Grey sources were used primarily to illustrate emergent practice. Technical claims were triangulated against peer-reviewed evidence wherever possible.

4.3 Phase 3: data abstraction and thematic synthesis

Using thematic synthesis (Liñán and Fayolle, 2015), the selected literature was coded in three steps: open coding of concepts, axial clustering into candidate themes, and integrative interpretation through the five analytical lenses. First, three broad themes emerged. The first concerns creative autonomy and brandlessness, highlighting how NFT creators use brandless approaches to expand creative freedom and reduce dependence on traditional brand structures. The second centers on consumer engagement and authenticity, showing how direct, unbranded interactions foster trust, community belonging, and parasocial dynamics comparable to those observed in the virtual influencer literature (Nguyen, 2023; Arsenyan and Mirowska, 2021). The third theme addresses sustainability and decentralization, exploring both the alignment of NFTs with decentralized economies and the tensions surrounding ecological responsibility and governance. These thematic clusters provide the conceptual scaffolding for the discussion that follows while also pointing to cross-cutting issues such as accessibility, cultural sensitivity, and credibility in brandless environments. These three broad themes were then clustered into six thematic categories.

• Creative autonomy and brandlessness

• Consumer engagement and authenticity

• Sustainability and decentralization

• Parasocial interactions and credibility

• Accessibility and cultural sensitivity

• Brand control and content creation

These themes were interpreted through the five analytical lenses to build a conceptual framework that explains how brandlessness operates as a socio-technical strategy in Web3 environments.

4.4 Phase 4: reporting and transparency

Overall, this review does not claim to be exhaustive in scope. It seeks to capture the most salient and conceptually significant contributions at the intersection of brandlessness, NFTs, and digital nomadism. It synthesizes peer-reviewed and gray literature to build a conceptual framework and research agenda without collecting or analyzing original empirical data. No unpublished data, submitted manuscripts, or personal communications are included. By consolidating insights across disciplines, the review advances understanding of how decentralized technologies are reshaping marketing practices, consumer identities, and governance models in the digital economy.

This review is integrative rather than PRISMA-systematic. We intentionally depart from PRISMA to accommodate a fast-moving, practice-led domain by incorporating vetted grey literature alongside peer-reviewed sources, while being transparent about inclusion criteria and analytical procedures.

5 Findings

The findings of this review indicate that brandlessness has emerged as a significant sub-trend among digital nomad consumers and NFT creators, with parallels to the virtual influencer (VI) phenomenon. Both brandless NFTs and VIs highlight tensions around authenticity, credibility, and parasocial engagement, raising broader questions about consumer trust in decentralized digital environments. Several thematic clusters emerged from the literature, providing a structured lens on brandlessness in Web3: three primary themes, creative autonomy and brandlessness, consumer engagement and authenticity, and sustainability and decentralization, and three cross-cutting subthemes: parasocial interactions and credibility, accessibility and cultural sensitivity, and brand control and content creation. These themes reflect not only the opportunities but also the challenges faced by creators, consumers, and businesses operating outside traditional branding structures.

Our conceptual framework (Figure 1) explains how brandlessness operates as a socio-technical strategy in Web3 environments. It integrates NFT affordances, signaling mechanisms, consumer identity work, parasocial interaction, and governance structures to show how trust, authenticity, and coordination can be produced without traditional institutional brand cues. The model illustrates how branding functions become redistributed into protocol design, wallet reputation, token-gated access, and community rule-making, thereby reframing “brandless by design” not as the absence of brand, but as the substitution of brand authority through code-based and community-driven mechanisms.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Brandlessness in Web3 (Source: Developed by the authors).

5.1 Creative autonomy and brandlessness

One of the strongest themes to emerge from the literature is the way NFTs reshape the relationship between creators and audiences by bypassing traditional intermediaries. Musicians, artists, and creators increasingly use NFTs to distribute their work directly to fans, challenging the authority of record labels, streaming platforms, and galleries. As Venema and Wijngaarden (2024), pp. 264–265 note, “with NFTs, musicians can release their music directly to their audiences, bypassing conventional intermediaries and gatekeepers … This kind of creativity was not directed by a label or management team, which gave respondents the feeling that they had strengthened their own creative autonomy.” This highlights the appeal of NFTs as tools of liberation from institutional control, allowing creators to set their own terms and experiment with unconventional or genre-defying outputs.

This decentralization of creative practice represents more than a technical shift; it signifies a reconfiguration of cultural production. By enabling peer-to-peer distribution and validation, blockchain technologies reinforce a logic of community-driven recognition rather than hierarchical gatekeeping (Wang et al., 2022). In this sense, brandlessness becomes a deliberate strategy: creators intentionally distance their work from corporate identities to emphasize originality, autonomy, and authenticity. The absence of conventional branding signals is not a deficit but an assertion of independence and creative sovereignty.

NFTs also restructure creative industries’ economic dimensions. Tokenization allows artists to mint their work as unique digital assets, which can be traded directly between consumers and collectors. This disintermediation ensures more equitable revenue streams, with creators capturing larger shares of profits while also benefiting from royalties on secondary market transactions (Brem et al., 2017). The immutability of blockchain records further strengthens these arrangements by protecting intellectual property rights and guaranteeing transparent compensation. These affordances disrupt long-standing asymmetries between creators and intermediaries, redistributing power in favor of the individual artist.

At the same time, NFTs enable new forms of audience participation and community building. Ownership is not only an act of consumption but also a form of membership, granting access to exclusive experiences, events, or decision-making opportunities. As Spyrou et al. (2025) demonstrate, creators increasingly attach privileges such as early access to content, participatory voting rights, or immersive fan experiences to NFTs, transforming consumers into active stakeholders. This participatory dimension blurs the line between production and consumption, turning audiences into collaborators in the creative process.

Together, these dynamics reveal how brandlessness in the NFT ecosystem is symbolic and structural. Symbolically, it embodies a rejection of corporate branding for authenticity and autonomy. Structurally, it reflects the decentralization of cultural industries, whereby creators not only distribute and monetize their work independently but also cultivate communities bound by shared values rather than brand loyalty. In this way, brandlessness is not an absence of identity but a reconfiguration of agency, ownership, and engagement in decentralized digital economies.

5.2 Consumer engagement and authenticity

NFTs not only serve as digital assets but also function as catalysts for building communities and fostering engagement. Ownership of NFTs creates exclusivity and group identity, encouraging social bonds that extend beyond transactional relationships. Centraco and Santoro (2025, p. 768) emphasize that “NFTs as community drivers [create] a sense of belonging and shared identity among NFT holders,” a dynamic reinforced through the distinctive language and practices of NFT channels (p. 777). This mirrors the logic of digital subcultures, where participation is less about consumption alone and more about signaling belonging through shared codes and symbolic capital.

The central role of authenticity in this process parallels findings from the literature on virtual influencers (VIs). Parasocial interactions (PSIs), which describe the one-sided yet emotionally meaningful connections between audiences and media figures, emerge strongly in both contexts. Stein et al. (2022), show that “a significant direct effect [indicates] stronger PSIs with the virtual influencer,” although they also note that reduced perceptions of human-likeness temper this effect. Their experiments reveal that “both examined influencers from the video streaming context elicited similar levels of PSI” (p. 3446), suggesting that authenticity is not anchored in human embodiment alone but in the consistency, intimacy, and relatability of engagement.

Applied to NFTs, this insight suggests that digital ownership can itself serve as a medium of parasocial connection. By holding NFTs, consumers participate in symbolic networks that resemble fan clubs or collector communities. The act of possession is simultaneously individual and communal, providing both exclusivity and shared identity. This mirrors how VIs cultivate a sense of intimacy through personal storytelling, despite being synthetic entities.

At the same time, risks of inauthenticity loom large. As Nguyen (2023) and Arsenyan and Mirowska (2021) argue, hyper-polished designs or manipulative content strategies can alienate consumers by undermining credibility. The uncanny valley phenomenon, well-documented in the VI literature, resonates here: when NFTs are perceived as overly artificial, slick, or detached from genuine community practice, skepticism arises. Authenticity in NFT engagement is therefore fragile, contingent upon transparency, creative sincerity, and alignment with community values.

Moreover, authenticity and engagement intersect with broader concerns about sustainability. As consumers increasingly prioritize responsible practices, NFT creators must navigate the tension between creative experimentation and environmental or ethical accountability (Ante, 2022; Adru et al., 2023). In this sense, consumer engagement in brandless NFT spaces is not only about trust and belonging but also about signaling alignment with values such as sustainability, fairness, and inclusivity.

5.3 Sustainability and decentralization

A recurring theme in the literature is the alignment of NFTs with decentralization and their potential contribution to sustainability. By embedding ownership and identity into immutable digital records, NFTs open possibilities that go far beyond speculative markets. Yuthas (2024, p. 1) emphasizes that “they can signify identity, establish ownership, institute claims, and convey history,” highlighting the capacity of NFTs to serve as infrastructures of trust. Beyond cultural and creative uses, NFTs may also support social objectives, such as more equitable access to vital services. As Yuthas (2024, p. 7) further observes, “for people living without an easy way to store and maintain paper records, NFTs could be used to record health information linked to decentralized systems and could be accessible to any health provider with access to the internet and permission from the patient.”

Such applications suggest that NFTs can contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly around inclusivity and access to essential resources. Yet this promise is tempered by concerns about environmental sustainability. The energy-intensive nature of proof-of-work consensus mechanisms has drawn widespread criticism for their ecological footprint (Truby et al., 2022). While proof-of-stake and other alternatives offer more sustainable solutions, debates remain about scalability, security, and adoption. These tensions create uncertainty over whether NFTs can genuinely be positioned as eco-friendly or whether they risk reproducing extractive models under the guise of decentralization.

This duality positions brandlessness in an ambivalent light. On one hand, unbranded NFTs may represent a radical departure from corporate consumption patterns, fostering alternative economies rooted in peer-to-peer trust. On the other hand, they may inadvertently perpetuate inequalities if ecological costs or technical barriers limit accessibility. As Ante (2022) and Sereti et al. (2025) note, the sustainability discourse surrounding NFTs is still unsettled, leaving open questions about whether decentralization alone can guarantee environmentally and socially responsible outcomes.

5.4 Parasocial interactions with VIs and NFTs

The literature on parasocial interactions (PSIs) offers useful parallels for understanding how consumers engage with brandless NFTs. Traditionally, PSIs describe the one-sided yet emotionally meaningful connections audiences form with media figures. Virtual influencers (VIs) have been a testing ground for this concept, showing that consumers are capable of establishing attachment even with artificial entities. Stein et al. (2022), demonstrate this by noting that “a significant direct effect signifies stronger PSIs with the virtual influencer,” though their study also reveals an important caveat: participants simultaneously attributed less human likeness to the VI, which tempered the effect. Surprisingly, they conclude that “both examined influencers from the video streaming context elicited similar levels of PSI” (p. 3446), suggesting that the emotional connection does not depend on human authenticity but rather on consistent engagement and perceived relatability.

When applied to NFTs, these findings suggest that digital ownership itself can become a site of parasocial connection. Collectors may develop effective ties not only with creators but also with the NFTs as symbolic entities. The act of possession carries emotional weight, transforming consumers into participants in shared symbolic universes. Much like fans of VIs develop a sense of intimacy through ongoing exposure, NFT holders cultivate a sense of belonging through repeated interaction with digital assets and the communities built around them.

Yet credibility emerges as a critical and fragile dimension. While NFTs can generate trust through blockchain’s transparency, consumer perceptions of authenticity remain vulnerable to disruption. Nguyen (2023) warns that when digital artifacts appear overly curated or artificial, they risk alienating consumers, while Arsenyan and Mirowska (2021) highlight how the uncanny valley effect undermines credibility in digital-human interactions. For brandless NFTs, this is particularly acute: the absence of corporate branding removes a traditional anchor of trust, leaving credibility to be constructed through communal validation, transparency, and ethical alignment.

This creates both opportunities and risks. On one hand, brandlessness allows NFTs to bypass skepticism associated with corporate branding, positioning them as authentic and grassroots. On the other hand, any hint of manipulation, opportunism, or insincerity can erode consumer trust quickly, since there is no established brand identity to fall back on. The literature thus underscores that parasocial engagement with NFTs is contingent on balancing creative innovation with credibility, authenticity, and transparency, themes that resonate strongly with debates around VIs and other synthetic media.

5.5 Accessibility and cultural sensitivity

Accessibility and cultural sensitivity emerge in the literature as crucial dimensions of both brandless NFTs and virtual influencers. In decentralized environments where traditional brands no longer serve as arbiters of meaning or quality, cultural context plays an even more central role in shaping credibility and adoption. Silva et al. (2023, p. 135) argue that “respecting and valuing the culture of Indigenous peoples is essential for the real success of these projects. This means involving the communities from the beginning, understanding their needs and priorities, and ensuring that the technology is adapted according to their practices and values.” This perspective underscores that innovation in NFTs cannot be divorced from cultural heritage and local practices. Rather than imposing a homogenized digital aesthetic, successful brandless NFTs may need to embed ancestral knowledge and community values as integral elements of their design.

At the same time, NFTs promise new levels of accessibility by removing geographic and institutional barriers. Yuthas (2024, p. 7) highlights how “NFTs could be used to record health information linked to decentralized systems and could be accessible to any health provider with access to the internet and permission from the patient.” This example demonstrates how blockchain technologies can democratize access to essential services, particularly for populations excluded from conventional infrastructures. For digital nomads, the appeal of such accessibility lies in the portability and universality of digital ownership, allowing them to maintain continuity in identity and assets across borders.

Comparing VIs reinforces this tension between global accessibility and cultural specificity. Franke et al. (2023) note that VIs achieve exceptional reach by overcoming geographical and linguistic barriers through their digital avatars. However, Gerlich (2023) points out that this global reach can backfire when content privileges Western-centric aesthetics, alienating non-Western audiences. The same applies to NFTs: their borderless promise risks reproducing cultural hierarchies if designs and communities fail to consider diverse audiences. For example, brandless NFTs marketed as universally appealing may inadvertently embed culturally narrow values, limiting their inclusivity.

For digital nomads and other cosmopolitan consumers, accessibility is often interpreted as frictionless participation in global markets and communities. Yet true accessibility requires more than borderless connectivity: it requires attentiveness to cultural relevance and inclusivity. Without such sensitivity, brandless NFTs may replicate the very exclusions they seek to overcome, undermining their authenticity and credibility in diverse markets.

In sum, accessibility and cultural sensitivity represent a paradox for brandless NFTs. Their decentralized infrastructure affords borderless participation, but their cultural legitimacy depends on localization and respect for diverse traditions. The literature suggests that the success of brandless NFTs will hinge on whether creators can reconcile these two imperatives, offering frictionless global access while also embedding culturally meaningful content that resonates across different consumer groups.

5.6 Brand control and content creation

The interplay between brand control and content creation is a recurring theme across both NFTs and virtual influencers, highlighting the tension between creative autonomy and corporate influence. Colicev (2023, pp. 32–33) emphasizes that “NFT product launches enable brands to become more creative in their marketing efforts because they demand more personalized marketing strategies for specific audiences … Brands can leverage their NFT communities by creating authentic and creative storytelling around the brand’s identity. The key, in this case, is building brand-related stories, lore, and characters with which consumers can connect.” This insight reveals the paradox of brandlessness: even in ostensibly brand-free spaces, established firms find opportunities to project their identity through NFTs, shaping community narratives while attempting to preserve an aura of authenticity.

Virtual influencers embody a parallel dynamic. They allow brands to exert unprecedented control over digital personas, curating everything from speech patterns to fashion choices. While this capacity offers precision in targeting and message alignment, it risks producing content that feels over-engineered or inauthentic (Audrezet and Koles, 2023). The literature shows that audiences are quick to detect such manipulation, with over-curation undermining parasocial bonds and reducing trust in both the influencer and the sponsoring brand (Mrad et al., 2024). The same risks apply in the NFT domain. While brandless NFTs may initially flourish on claims of decentralization and community ownership, the creeping influence of corporate actors can generate skepticism, especially if promotional strategies overshadow organic participation.

For digital nomads, whose consumer identities are grounded in autonomy and authenticity, this tension is particularly salient. Overly branded or excessively promotional NFT launches may erode the very values that make brandlessness appealing in the first place. Conversely, when brands use NFTs to foster co-creation, for instance, by inviting community members to contribute to lore or participate in governance, they can achieve a balance between content control and genuine engagement (Spyrou et al., 2025). This suggests that the effectiveness of NFT-based strategies depends not simply on technological novelty but on whether creators and brands can share control in ways that feel transparent and participatory.

Ultimately, the literature converges on a key dilemma: brand control and content creation in decentralized environments are double-edged swords. On one hand, they allow for highly tailored, creative, and potentially intimate consumer experiences. On the other hand, they risk undermining credibility if the balance tilts too far toward curation and commercialization. For NFTs and VIs alike, long-term success hinges on finding ways to sustain consumer trust while leveraging the unique affordances of digital storytelling. Without this equilibrium, the promise of brandlessness may collapse under the weight of overexposure and inauthenticity.

Figure 1 visualizes how these five analytical lenses interlock to operationalize brandless by design as a socio-technical strategy.

6 Discussion

Debate over the meaning and value of “brandlessness” in Web3 divides scholars and practitioners. One camp views brandlessness as a radical disintermediation that privileges code-based provenance, wallet reputation, and community utility over logos and corporate identity. The opposing view stresses that most NFT and metaverse engagement remains platform-centric, marketplace-dependent, and marketing-led, so “brandless” artifacts often re-instantiate branding through new signals (token-gates, creator lore, influencer tie-ins) rather than replacing it. A parallel controversy concerns authenticity versus speculation: proponents argue that transparent ownership histories, programmable royalties, and community governance make identity work more authentic than traditional branding, whereas critics emphasize wash-trading, hype cycles, and attention arbitrage that corrode trust. Sustainability is similarly polarized: advocates point to proof-of-stake, layer-2s, and tokenized dematerialization as progress, while skeptics highlight uneven infrastructure, off-chain energy footprints, and rebound effects in digital production. Finally, there is no consensus on decentralization itself. For some, DAOs, decentralized identifiers, and self-custodied assets redistribute power to creators and mobile workers. For others, concentration among marketplaces, IP holders, and venture-backed platforms implies a recentralization that narrows the scope of brandlessness in practice.

At the core is brandlessness as a market practice that substitutes institutional brand cues with on-chain provenance, creator reputation, and community membership signaled by tokens. Related are decentralized identity practices in which wallets, privacy-preserving proofs, and token-bound permissions configure participation without conventional customer profiles. Token-gated access and programmable utility translate into new loyalty and status regimes that may foster belonging but also replicate exclusivity. These mechanisms surface persistent issues. Trust formation shifts from trademarks and retailers to contract code, marketplace policy, and social proof in Discords and feeds; failure modes include brittle smart-contract terms, poor disclosure, and asymmetric information for newcomers. Governance becomes a design problem: who sets rules for royalties, moderation, and roadmaps when communities are fluid and transnational? Intellectual property and cultural sensitivity raise difficult questions about licensing, derivative rights, and appropriation when brandless assets circulate globally and remix rapidly. Sustainability remains multifaceted, ranging from network energy profiles to the lifecycle of digital artifacts and the externalities of data centers, rendering, and ever-on media. Finally, there is the problem of platform dependence: many “decentralized” experiences still rely on centralized discovery, fiat on-ramps, storage gateways, or terms of service, which can reintroduce gatekeeping.

Despite rapid growth, the evidence base is uneven. First, we lack comparative, cross-cultural analyses of brandlessness that move beyond Western, early-adopter contexts and systematically examine localization, indigenous knowledge, and non-Anglophone markets. Second, mechanisms of trust and authenticity in brandless communities remain undertheorized. We need granular studies on how wallet histories, creator disclosures, and community rituals interact to substitute for brand cues, and when they fail. Third, robust evaluations of environmental claims are scarce. Few studies triangulate chain-level metrics with off-chain computation, storage, and content delivery to estimate real footprints for NFT-enabled consumption. Fourth, governance and enforcement research lags practice. There is limited analysis of how smart-contract terms, marketplace policies, and community voting interact with consumer protection, IP licensing, and dispute resolution across jurisdictions. Fifth, labor and value distribution within brandless economies are poorly documented, including the risks and precarity faced by creators, moderators, and digital nomads whose incomes depend on volatile tokenized markets. Finally, methods that integrate on-chain data with ethnographic, interview-based, or experimental approaches are still rare, which constrains causal inference about engagement, retention, and wellbeing.

Several trajectories appear likely. Identity and access will tilt toward minimal-identity architectures, where users selectively disclose with wallet-based attestations and privacy-enhancing proofs, enabling participation without conventional accounts. Royalty and rights management may stabilize through standardized licenses and on-chain registries that reduce enforcement frictions while clarifying derivative use, remix, and commercial rights for brandless assets. On the organizational front, community governance could mature via simpler, bounded-scope voting and service-level charters that clarify duties around disclosures, treasury use, and consumer protection. In markets, expect token-gated loyalty to merge with interoperable memberships, where portable benefits travel across creators and platforms, and hybrid commerce in which physical and digital artifacts co-validate ownership and sustainability claims. Methodologically, richer auditing and transparency tooling may allow independent verification of energy profiles, royalty flows, and marketplace integrity, supporting more credible sustainability narratives and policy evaluation. Finally, as creative AI proliferates, provenance signals and watermarking tied to NFTs may become indispensable for authenticity while raising fresh questions about authorship, cultural sensitivity, and the boundaries of brandlessness when synthetic media saturates discovery environments.

Building on our synthesis, we outline actionable pathways for practice and policy. Legally, clarity around smart-contract terms (royalties, revocation, and disclosure) and standardized licenses for “brandless” assets can reduce ambiguity across jurisdictions while improving consumer protection. Managerially, minimal-identity branding and token-gated memberships enable participatory communities without over-curation, provided disclosures and governance charters (moderation, treasury use, creator obligations) are transparent. Financially, on-chain royalty registries, audit trails for marketplace integrity, and interoperable memberships can stabilize value capture while supporting oversight. Together, these pathways align brandless strategies with responsible Web3 market design.

While the transition from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake materially reduces consensus-level energy intensity, sustainability in NFT ecosystems cannot be assessed solely on the chain layer. Environmental and ethical outcomes also depend on off-chain infrastructure (rendering, cloud storage/CDN, synthetic media generation) and behavioral rebound effects, where lower marginal costs accelerate production and transaction volume. Therefore, sustainability requires end-to-end assessment, chain plus surrounding market infrastructure. From a regulatory and consumer-protection standpoint, brandless by design shifts trust anchoring from institutional branding to contract code and community governance. To mitigate risk, three mechanisms become critical substitutes: (1) clear licensing terms (commercial rights, derivative use, and revocation conditions), (2) on-chain royalty registries with transparent auditability, and (3) publicly visible community charters that specify moderation rules, treasury allocation, and dispute resolution. These governance devices operationalize assurance traditionally supplied by brands and are necessary conditions for brandless ecosystems to scale responsibly.

7 Conclusion

The rise of brandlessness, particularly among digital nomads and NFT creators, is redefining the contours of consumer behavior, market governance, and digital ownership in Web3 environments. This review has shown that brandlessness is not a simple rejection of logos or corporate identities but a complex reconfiguration of how value, trust, and identity are signaled in decentralized economies. Far from being an absence, brandlessness constitutes a deliberate practice: a choice to privilege authenticity, transparency, and community validation over conventional branding cues. In this sense, it embodies both an ideological and a structural transformation in the relationship between creators, consumers, and intermediaries.

Across the literature, six themes illuminate the dynamics of this transformation. Creative autonomy and brandlessness highlight how NFTs empower creators to bypass institutional gatekeepers and cultivate direct, participatory relationships with audiences. Consumer engagement and authenticity demonstrate how brandless communities generate belonging and trust through symbolic ownership and parasocial dynamics, while simultaneously facing the fragility of credibility when content appears over-engineered. Sustainability and decentralization reveal both the promise of NFTs as infrastructures for inclusion, identity, and dematerialization and the persistent challenges posed by ecological costs and uneven access to resources. Parasocial interactions and credibility, drawn from the virtual influencer literature, underscore that emotional attachment does not depend on human embodiment but on consistent, transparent, and relatable engagement, yet they also show how credibility can collapse in the absence of established brand anchors. Accessibility and cultural sensitivity foreground the paradox of borderless participation and local legitimacy, demonstrating that without sensitivity to indigenous knowledge and cultural practices, brandless NFTs risk reproducing exclusionary hierarchies under the guise of universality. Finally, brand control and content creation illustrate the double-edged nature of brand involvement: while NFTs allow brands to experiment with co-creation and participatory storytelling, they also risk undermining authenticity if promotional strategies overwhelm organic community dynamics.

The debates running through these themes expose several unresolved controversies. One school of thought regards brandlessness as radical disintermediation, shifting trust to on-chain provenance, wallet histories, and community participation. Another stresses that most NFT markets remain dependent on centralized platforms, fiat on-ramps, and corporate actors, such that brandless artifacts inevitably reintroduce branding through new signals like token-gates or creator lore. Similarly, optimism about authenticity through transparent ownership records is countered by skepticism about hype cycles, wash-trading, and manipulative practices that corrode trust. Environmental sustainability is equally contested, with advocates pointing to proof-of-stake and tokenized dematerialization, while critics highlight hidden off-chain energy costs and rebound effects. Even decentralization itself is subject to dispute: for some, DAOs and wallet-based identities redistribute power to creators and mobile workers; for others, concentration among marketplaces and IP holders marks a return to recentralization.

The contributions of this review lie in framing brandlessness as a design problem of trust, authenticity, and governance rather than as a mere absence of branding. By consolidating insights across disciplines, the review offers a conceptual framework that links brandlessness to decentralized identity and on-chain governance. It clarifies how mechanisms such as token-gated access, participatory governance, provenance records, and cultural embedding substitute for, or sometimes fail to substitute for, traditional brand cues. This reframing has several implications. Legally, it emphasizes that there must be standardized licensing of brandless assets, clearer disclosure practices for royalties and revocations, and mechanisms for dispute resolution across jurisdictions. Managerially, it points to strategies for balancing minimal-identity branding with community co-creation, ensuring that engagement does not collapse under the weight of over-curation. Financially, it underscores the importance of developing transparent royalty registries, audit trails for marketplace integrity, and interoperable loyalty schemes that preserve credibility while sustaining value capture.

At the same time, this review identifies substantial research gaps. Comparative, cross-cultural studies remain rare, with most analyses focused on Western or early-adopter contexts. More research is needed on how brandlessness operates across non-Anglophone markets and indigenous communities. Trust formation in brandless ecosystems is undertheorized, particularly regarding how consumers interpret wallet histories, creator disclosures, and community rituals. Sustainability assessments are fragmented, often focusing only on consensus mechanisms without accounting for storage, rendering, and off-chain infrastructure. Governance research lags practice, with limited attention to how smart-contract design, marketplace policies, and community charters interact with consumer protection, intellectual property licensing, and dispute resolution. Finally, the labor and value distribution within brandless economies remains poorly documented, leaving questions about precarity, creator compensation, and the roles of digital nomads unresolved.

Future research should therefore prioritize three directions. First, methodological pluralism: combining on-chain data with ethnography, interviews, and experiments will yield a more nuanced understanding of engagement, retention, and wellbeing in brandless communities. Second, comparative contextualization: systematic studies of localization, cultural sensitivity, and non-Western adoption are necessary to prevent universalist claims from masking exclusionary practices. Third, sustainability audits and governance innovations: independent verification tools for energy consumption, royalty flows, and marketplace integrity could support more credible claims of responsible practice, while new governance mechanisms, such as modular DAOs, consumer protection disclosures, and participatory charters, could align brandlessness with long-term trust.

In conclusion, the promise of brandlessness lies not in rejecting branding altogether but in redesigning the cues and infrastructures through which trust, identity, and authenticity are constructed. Whether this promise can be realized depends on the ability of creators, brands, and regulators to balance transparency with creativity, decentralization with accessibility, and autonomy with cultural sensitivity. If these balances are struck, brandless NFTs may indeed reshape digital economies into more inclusive, authentic, and trustworthy ecosystems. If not, brandlessness risks collapsing into a symbolic gesture, overrun by hype, recentralization, and exclusion. The stakes are therefore high: the future of brandlessness in Web3 will be determined by how well law, management, and finance adapt to this new mode of consumer engagement and digital ownership.

8 Limitations and future research

This review is integrative rather than PRISMA-systematic and relies on English-language sources, including selectively incorporated grey literature. Although this was necessary to capture a rapidly evolving, practice-led domain, it introduces potential recency and survivorship bias. Future work should empirically test the boundaries and implications of “brandless by design” across contexts, triangulating on-chain telemetry, experiments, and ethnographic approaches to examine how provenance signals, token-gated membership, and governance mechanisms shape trust, identity work, and consumer protection in Web3.

Author contributions

IT: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. SO: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.

Funding

The authors declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The authors declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Adams, R. J., Smart, P., and Huff, A. S. (2017). Shades of grey: guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 19 (4), 432–454. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12102

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Adru, S. L., Johnson, S., and Hemalatha, M. (2023). “AI and blockchain based platform for empowering content creators: enabling NFT-driven content sharing, inspiration generation, and collaborative interaction,” in 2023 International Conference on Smart Electronics and Communication (ICOSEC), Trichy, Tamil Nadu, India, September 20-22, 2023, 666–673. doi:10.1109/ICOSEC58147.2023.10276305

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alawadhi, K. M., and Alshamali, N. (2022). NFTs emergence in financial markets and their correlation with DeFis and cryptocurrencies. Appl. Econ. Finance 9 (1), 108–120. doi:10.11114/aef.v9i1.5444

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alkhudary, R., Belvaux, B., and Guibert, N. (2023). Understanding non-fungible tokens (NFTs): insights on consumption practices and a research agenda. Mark. Lett. 34 (2), 321–336. doi:10.1007/s11002-022-09655-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alshater, M. M., Nasrallah, N., Khoury, R., and Joshipura, M. (2024). Deciphering the world of NFTs: a scholarly review of trends, challenges, and opportunities. Electron Commer. Res. 25, 4193–4249. doi:10.1007/s10660-024-09881-y

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ante, L. (2022). The non-fungible token (NFT) market and its relationship with bitcoin and ethereum. FinTech 1 (3), 216–224. doi:10.3390/fintech1030017

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arsenyan, J., and Mirowska, A. (2021). Almost human? A comparative case study on the social media presence of virtual influencers. Int. J. Human-Computer Stud. 155, 102694. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102694

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Audrezet, A., and Koles, B. (2023). “Virtual influencer as a brand avatar in interactive marketing,” in The palgrave handbook of interactive marketing (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 353–376.

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brem, A., Nylund, P. A., and Hitchen, E. L. (2017). Open innovation and intellectual property rights. Manag. Decis. 55 (6), 1285–1306. doi:10.1108/md-04-2016-0223

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Centraco, G., and Santoro, G. (2025). The adoption of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) in brand-customer interactions: engagement tool or hype? Int. Mark. Rev. 42 (4), 767–787. doi:10.1108/IMR-10-2024-0437

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chohan, R., and Paschen, J. (2023). NFT marketing: how marketers can use nonfungible tokens in their campaigns. Bus. Horizons 66 (1), 43–50. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2021.12.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Colicev, A. (2023). How can non-fungible tokens bring value to brands. Int. J. Res. Mark. 40 (1), 30–37. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2022.07.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Denyer, D., and Tranfield, D. (2009). “Producing a systematic review,” in The sage handbook of organizational research methods. Editors D. A. Buchanan, and A. Bryman (Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications Ltd), 671–689.

Google Scholar

Flick, C. (2022). A critical professional ethical analysis of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). J. Responsible Technol. 12, 100054. doi:10.1016/j.jrt.2022.100054

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Franke, C., Gröppel-Klein, A., and Müller, K. (2023). Consumers’ responses to virtual influencers as advertising endorsers: novel and effective or uncanny and deceiving? J. Advert. 52 (4), 1–17. doi:10.1080/00913367.2022.2154721

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gerlich, M. (2023). The power of virtual influencers: impact on consumer behaviour and attitudes in the age of AI. Adm. Sci. 13 (8), 178. doi:10.3390/admsci13080178

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hofstetter, R., de Bellis, E., Brandes, L., Clegg, M., Lamberton, C., Reibstein, D., et al. (2022). Crypto-marketing: how non-fungible tokens (NFTs) challenge traditional marketing. Mark. Lett. 33 (4), 705–711. doi:10.1007/s11002-022-09639-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Joy, A., Peña, C., Zhu, Y., and Brouard, M. (2022). Digital future of luxury brands: metaverse, digital fashion, and non-fungible tokens. Strateg. Change 31 (3), 337–343. doi:10.1002/jsc.2502

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liñán, F., and Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. Int. Entrepreneurship Management Journal 11 (4), 907–933. doi:10.1007/s11365-015-0356-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mrad, M., Ramadan, Z., Tóth, Z., Nasr, L., and Karimi, S. (2024). Virtual influencers versus real connections: exploring the phenomenon of virtual influencers. J. Advert. 54 (1), 1–19. doi:10.1080/00913367.2024.2393711

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nguyen, M. (2023). Virtual influencers: meet the AI-Generated figures posing as your new online Friends—As they try to sell you stuff. Conversat. Available online at: https://theconversation.com/virtual-influencers-meet-the-ai-generated-figures-posing-as-your-new-online-friends-as-they-try-to-sell-you-stuff-170681.

Google Scholar

Paul, J., and Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: what do we know and what do we need to know? Int. Bus. Rev. 29 (4), 101717. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101717

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ramdhani, A., Ramdhani, M. A., and Amin, A. S. (2014). Writing a literature review research paper: a step-by-step approach. Int. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 3 (1), 47–56.

Google Scholar

Rehman, W., Zainab, H., Imran, J., and Bawany, N. Z. (2021). “NFTs: applications and challenges,” in 2021 22nd international Arab conference on information technology (ACIT) (IEEE), 1–7.

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sereti, Z., Mavrikos, E., Tsekouras, G. E., and Cholevas, C. (2025). Green NFTs: technologies related to energy-efficient non-fungible tokens. Information 16 (4), 305. doi:10.3390/info16040305

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Silva, M., Neto, A., Cabada, C., Bland, K., Davanço, J., and Teixeira, J. M. (2023). “Metaverse and cultural preservation: an alternative through NFTs of social sustainability in Brazil,” in Proceedings of the 25th symposium on virtual and augmented reality, 131–140.

Google Scholar

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 104, 333–339. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Spyrou, O., Krampe, C., and Hurst, W. (2025). Minting the future of art: a comprehensive overview of non-fungible tokens in the art metaverse. Arts Mark. doi:10.1108/aam-08-2024-0058

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Stein, J.-P., Linda Breves, P., and Anders, N. (2022). Parasocial interactions with real and virtual influencers: the role of perceived similarity and human-likeness. New Media Soc. 26 (6), 3433–3453. doi:10.1177/14614448221102900

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Taylor, C. R. (2023). Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) as promotional devices: research needs and future projections. Int. J. Advert. 42 (5), 799–800. doi:10.1080/02650487.2023.2211856

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Truby, J., Brown, R. D., Dahdal, A., and Ibrahim, I. (2022). Blockchain, climate damage, and death: policy interventions to reduce the carbon emissions, mortality, and net-zero implications of non-fungible tokens and bitcoin. Energy Res. and Soc. Sci. 88, 102499. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2022.102499

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Wee, B., and Banister, D. (2016). How to write a literature review paper? Transp. Rev. 36 (2), 278–288. doi:10.1080/01441647.2015.1065456

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Venema, P., and Wijngaarden, Y. (2024). Blockchain to blockchange? NFTs and DIY entrepreneurship in music production. DIY, Altern. Cult. and Soc. 2 (3), 257–269. doi:10.1177/27538702241252874

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, A., Braud, T., Hui, P., Lee, L. H., and Gao, Z. (2022). “Decentralized, not dehumanized in the metaverse: bringing utility to NFTs through multimodal interaction,” in Proceedings of the 2022 international conference on multimodal interaction (New York, NY, United States: Association for Computing Machinery), 662–667. doi:10.1145/3536221.3558176

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wilson, K. B., Karg, A., and Ghaderi, H. (2022). Prospecting non-fungible tokens in the digital economy: stakeholders and ecosystem, risk and opportunity. Bus. Horizons 65 (5), 657–670. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2021.10.007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yuthas, K. (2024). NFTs at the nexus of innovation and sustainability: a framework aligning NFT affordances with the sustainable development goals. J. Br. Blockchain Assoc. 7 (2), 1–12. doi:10.31585/jbba-7-2-(6)2024

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar