Journal of Korea Port Economic Association (한국항만경제학회지)

The Korea Port Economic Association (한국항만경제학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Conceptual Study on Blockchain Technology-based STO Platform Creation for Ship Finance

블록체인 기술을 활용한 선박금융 STO 플랫폼 구축에 대한 연구

  • 안순구 (부산국제금융진흥원 국제금융/금융연구실) ;
  • 윤희성 (한국해양대학교 해양금융대학원)
  • Received : 2022.02.07
  • Accepted : 2022.03.28
  • Published : 2022.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

While the ship finance industry has long been struggling with diminishing involvements from the private sector, government-run banks have consistently increased their presence in maritime finance. To address such concerns, this research conceptually explores the creation of blockchain technology-driven security token offering (STO) platforms. To suggest a sound platform model, this piece first examines key design principles. Based on the integral perspective on the digital platform, this paper exhibits three core design principles to create a virtuous platform ecosystem, then sets out STO platform design guidelines. This paper further explores an STO platform model by considering conventional ship finance systems and practices in Korea. The STO platform has three main effects; 1) the wider availability of STOs can enlarge both the scope and size of ship finance users, 2) the activation of security token transactions leads to an increase in participation, and 3) possibilities to create complementary innovative financial services can further encourage the participation of private investors. The STO ecosystem may contribute to the shipping, shipbuilding, and ship finance industries by enhancing its attractiveness to the general public and by creating positive externalities for Busan as a maritime finance center.

이 연구는 선박금융산업에 블록체인기술을 적용한 STO(Security Token Offering) 플랫폼 구축으로 민간 선박금융 생태계를 활성화하는 데 대한 연구이다. 국내 민간선박금융 생태계는 자본시장법과 선박투자회사법에 근거해 형성되었으나 장기간의 해운 불황으로 주로 정책금융에 의존하게 되어 민간의 참여 확대가 지속적으로 강조되었다. 이 논문에서는 국내 선박금융에 대한 블록체인 STO(증권토큰화) 적용을 통해 민간참여가 촉진될 수 있음을 제시한다. STO 플랫폼 적용으로 네트워크 효과에 기반해 국내 선박금융 생태계가 금융플랫폼 생태계로 혁신될 수 있으며, 이에 따라 다양한 토큰발행자와 민간투자자의 참여증대를 기대할 수 있다. STO 플랫폼 설계를 위해 우선 경제-기술 통합 플랫폼 이론에 따라 플랫폼 디자인을 위한 핵심 원칙을 도출했다. 나아가 핵심원칙을 적용해 선박금융 플랫폼 설립을 위한 설계 원칙을 제시하며, 국내 선박금융 생태계를 감안한 설계방안을 제시한다. 선박금융 STO 금융플랫폼 구축효과로 1) 선박금융 참여 소비자 풀(pool) 확대, 2) 금융 참여자 간 거래 활성화를 통한 가치창출, 3) 보완적 혁신을 통한 다양한 파생상품 생성을 논의했다. 이러한 효과는 선박금융 매력도 제고, 해운산업, 조선산업 등 생태계 혁신 효과로 이어지며, 해양금융중심지인 부산금융중심지의 발전에도 공헌할 수 있음을 기술하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김성호.백창원.서권식.윤보현.윤성호.정관영.진욱재(2021), 블록체인을 활용한 부동산 대체투자. 렛츠북.
  2. 김종현(2021), 민간 중심 선박금융 활성화를 위한 STO (Security Token Offering) 기술 사업화 방안에 대한컨설팅. 부산국제금융진흥원. 1-245
  3. 김명희.이기환.양혁준(2016), 해양금융 중심도시를 위한 부산의 발전요인 분석. 한국항만경제학회지, 32(3), 155- 175.
  4. 모수원.이광배(2014), BDI의 변동성 추정: 레버리지 GARCH 모형을 중심으로, 한국항만경제학회지, 제30집 제3호, 1-14.
  5. 백종실(2019), 평택당진항의 자동차 물류 클러스터 구축방안, 한국항만경제학회지, 35(4), 147-167.
  6. 윤희성.최건우.황수진.박동원(2019), 해운 기업 비즈니스 모델과 경쟁우위 분석 연구. 한국해양수산개발원 연구보고서, 1-136.
  7. 이태휘(2020), 스마트항만의 해외사례 분석과 정책 시사점: 유럽과 싱가포르를 중심으로. 한국항만경제학회지, 36(1), 77-89. https://doi.org/10.38121/kpea.2020.03.36.1.77
  8. 장명희.김윤미(2019), 해운항만산업의 블록체인 도입에 따른 혁신저항에 관한 연구. 한국항만경제학회지, 35(4), 121-146.
  9. 정대(2015), 선박금융의 법적 구조상의 BBCHP 의 법적성질에 관한 연구. 國際去來와 法, (13), 101-132.
  10. 전형진(2019), Tax Benefit 을 통한 민간부문의 선박금융 활성화 필요. KMI 동향분석: KMI (부산).
  11. 전형진.윤희성.윤재웅(2019), 국내외 해운금융 비교를 통한 국내 해운금융 역량강화 방안 연구. 연구보고서, 1-234.
  12. 조규열.이기환(2020), 선박 조세 리스제도의 세제혜택효과 분석. 한국항만경제학회지, 36(2), 63-86. https://doi.org/10.38121/kpea.2020.06.36.2.63
  13. 조진행(2019), 울산항의 녹색물류체계 구축 방안, 한국항만경제학회지, 35(4), 187-205.
  14. 지문진.이기환.김강혁(2014), 선박금융기관의 소유구조와 경영성과 분석. 한국항만경제학회지, 30(3), 187-207.
  15. 최성희(2020), 스마트항만 도입에 대한 항만 운영자와 이용자 간의 인식차이에 관한 실증연구-광양항을 중심으로. 한국항만경제학회지, 36(3), 99-114. https://doi.org/10.38121/kpea.2020.09.36.3.99
  16. 해양한국, "선박자산의 증권형 토큰화와 크라우드펀딩", 윤희성, 2021.12.29.
  17. Armstrong, M. (2006), Competition in two-sided markets. The RAND journal of economics, 37(3), 668-691. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00037.x
  18. Baden-Fuller, C., & Morgan, M. S. (2010), Business models as models. Long range planning, 43(2-3), 156-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.02.005
  19. Baldwin, C. Y., and Woodard, C. J. (2009), The architecture of platforms: A unified view. Platforms, markets and innovation, 32, 19-44. Edward Elgar Publishing
  20. Boudreau, K. (2010), Open platform strategies and innovation: Granting access vs. devolving control. Management science, 56(10), 1849-1872. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1215
  21. Bryce, D. J., Dyer, J. H., & Hatch, N. W. (2011), Competing against free. Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 104-+.
  22. Clark, K. B. (1985), The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution. Research policy, 14(5), 235-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(85)90007-1
  23. Eisenmann, T., G. Parker, and M. Alstyne (2006), Strategies for two-sided markets. Harvard Business Review, 84(10), 92.
  24. Eisenmann, T., G. Parker, and M. Alstyne (2011), Platform envelopment. Strategic management journal, 32(12), 1270-1285. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.935
  25. Evans, D. S. (2003), Some empirical aspects of multi-sided platform industries. Review of Network Economics, 2(3).
  26. Fiss, P. C. (2011), Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of management journal, 54(2), 393-420. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.60263120
  27. Furnari, S. (2015), A Cognitive Mapping Approach to Business Models: Representing Causal Structures and Mechanisms, Chapter 8 in Business Models and Modelling. Advances in Strategic Management
  28. Gawer, A. (Ed.) (2011), Platforms, markets and innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  29. Gawer, A. (2014), Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research policy, 43(7), 1239-1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.006
  30. Gawer, A. (2021), Digital platforms' boundaries: The interplay of firm scope, platform sides, and digital interfaces. Long Range Planning, 54(5), 102045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2020.102045
  31. Global Financial Stability Report, October 2021, International Monetary Fund.
  32. Jacobides, M. G., C. Cennamo, and A. Gawer (2018), Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic management journal, 39(8), 2255-2276. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904
  33. Jehanzeb, K., & Bashir, N. A. (2013), Training and development program and its benefits to employee and organization: A conceptual study. European Journal of business and management, 5(2).
  34. Jullien, B. (2000), Competing in network industries: Divide and conquer.
  35. McIntyre, D. P., and Srinivasan, A. (2017), Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps. Strategic management journal, 38(1), 141-160. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2596
  36. McIntyre, D., Srinivasan, A., Afuah, A., Gawer, A., and Kretschmer, T. (2021), Multisided platforms as new organizational forms. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(4), 566-583. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2018.0018
  37. Ozalp, H., C. Cennamo, and A. Gawer (2018), Disruption in platform-based ecosystems. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7), 1203-1241. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12351
  38. Rochet, J. C., and J. Tirole, (2003), Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European economic association, 1(4), 990-1029. https://doi.org/10.1162/154247603322493212
  39. Reisinger, M. (2012), Platform competition for advertisers and users in media markets. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 30(2), 243-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2011.10.002
  40. Reisinger, M., Ressner, L., and Schmidtke, R. (2009), Two-sided markets with pecuniary and participation externalities. The Journal of industrial economics, 57(1), 32-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6451.2009.00373.x
  41. Rysman, M. (2009), The economics of two-sided markets. Journal of economic perspectives, 23(3), 125-43. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.23.3.125
  42. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001), Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of management Review, 26(2), 243-263. https://doi.org/10.2307/259121
  43. Shipilov, A., and A. Gawer (2020), Integrating research on interorganizational networks and ecosystems. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 92-121. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0121
  44. Simon, H. A. (1962), The Architecture of Complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106.
  45. Teece, D. J. (1980), Economies of scope and the scope of the enterprise. Journal of economic behavior & organization, 1(3), 223-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(80)90002-5
  46. Von Krogh, G. Rossi-Lamastra, C. & Haefliger, S. (2012), Phenomenon-based research in management and organisation science: When is it rigorous and does it matter?. Long range planning, 45(4), 277-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2012.05.001
  47. Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B. (1992). Creating project plans to focus product development (pp. 70-82). Harvard Business School Pub.
  48. Yin, R. K. (1994), Discovering the future of the case study. Method in evaluation research. Evaluation practice, 15(3), 283-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/0886-1633(94)90023-x