Creating, Managing and Responding to Risk in Cryptomarkets

  • Angus BancroftEmail author
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Cybercrime and Cybersecurity book series (PSCYBER)


This chapter examines the possible benefits that cryptomarkets have for harm reduction. The cryptomarket ecosystem is claimed as being transparent about drug quality and therefore benefiting both harm-reduction in illicit drug use and the establishment of a model for a legalised drug market. To that end, many market players seek to promote a rational, risk-reducing consumer-orientation to their actions. This chapter explores the significance for peer-supported harm-reduction. As with drug quality, risk and health are not agreed-on standards, but are dependent on how the drug is used. Some users do not seek to reduce their risk to the lowest possible level. Instead harm is expected and anticipated as a ‘necessary’ cost of drug use.


  1. Abel, G. M., & Fitzgerald, L. J. (2012). ‘The street’s got its advantages’: Movement between sectors of the sex industry in a decriminalised environment. Health, Risk & Society, 14(1), 7–23. Scholar
  2. Aldridge, J., & Askew, R. (2017). Delivery dilemmas: How drug cryptomarket users identify and seek to reduce their risk of detection by law enforcement. International Journal of Drug Policy, 41(Suppl. C), 101–109. Scholar
  3. Askew, R. (2016). Functional fun: Legitimising adult recreational drug use. International Journal of Drug Policy, 36, 112–119. Scholar
  4. Barratt, M. J., Allen, M., & Lenton, S. (2014). “PMA sounds fun”: Negotiating drug discourses online. Substance Use and Misuse, 49(8), 987–998. Scholar
  5. Barratt, M. J., Ferris, J. A., & Winstock, A. R. (2016). Safer scoring? Cryptomarkets, social supply and drug market violence. International Journal of Drug Policy, 35, 24–31. Scholar
  6. Beckert, J., & Dewey, M. (2017). Introduction: The social organization of illegal markets. In J. Beckert & M. Dewey (Eds.), The architecture of illegal markets: Towards an economic sociology of illegality in the economy (pp. 1–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
  7. Bourgois, P., & Schonberg, J. (2009). Righteous dopefiend. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Boucher, L. M., Marshall, Z., Martin, A., Larose-Hébert, K., Flynn, J. V., Lalonde, C., et al. (2017). Expanding conceptualizations of harm reduction: Results from a qualitative community-based participatory research study with people who inject drugs. Harm Reduction Journal, 14, 18.
  9. Coomber, R., Moyle, L., & South, N. (2015). The normalisation of drug supply: The social supply of drugs as the “other side” of the history of normalisation. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 23(3), 255–263. Scholar
  10. Decorte, T. (2001). Quality control by cocaine users: Underdeveloped harm reduction strategies. European Addiction Research, 7(4), 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and blame. Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Drumm, R. D., McBride, D., Metsch, L., Neufield, M., & Sawatsky, A. (2005). “I’m a health nut!” street drug users’ accounts of self-care strategies. Journal of Drug Issues, 35(3), 607–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duxbury, S. W., & Haynie, D. L. (2018). The network structure of opioid distribution on a darknet cryptomarket. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 34(4), 921–941.Google Scholar
  14. Epstein, S. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Faulkner-Gurstein, R. (2017). The social logic of naloxone: Peer administration, harm reduction, and the transformation of social policy. Social Science & Medicine, 180, 20–27. Scholar
  16. Friedman, S. R., de Jong, W., Rossi, D., Touzé, G., Rockwell, R., Des Jarlais, D. C., et al. (2007). Harm reduction theory: Users’ culture, micro-social indigenous harm reduction, and the self-organization and outside-organizing of users’ groups. International Journal of Drug Policy, 18(2), 107–117. Scholar
  17. Gilbert, M., & Dasgupta, N. (2017). Silicon to syringe: Cryptomarkets and disruptive innovation in opioid supply chains. International Journal of Drug Policy, 46, 160–167. Scholar
  18. Harris, M., & Rhodes, T. (2012). Venous access and care: Harnessing pragmatics in harm reduction for people who inject drugs. Addiction, 107(6), 1090–1096.Google Scholar
  19. Gowan, T., Whetstone, S., & Andic, T. (2012). Addiction, agency, and the politics of self-control: Doing harm reduction in a heroin users’ group. Social Science & Medicine, 74(8), 1251–1260. Scholar
  20. Harris, M., & Rhodes, T. (2013). Methadone diversion as a protective strategy: The harm reduction potential of ‘generous constraints’. International Journal of Drug Policy, 24(6), e43–e50. Scholar
  21. Hunt, G., Milhet, M., & Bergeron, H. (Eds.). (2011). Drugs and culture: Knowledge, consumption, and policy. Avebury: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  22. Jauffret-Roustide, M. (2009). Self-support for drug users in the context of harm reduction policy: A lay expertise defined by drug users’ life skills and citizenship. Health Sociology Review, 18(2), 159–172. Scholar
  23. Keane, H. (2003). Critiques of harm reduction, morality and the promise of human rights. International Journal of Drug Policy, 14(3), 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lupton, D. (2015). Lively data, social fitness and biovalue: The intersections of health self-tracking and social media. New York: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
  25. Lupton, D. (2016). The quantified self: A sociology of self-tracking cultures. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  26. Maddox, A., Barratt, M. J., Allen, M., & Lenton, S. (2016). Constructive activism in the dark web: Cryptomarkets and illicit drugs in the digital ‘demimonde’. Information, Communication & Society, 19(1), 111–126. Scholar
  27. Measham, F., & Shiner, M. (2009). The legacy of ‘normalisation’: The role of classical and contemporary criminological theory in understanding young people’s drug use. International Journal of Drug Policy, 20(6), 502–508. Scholar
  28. Moeller, K., Munksgaard, R., & Demant, J. (2017). Flow my FE the vendor said: Exploring violent and fraudulent resource exchanges on cryptomarkets for illicit drugs. American Behavioral Scientist (early online version). Scholar
  29. Moore, D. (2008). Erasing pleasure from public discourse on illicit drugs: On the creation and reproduction of an absence. International Journal of Drug Policy, 19(5), 353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Munksgaard, R., & Demant, J. (2016). Mixing politics and crime—The prevalence and decline of political discourse on the cryptomarket. International Journal of Drug Policy, 35, 77–83. Scholar
  31. Munksgaard, R., Bakken, S., & Demant, J. (2017). Risk perception in emerging markets for illicit substances in Scandinavia-The effect of available information through online communities. The Scandinavian Research Council for Criminology.Google Scholar
  32. Pauly, B. (2008). Harm reduction through a social justice lens. International Journal of Drug Policy, 19(1), 4–10. Scholar
  33. Rhodes, T. (1997). Risk theory in epidemic times: Sex, drugs and the social organisation of ‘risk behaviour’. Sociology of Health and Illness, 19(2), 208–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robins, S. (2004). ‘Long live Zackie, long live’: AIDS activism, science and citizenship after apartheid. Journal of Southern African Studies, 30, 651–672. Scholar
  35. Soska, K., & Christin, N. (2015). Measuring the longitudinal evolution of the online anonymous marketplace ecosystem. In Proceedings of the 22nd USENIX Security Symposium. Presented at the USENIX Security 2015, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  36. Van Hout, M. C., & Bingham, T. (2014). Responsible vendors, intelligent consumers: Silk Road, the online revolution in drug trading. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25(2), 183–189. Scholar
  37. Van Hout, M. C., & Hearne, E. (2017). New psychoactive substances (NPS) on cryptomarket fora: An exploratory study of characteristics of forum activity between NPS buyers and vendors. International Journal of Drug Policy, 40, 102–110.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social and Political ScienceUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations