Bitcoin, Blockchain, and FinTech: A Systematic Review and Case Studies in

the Supply Chain

Samuel Fosso Wambaa*, Jean Robert Kala Kamdjougb, Ransome Epie Bawackc, John G. Keoghd

a*Department of Information, Operations and Management Sciences, Toulouse Business

School, Toulouse, France, [email protected];
b
GRIAGES, Department of Management and Information Systems, Catholic University of Central
Africa, Yaoundé, Cameroon, [email protected]; [email protected];
c
GRIAGES, Department of Management and Information Systems, Catholic University of Central
Africa, Yaoundé, Cameroon, [email protected];
d
Henley Business School, University of Reading, UK, [email protected].

Citation: Fosso Wamba, S., Kala Kamdjoug, J. R., Epie Bawack, R. and Keogh, J.G. (2018). Bitcoin,
Blockchain, and FinTech: A Systematic Review and Case Studies in the Supply Chain. Production
Planning and Control, Forthcoming.

*Corresponding author

Page 0 sur 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Bitcoin, Blockchain, and FinTech: A Systematic Review and Case Studies in
the Supply Chain

Abstract

This paper aims to bridge the knowledge gap in existing literature on Bitcoin, Blockchain, and FinTech.
It begins by clarifying the definition of these concepts. Through a systematic review and case studies in
the supply chain industry, this paper brings out the applications, the benefits/value, and the
challenges/issues of Bitcoin, Blockchain and FinTech in several industries. It also presents the research
methodologies/approaches used during such research. The classification framework developed and used
to perform an analysis of 141 articles from five top academic databases serves as a baseline study. It
offers the opportunity to evaluate the level of knowledge on Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech, and their
evolution over time. The findings show that these technologies are evolving, and organizations are
embracing them for competitive advantage. Thus, organizations need to leverage research on these
technologies to better understand them, optimize their business strategies, and develop critical insights
for decision-making.

Keywords: bitcoin; blockchain; fintech; supply chain

Introduction

Why are Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Financial Technology (Fintech) quickly emerging and attracting so
much attention from scholars and practitioners? The simple answer to this critical question is their
potential for transforming supply-chain networks in almost all business sectors. This study aims to
conceptualize such transformation, driven by these technologies, by reviewing various discoveries on
the subject. Due to their growing popularity and their potential for generating business value, these
technologies have become the focus of academic and corporate investigation. Existing literature refers
to any of the three technologies as a ‘profound new technology’ (Wright and De Filippi 2015), a
‘disruptive and foundational technology’ (Pilkington 2016), a ‘disruptive innovation’ (Atzori 2015), a
digital revolution (Crosby et al. 2016), or a ‘disruptive technological revolution’ (Trautman 2016). The
rationale behind such statements is that these technologies, like no others, can tackle key business
challenges related to digital payments, contracts, and database and records management (Ammous
2016). They have a unique and innovative way of ensuring transaction integrity in today’s data-driven
world (Aniello et al. 2017), which is what academia and industry professionals hope to explore and
exploit.

Some companies have already started testing their ability to trade using bitcoin and blockchain
technology (Basden and Cottrell 2017, DeCovny 2015). Most recently, IBM and the Danish transport
conglomerate Maersk announced the launching of a not-for-profit joint venture to redefine the global
shipping industry for the blockchain age (Marshall 2018). Current research shows the potential of
blockchain technology in almost every domain. For instance, it can efficiently address the
interoperability challenges in IT systems, including in the health sector (Linn and Koo 2016); circumvent
digital identity-authentication issues (Shrier, Wu, and Pentland 2016); and revolutionize the underlying
Page 1 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

technology of the payment-clearing and credit-information systems in banks (Guo and Liang 2016).
Some even suggest that the technology is so disruptive that it will cause banks as we know them to
disappear by 2026 (Trautman 2016).

Despite the excitement and growing interest in these technologies, much ambiguity still surrounds
their underlying concepts. Indeed, potential adopters still struggle to understand the related concepts
required to capture business value from them. However, very few empirical studies have been
conducted to assess the real meaning and potential of these disruptive technologies. Therefore, this
paper aims to bridge the knowledge gap in existing literature on Bitcoin, Blockchain, and FinTech, and
achieve the following research objectives:

• Clarify the definitions and concepts related to Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech;
• Develop a classification framework for these technologies based on the relevant literature;
• Use the classification framework to classify, analyse, and summarize all relevant articles;
• Examine the potential benefits and challenges of these technologies by exploring use cases;
and
• Develop future research directions to establish new research domains and examine business
cases based on associated benefits and challenges.

After the introduction to this article (Section 1), Section 2 provides definitions for Bitcoin, Blockchain,
and FinTech respectively, and discusses the potential of these technologies in data-driven
organizations. Section 3 introduces the research methodology, followed by Section 4, which presents
the results. Section 5 discusses the results, while Section 6 presents implications for research and
practice, limitations of the study, and suggestions for future research. Section 7 serves as the
conclusion.

Toward a Comprehensive Definition of Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech

Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech are generating tremendous attention worldwide. On January 10, 2017,
a Google search returned 324 million results for Bitcoin, 21.6 million for Blockchain, and 12.1 million
for Fintech. The three technologies are attracting a rising level of interest, reflected by Google trends
that identify Nigeria, South Africa, Ghana, Singapore, and Slovenia as the countries most interested in
Bitcoin. The most searched Bitcoin-related topics include bitcoin as a payment system, price, USD,
Bitcoin network (software), and bitcoin value. The countries most interested in Blockchain are Ghana,
St. Helena, Nigeria, Luxembourg, and South Africa. The most searched Blockchain-related topics
include the actual nature of blockchain, its relationship to bitcoin as a payment system, bitcoin wallet,
and cryptocurrency. Finally, Singapore, Hong Kong, Luxembourg, St. Helena, and Taiwan are the
countries showing most interest in Fintech. Search-related topics include banks, start-ups, business
types, Singapore, and blockchain. Considering the emerging nature of these concepts, discovering their
various definitions is critical. Thus, several definitions of Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech appear in
Tables 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The definitions of bitcoin and blockchain have been categorized into
holistic and specific definitions as shown in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 1. Definitions of Bitcoin (Source: Authors, 2018)

Definitions of ‘bitcoin’ Authors, Date

Bitcoin is a crypto-currency. It is ‘a way to make electronic transactions (Nakamoto 2008)
cheaper and less cumbersome by replacing a trusted intermediary with
an infallible cryptographic system’

Page 2 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

‘Bitcoin is a virtual ‘currency’ which, initially, appears similar to (Ram, Maroun, and Garnett 2016)
traditional currencies’
‘Bitcoin is a crypto-currency based on open-source software and (Simser 2015)
protocols that operate in peer-to-peer networks as a private
irreversible payment mechanism’. ‘Bitcoin is an Internet-based
payment protocol which operates like a virtual currency’. ‘Bitcoin lacks
a physical form and does not require the intermediation of government
or of a private third-party to settle transactions’.
Bitcoin is ‘a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust’. (Vassiliadis et al. 2017)

‘Bitcoin is an online communication protocol that facilitates the use of (Böhme et al. 2015)
a virtual currency, including electronic payments’.
Bitcoin is a ‘free open source peer-to-peer electronic cash system that (Jacobs 2011)
is completely decentralised, without the need for a central server or
trusted parties’.
‘Bitcoin is a money-like informational commodity (MLIC) or crypto- (Sinha 2014)
currency that came into existence in 2008’.
‘Bitcoin is an exemplary and extremely closed-loop payment system (Dostov and Shust 2014a)
even compared to other private currencies’.
Bitcoin is ‘a decentralized network and a digital currency that uses a (Piotrowska 2016)
peer-to-peer system to verify and process transactions’.
Bitcoin is the ‘most prominent virtual currency that uses digital (Abboushi 2017)
currency units and operates directly from user to user without
involvement by bank or other institution’.
Bitcoin is ‘a private currency issued and governed by a global network (Raskin 2015)
of computers’.
Bitcoin is ‘a decentralized, partially anonymous, and largely (Plassaras 2013)
unregulated digital currency that has become particularly popular in
the last few years’.
Bitcoin is ‘an open platform used for the exchange of values, a (Pîrjan et al. 2015)
protocol-based system on which one can develop various applications’.
Bitcoin is ‘a medium of exchange that is electronically created and (Tu and Meredith 2015)
stored, and lacks the backing of a government authority, central bank,
or a commodity like gold’.
Bitcoin is ‘an electronic payment system employing cryptographic (Ryan 2017)
proof, instead of trust, in order to ensure that reversal of a transaction,
once entered into, is impossible’.

Page 3 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Bitcoin is ‘a combination of a digital address and a number that is (Angel and McCabe 2015)
known as a private key, a cryptographic tool that is the only way to
unlock the bitcoins belonging to that address’.
Bitcoin is ‘a cryptocurrency that operates as a peer-to-peer network’. It (Rose 2015)
is ‘a new financial system, designed by the people, for the people, and
theoretically everyone has equal power’.
Bitcoin is ‘a new, widely accepted, virtual currency that is currently (Lambert 2015)
being used by businesses as a method of payment to minimize costs’ or
‘a consensus network that enables payments through digital money, or
‘‘cash for the internet’’’’ or ‘‘an online, digital currency managed by
bitcoin users in a decentralized peer-to-peer network instead of a
centralized authority’’.
Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, or it is ‘‘a private monetary system that (Kurihara and Fukushima 2017)
manages itself and does not depend on central banks or governments’’.
Bitcoin is ‘‘a virtual and crypto-currency based on a peer-to-peer (Pakrou and Amir 2016)
network, digital signatures and zero knowledge proof that allows the
users to do irreversible money transfer without any intermediate’’.
Bitcoin is ‘‘a decentralized currency with a peer-to-peer network and (Richter, Kraus, and Bouncken
control system’’. 2015)
Bitcoin is ‘‘a new electronic cash system that is fully peer-to-peer with (Krishnan 2017)
no trusted third party’’.
Bitcoin is ‘‘an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof (Low and Teo 2017)
instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly
with each other without the need for a trusted third party’’.
Bitcoin is ‘‘a digital currency alternative to the legal currencies, as any (Cocco and Marchesi 2016)
other cryptocurrency’’.
Bitcoin is ‘‘a decentralized digital currency used to purchase goods and (Isaacson 2017)
services online’’.
Bitcoin is ‘‘a virtual currency with equivalent value in real currency but (Piazza 2017)
no legal tender status, at least in most places’’.
Bitcoin is ‘‘a cryptocurrency built using distributed ledger technology (Sklaroff 2017)
(DLT) protocols to enable participants to create, store, and exchange
money itself’’.
Bitcoin is ‘‘an online currency that is used worldwide to make online (Kim et al. 2017)
payments’’.

Page 4 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 Bitcoin is ‘‘a popular virtual currency based on a decentralized peer-to- (Trautman and Harrell 2017)
peer (P2P) network, much like bittorrent, the popular protocol for
sharing files over the Internet such as music, games, and video’’.
Bitcoin is ‘‘a decentralized digital currency system allowing peer-to- (Masoni, Guelfi, and Gensini
peer, anonymous transactions without a central authority control’’. 2016)
Bitcoin is ‘‘a purely online virtual currency, unbacked by either physical (Meiklejohn et al. 2016)
commodities or sovereign obligation; instead, it relies on a combination
of cryptographic protection and a peer-to-peer protocol for witnessing
settlements’’.
Bitcoin is ‘‘a protocol promoted as the first peer-to-peer institution—an (Abramowicz 2016)
alternative to a central bank’’.
Bitcoin is ‘‘a type of virtual currency’’. (Huang 2015)
Bitcoin is ‘‘a decentralised peer-to-peer payment network that is (Nieman 2015)
powered by its users with no central authority or middlemen’’.
Bitcoin is ‘‘a peer-to-peer electronic cash system that provides for a (Barre 2015)
method of making electronic payments between individuals or entities
without a financial intermediary’’.
Bitcoin is an ‘‘electronic payment system based on cryptographic (Chu, Nadarajah, and Chan 2015)
proof’’.
Bitcoin is ‘‘a peer-to-peer payment system’’. (Small 2015)
Bitcoin is ‘‘a decentralized, virtually anonymous (commonly called (Bryans 2014)
pseudonymous), peer-to-peer (transactions occur directly between
users) network’’.

Table 2. Definitions of Blockchain (Source: Authors, 2018)

Definitions of blockchain Authors, Date

Blockchain is ‘‘an electronic log of all Bitcoin transactions’’. (Ram, Maroun, and
Garnett 2016)
Blockchain is ‘‘a network software protocol that enables the secure transfer of (Swan 2017)
money, assets, and information via the Internet, without the need for a third-
party intermediary such as a bank’’
Blockchain is ‘‘a transaction database shared by all nodes participating in a (Davidson and Block 2015)
system based on the bitcoin protocol’’.
Blockchain is ‘‘a series of recorded data blocks or records maintained on a (Klaus 2017)
distributed ledger’’.
Blockchain is ‘‘a chain of decentralized-computer-terminal participants that (Letourneau and Whelan
are linked together through a key-access system that enables direct 2017)
contracting between buyers and sellers without employing intermediaries,
while nevertheless creating an immutable transactional record’’.
Blockchain is ‘‘a decentralised account ledger that keeps track of each (Smit, Buekens, and Du
transaction that has ever taken place in the system’’. Plessis 2016)

Page 5 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Blockchain is a A ledger that can be freely distributed (i.e., decentralized) and (Halaburda 2016)
that relies on cryptographic tools to allow all users of the network to verify its
consistency and preclude them from making unilateral changes.
Blockchain is ‘‘a decentralized peer-to-peer network of nodes recording (Medeiros and Chau 2016)
authenticated, encrypted transactions as a distributed public ledger, thereby
providing a trust and verification system by using programmed rules to govern
the replication of the ledger across the computing nodes of the networks’’.
Blockchain is ‘‘a virtual ledger in which cryptocurrency transactions are (Abboushi 2017)
recorded’’.
Blockchain is ‘‘a secure platform, ledger, or database where buyers and sellers (Tapscott and Tapscott
could store and exchange value without the need for traditional 2017b)
intermediaries’’
Blockchain is ‘‘a distributed database comprising records of transactions that (Nowiński and Kozma
are shared among participating parties’’. 2017)
Blockchain is ‘‘an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof (Ryan 2017)
that hashes and timestamps transactions into an ongoing chain of hash-based
proof of work, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each
other without the need for a trusted third party’’.
Blockchain is ‘‘a public ledger of all Bitcoin transactions that have ever been (Irwin and Milad 2016)
executed’’.
Blockchain is ‘‘a distributed transaction database in which different (Lemieux 2016)
computers—called nodes—cooperate as a system to store sequences of bits
that are encrypted as a single unit or block and then chained together’’.
Blockchain is ‘‘a distributed ledger with Byzantine fault-tolerant consensus, (Davy, Wouter, and
i.e. a highly resilient peer-to-peer database architecture maintaining blocks of Elisabeth 2017)
transactions that contain each a timestamp and a reference to a previous
block’’.
Blockchain is ‘‘a time-stamped distributed database of every transaction by (Chen 2018)
peer-to-peer method that does not need central authority and third-party
intermediaries across the programming network’’.
Blockchain is ‘‘a text file acting as a public ledger recording events such as (Mansfield-Devine 2017)
transactions’’.
Blockchain is ‘‘a type of distributed, electronic database (ledger) which can (Sikorski, Haughton, and
hold any information (e.g., records, events, transactions) and can set rules on Kraft 2017)
how this information is updated’’.
Blockchain is ‘‘a decentralized, distributed, shared, and immutable database (Khan and Salah 2017)
ledger that stores registry of assets and transactions across a peer-to-peer
(P2P) network’’.
Blockchain is ‘‘a technology that stores data in a way that makes it (Alcazar 2017)
incorruptible, doing so via its integrated data ledgers’’.
Blockchain is ‘‘an online record keeping system that tracks the ownership of (Tsukerman 2015)
specific bitcoins from their creation (in a process called mining) through every
subsequent transaction’’.
Blockchain is ‘‘a public ledger for transactions that can prevents hacking (Jin Ho and Jong Hyuk
during transactions involving virtual cash’’. 2017)
Blockchain is ‘‘a register containing information tracking the creation and (Low and Teo 2017)
transfer of bitcoins much like a bank ledger tracks payment between bank
accounts’’.
Blockchain is ‘‘an online ledger that records every Bitcoin transaction ever (Extance 2015)
made’’.
Blockchain is ‘‘a way of recording and reconciling every transaction that has (Sklaroff 2017)
ever occurred, between every single participant, going back to the beginning
of bitcoin’’

Page 6 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 Blockchain is ‘‘a replicated graph data structure that encodes all Bitcoin (Meiklejohn et al. 2016)
activity, past and present, in terms of the public digital signing by key parties
to each transaction’’.
Blockchain is ‘‘a decentralised, peer-validated crypto-ledger that provides a (Mik 2017)
publicly visible, chronological and permanent record of all prior transactions’’.

Table 3. Definitions of FinTech (Source: Authors, 2018)

Definitions of Financial Technology (FinTech) Authors, Date

Fintech are ‘‘financial services delivered by technology’’. (Swan 2017)
Fintech is ‘‘the use of technology to deliver financial solutions’’ (Arner, Barberis, and Buckley 2017)
Fintech is ‘‘new financial industry that applies technology to improve (Schueffel 2016)
financial activities’’.
Fintech are ‘‘technology-based businesses that compete against, (Pollari 2016)
enable and/or collaborate with financial institutions’’.

Page 7 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Table 4. Categorization of Bitcoin definitions (Source: Authors, 2018)
“Bitcoin is a crypto-currency based on open-source software and protocols that operate in peer-to-peer networks as a private irreversible
payment mechanism” (Simser 2015)
Bitcoin is “a virtual and crypto-currency based on a peer-to-peer network, digital signatures and zero knowledge proof that allows the users to
do irreversible money transfer without any intermediate” (Pakrou and Amir 2016)
Holistic Bitcoin is “a new, widely accepted, virtual currency that is currently being used by businesses as a method of payment to minimize costs”
(Lambert 2015)
Bitcoin is “a popular virtual currency based on a decentralized peer-to-peer (P2P) network, much like bittorrent, the popular protocol for
sharing files over the Internet such as music, games, and video” (Trautman and Harrell 2017)
Bitcoin is “a cryptocurrency that operates as a peer-to-peer network [as] a new financial system, designed by the people, for the people, and
theoretically everyone has equal power” (Rose 2015)
Bitcoin is “a decentralized, virtually anonymous (commonly called pseudonymous), peer-to-peer (transactions occur directly between users)
network” (Bryans 2014)
Bitcoin is “a purely online virtual currency, unbacked by either physical commodities or sovereign obligation; instead, it relies on a combination
of cryptographic protection and a peer-to-peer protocol for witnessing settlements” (Meiklejohn et al. 2016)
Bitcoin is “a decentralised peer-to-peer payment network that is powered by its users with no central authority or middlemen” (Nieman 2015)
Bitcoin is “a peer-to-peer electronic cash system that provides for a method of making electronic payments between individuals or entities
Sample without a financial intermediary” (Barre 2015)
definitions Bitcoin is “an electronic payment
system based on cryptographic proof instead of
trust, allowing any two willing parties to
transact directly with each other without the
need for a trusted third party” (Low and Teo
2017)
Bitcoin is “a cryptocurrency built using Bitcoin is “an online communication Bitcoin is “a private currency
distributed ledger technology (DLT) protocols to enable protocol that facilitates the use of a virtual issued and governed by a global network
Specific
participants to create, store, and exchange money itself” currency, including electronic payments” of computers” (Raskin 2015)
(Sklaroff 2017) (Böhme et al. 2015)

Bitcoin is “a cryptocurrency or it is a private Bitcoin is a “virtual "currency" which, Bitcoin is “an exemplary and
monetary system that manages itself and does not initially, appears similar to traditional extremely closed-loop payment system
depend on central banks or governments” (Kurihara and currencies” (Ram, Maroun, and Garnett 2016) even compared to other private
Fukushima 2017). currencies” & Shust, 2014a)

Bitcoin is “a crypto-currency [that allows] a Bitcoin is “a system for electronic Bitcoin is “a free open source
way to make electronic transactions cheaper and less transactions without relying on trust” peer-to-peer electronic cash system that
cumbersome by replacing a trusted intermediary with an (Vassiliadis et al. 2017) is completely decentralized, without the
infallible cryptographic system” (Nakamoto 2008) need for a central server or trusted
parties” (Jacobs 2011)

Page 8 sur 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 Key Crypto-currency Virtual currency/electronic Decentralized network/ Peer-
concepts currency/electronic transaction to-peer network/open source/ Closed-
loop payment systems

Table 5. Categorization of Blockchain definitions (Source: Authors, 2018)

Blockchain is ‘‘an electronic log of all Bitcoin transactions’’ (Ram, Maroun, and Garnett 2016)
Blockchain is ‘‘a network software protocol that enables the secure transfer of money, assets, and information via the Internet, without the
need for a third-party intermediary such as a bank’’ (Swan 2017)
Blockchain is ‘‘a chain of decentralized-computer-terminal participants that are linked together through a key-access system that enables direct
contracting between buyers and sellers without employing intermediaries, while nevertheless creating an immutable transactional record’’ (Letourneau
and Whelan 2017)
Blockchain is ‘‘a virtual ledger in which cryptocurrency transactions are recorded’’ (Abboushi 2017)
Blockchain is ‘‘a secure platform, ledger, or database where buyers and sellers could store and exchange value without the need for traditional
intermediaries’’ (Tapscott and Tapscott 2017b)
Blockchain is ‘‘an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof that hashes and timestamps transactions into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof of work, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party’’ (Ryan 2017)
Blockchain is ‘‘a decentralized, distributed, shared, and immutable database ledger that stores registry of assets and transactions across a peer-
to-peer (P2P) network’’ (Khan and Salah)
Blockchain is ‘‘a technology that stores data in a way that makes it incorruptible, doing so via its integrated data ledgers’’ (Alcazar 2017)
Blockchain is ‘‘a register containing information tracking the creation and transfer of bitcoins much like a bank ledger tracks payment between
Holistic bank accounts’’ (Low and Teo 2017)
Blockchain is ‘‘a way of recording and reconciling every transaction that has ever occurred, between every single participant, going back to the
beginning of bitcoin’’ (Sklaroff 2017)
Blockchain is ‘‘a replicated graph data structure that encodes all Bitcoin activity, past and present, in terms of the public digital signing by key
parties to each transaction’’ (Meiklejohn et al. 2016)
Blockchain is ‘‘a decentralised, peer-validated crypto-ledger that provides a publicly visible, chronological and permanent record of all prior
transactions’’ (Mik 2017)
Blockchain is ‘‘a decentralised account ledger that keeps track of each transaction that has ever taken place in the system’’ (Smit, Buekens, and
Du Plessis 2016)
Sample
Blockchain is ‘‘an online record keeping system that tracks the ownership of specific bitcoins from their creation (in a process called mining)
definitions
through every subsequent transaction’’ (Tsukerman 2015)
Blockchain is ‘‘a series of recorded data blocks or records maintained Blockchain is ‘‘a transaction database shared by all
on a distributed ledger’’ (Klaus 2017) nodes participating in a system based on the bitcoin protocol’’
(Davidson and Block 2015)
Blockchain is a ‘ledger that can be freely distributed (i.e., Blockchain is ‘‘a distributed database comprising
decentralized) and that relies on cryptographic tools to allow all users of the records of transactions that are shared among participating
network to verify its consistency and preclude them from making unilateral parties’’ (Nowiński and Kozma 2017)
changes’ (Halaburda 2016)

Page 9 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 Specific Blockchain is ‘‘a decentralized peer-to-peer network of nodes Blockchain is ‘‘a distributed transaction database in
recording authenticated, encrypted transactions as a distributed public ledger, which different computers—called nodes—cooperate as a
thereby providing a trust and verification system by using programmed rules to system to store sequences of bits that are encrypted as a single
govern the replication of the ledger across the computing nodes of the networks’’ unit or block and then chained together’’ (Lemieux 2016)
(Medeiros and Chau 2016)
Blockchain is ‘‘a public ledger of all Bitcoin transactions that have ever Blockchain is ‘‘a type of distributed, electronic
been executed’’ (Irwin and Milad 2016) database (ledger) which can hold any information (e.g., records,
events, transactions) and can set rules on how this information is
updated’’ (Sikorski, Haughton, and Kraft 2017)
Blockchain is ‘‘a distributed ledger with Byzantine fault-tolerant Blockchain is ‘‘a time-stamped distributed database
consensus, i.e. a highly resilient peer-to-peer database architecture maintaining of every transaction by peer-to-peer method that does not need
blocks of transactions that contain each a timestamp and a reference to a central authority and third-party intermediaries across the
previous block’’ (Davy, Wouter, and Elisabeth 2017) programming network’’ (Chen 2018)
Blockchain is ‘‘a text file acting as a public ledger recording events
such as transactions’’ (Mansfield-Devine 2017)
Blockchain is ‘‘a public ledger for transactions that can prevents
hacking during transactions involving virtual cash’’ (Jin Ho and Jong Hyuk 2017)
Blockchain is ‘‘an online ledger that records every Bitcoin transaction
ever made’’ (Extance 2015)
Key Ledger Database
concepts

Page 10 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

In terms of value, scholars and practitioners have considered bitcoin to be a currency, using several
terms to specific the type of currency. The literature identifies the currency as cryptographic (Morisse
and Ingram 2016), virtual (Ram, Maroun, and Garnett 2016), digital (Plassaras 2013), private (Plassaras
2013), online (Lambert 2015), or electronic (Jin Ho and Jong Hyuk 2017). Other researchers have
associated it with money or a form of money (Lambert 2015), including digital money (Lambert 2015),
a money-like informational commodity (Sinha 2014), a unit of value (Piotrowska 2016), a unit of
account (Plassaras 2013), or a medium of exchange (Tu and Meredith 2015). Its price or market value
is highly volatile since it has no physical counterpart with legal-tender status (Plassaras 2013).

Scholars and practitioners have also determined Bitcoin to be a software application or technology.
For some of them, Bitcoin is a system associated with financial operations (Rose 2015), online
monetary transactions (Lambert 2015), e-transaction (Vassiliadis et al. 2017), financial control (Richter,
Kraus, and Bouncken 2015), e-payment (Ryan 2017), and electronic cash (Jacobs 2011). Others always
link Bitcoin to computer networks, and in that context it appears as a peer-to-peer (Simser 2015) and
consensus (Lambert 2015) payment network (Abramowicz 2016). It is also identified as an open-source
software platform (Jacobs 2011) and an online communication protocol (Böhme et al. 2015) that uses
blockchain technology (Jin Ho and Jong Hyuk 2017). Based on the definitions of bitcoin reviewed, one
might notice that certain fundamental aspects characterize this currency or technology. The following
qualifiers epitomize the six main characteristics of bitcoin: decentralized (Piotrowska 2016);
irreversible (Simser 2015); pseudonymous (Bryans 2014); unregulated (Plassaras 2013); cheap
(Morisse and Ingram 2016); and trusted (Morisse and Ingram 2016). To easily memorize these terms,
the authors came up with the acronym DIPUCT, representing the first letter of each of these six
characteristics of bitcoin. It can be very handy communication tool during scientific writing and
teaching if the characteristics of bitcoin need to be presented.

Considering bitcoin both a unit of value and a technology, the authors propose a more holistic
definition of bitcoin: a computer-based currency with no physical legal counterpart, used as a medium
of exchange through an open system of computer networks and online communication protocols.

‘Ledger’ is the word most scholars and practitioners use when defining blockchain. This ledger is said
to hold bitcoin transactions. However, its applications extend into other domains. According to the
literature, such a ledger can be distributed (Sklaroff 2017), public (Medeiros and Chau 2016), virtual
(Abboushi 2017), online (Extance 2015), encrypted (Mik 2017), data-based (Alcazar 2017), or in the
form of a platform (Tapscott and Tapscott 2017b), but also it can be an account (Smit, Buekens, and
Du Plessis 2016) or a record of transactions (Mansfield-Devine 2017). Some articles also present
blockchain as a distributed (Klaus 2017), transactional (Simser 2015), and electronic (Sikorski,
Haughton, and Kraft 2017) database, while others present it as a series of blocks of recorded data
(Klaus 2017) or a chain of transactions (Harwick 2016).

Technologically, the relevant literature tends to describe Blockchain as a Distributed Ledger

Technology (DLT) (Swan 2017), because it is data-management technology made up of both a chain
of decentralized computer terminals (Letourneau and Whelan 2017) and a network software
protocol (Swan 2016) on a peer-to-peer network of nodes (Medeiros and Chau 2016). The various
definitions of Blockchain, as they occur in the literature, reveal 13 intrinsic characteristics of this
technology. The qualifiers describing such characteristics are secure (Swan 2017), shared (Davidson
and Block 2015), immutable (Letourneau and Whelan 2017), decentralized (Letourneau and Whelan
2017), distributed (Medeiros and Chau 2016), authenticated (Medeiros and Chau 2016), encrypted
(Ryan 2017), open-source (Swan 2017), incorruptible (Alcazar 2017), integrated (Alcazar 2017),
publicly visible (Mik 2017), chronological (Mik 2017), and permanent (Mik 2017).

Page 11 sur 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Materials and Methods

This study uses a mixed-method approach that encompasses two phases. The first phase is based on a
comprehensive literature review of journal articles dealing with different aspects of Bitcoin,
Blockchain, and Fintech. This is somewhat similar to the approach used for a literature review on CRM
and data mining by (Ngai, Xiu, and Chau 2009), and for reviews of RFID-related topics by (Ngai et al.
2008), (Wamba, Anand, and Carter 2013), and (Lim, Bahr, and Leung 2013). The approach of this study
is based on three main steps: (i) developing a classification framework; (ii) conducting a literature
review; and (iii) classifying the relevant journal articles. The study also follows the recommendations
of (Wamba et al. 2015) by focusing specifically on peer-reviewed journal articles because they
represent the highest level of research rigour, and because both academia and practitioners rely on
them to acquire and disseminate information and new findings. The second phase uses a case-study
approach, considered relevant when analysing emerging complex phenomena such as the adoption
and use of Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech within supply-chain management (Eisenhardt 1989, Yin
1994) for theory building (Benbasat, Goldstein, and Mead 1987).

Classification Framework

The classification framework for this study considers five related dimensions: (i) the applications; (ii)
the benefits/value; (iii) the challenges/issues; (iv) the industry; and (v) the research
methodology/approach.

Literature Review Search Strategies

Leading databases of scholarly articles were used to obtain the academic literature from which the
subject was reviewed as comprehensively as possible, including ABI/INFORM Complete, Academic
Search Complete, Emerald Journals, JSTOR, and ScienceDirect.

A search within the 20072017 timeframe was considered representative, as the actual emergence of
the bitcoin and blockchain technologies only dates back to 2008 (Nakamoto 2008). Despite disparities
recorded when searching between databases, the following generic query was used to search the
titles, abstracts, and keywords of every article in the selected databases: ‘blockchain OR bitcoin OR
Fintech’. Table 6 presents a summary of the search results:

Table 6: Results of search strings: ‘‘blockchain OR bitcoin OR Fintech’’ (Source: Authors, 2018)

Search Search Relevant Irrelevant

Database Search conditions
Date results papers papers
December ABI/INFORM Complete Scholarly journals; Article; 168 66 102
01-04, Academic English; Full text; Peer 73 69 4
2017 Search Complete reviewed; 2007-2017
Emerald Journals Anywhere; All content; 20 3 17
Accepted articles and
Backfiles; Articles and
chapters; 2007-2017
JSTOR All content; Articles; 4 0 4
English; 2007-2017
ScienceDirect Search All journals; 49 11 38
Articles; 2007-Present
TOTAL 314 149 165

Page 12 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

The references and abstracts of all articles were downloaded into the EndNote 7.2.1 reference-
management software for further analysis. Subsequently, the abstract of each article was screened to
assess its relevance to the research objectives of this study, and to identify duplicates (Wamba, Anand,
and Carter 2013, Ngai et al. 2008). Finally, each of the remaining 149 relevant articles was analysed by
two co-authors independently. The authors organized several working sessions to compare, verify, and
validate the results that each reviewer obtained. At the end of this process, 141 articles were retained
because they were deemed relevant and acceptable for classification.

Case Studies Settings

For the second phase, three cases were selected. For each case, data were collected using multiple
sources of evidence including semi structured interviews, industrial reports, and nontechnical and
technical reports related to the technologies under study.

The first organization included in this study is called Manukora, a New Zealand-based producer and
supplier of high-quality Manuka honey. Due to its high value, Manuka honey is a target for fraudulent
claims made by sellers of substandard honey and counterfeits. Manukora set out to improve its overall
supply-chain integrity by using technology to strengthen consumer engagement, product traceability,
and authentication of its products. Moreover, the company wanted to connect its extended supply
chain of honey producers to its network. In order to protect its brand and ensure that consumers in
the international and the domestic markets could authenticate its products, Manukora engaged New
Zealand-based Trust Codes to utilize the Trust Codes® consumer-focused platform. The goal of the
platform is to facilitate consumer engagement through scanning of a serialized QR code on a Manukora
product. The scan enables the consumer to access product information related to product, process,
provenance, authentication, and company information. Furthermore, the platform is blockchain-
enabled for end-to-end traceability to individual beehives and provenance by batch number, which
facilitates rapid recall capabilities.

The second organization case study is a Shanghai-based online farmers’ market firm called Yimishiji. It
opened for business in September 2015, in response to the country’s recurring food-safety crisis and
consumer concern about the lack of transparency and trust in food. Yimishiji aims to educate the public
about environmentally friendly, safe, and sustainable food choices. Before listing a product on its
platform, it schedules supplier visits to conduct comprehensive audits. The audits provide verification
of food safety and scientific evidence to prove credence claims such as organic, pesticide-free, non-
GMO, and grass fed. Moreover, forensic and chemical testing verifies the authenticity of products and
the food provenance (source or origin). Yimishiji engaged Slovenia-based Origin Trail to develop a
blockchain-based solution for ensuring a high degree of data integrity, enabling supply-chain visibility,
and addressing food-chain traceability and transparency. Yimishiji aimed to deliver on its promise of
clean, sustainable, and trustworthy food. The Origin Trail pilot implemented a decentralized blockchain
network to connect suppliers to the Yimishiji platform. The choice of a decentralized network
addressed scalability for business growth. Moreover, to enable seamless interoperability between the
trading partners, Origin Trail created a protocol that acts as technology-agnostic middleware, providing
blockchain-to-blockchain and blockchain-to-legacy interoperability that facilitates the supplier
onboarding process and data integrity.

The third and last organization used for a case study is Ireland Craft Beers. The firm was set up in 2014
to showcase Irish products on the world stage. At the time, some craft beers on the market were not
craft brewed and authenticity in the sector was in doubt. As a result of the emergence of blockchain
technologies and their ability to deliver transparency and trust, downstream craft beer was born. It

Page 13 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

was the first in its sector designed specifically to use blockchain technology to reveal ‘everything you
want to know about your beer, its ingredients and brewing methods’ (http://www.down-stream.io).

The company engaged with arc-net, a Belfast-based technology provider involved in distributed ledger
technology (DLT) since 2011, and cryptography and information assurance since 2006. The objective
was to utilize DLT to introduce the downstream beer brand and to tell the story of the craft beer from
raw-material sourcing, through processing and distribution. The brand owners wanted a way to
showcase the passion and pride involved in the craft-brewing process.

Results

Classification of Articles by Year of Publication

As seen in Figure 1, the first scholarly publications on topics related to Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech
date from 2010. One relevant article was identified for each year from 2010 to 2012. In 2013, the
number of relevant articles identified increased to eight, then to 13 articles in 2014, and 39 articles by
the end of 2015. There was a slight decrease to 36 articles identified in 2016, but then, it rose to 42
articles by the end of 2017, thus highlighting an increasing interest in Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech.

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Number of Articles 1 1 1 8 13 39 36 42

Figure 1. Classification of articles by the year of publication

Classification of Articles by Application Domain or Context

The classification of articles on Bitcoin, Blockchain and Fintech by application domain or context is
presented in Table 7, 8, and 9. The search of databases found 109 publications that address the concept
of Bitcoin. Most publications on the subject focused on financial digital-payment services and systems
(21.10% of publications), and others dealt with law, taxation, and legal regulation (18.35% of
publications); accounting and financial regulation (11.01%); and business and economic concepts,
models, and theories (10.09%). The remaining articles on Bitcoin relate to financial markets (7.34%);
cryptocurrency markets (4.59%); technology and innovation (4.59%); e-commerce, online market
places, supply chains, transport, and logistics (4.59%); gambling and lottery (1.83%); mining (1.83%);
social phenomena (1.83%); and teaching pedagogy (0.92%). Blockchain was the main topic of 43
articles. The applications of Blockchain in computing and technology were the focus of most
publications (27.91%), followed by its applications in business, economics, and finance (25.58%). While
Page 14 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

a significant portion of articles covered blockchain applications in industry processes (13.95%) and
contractual agreements (11.63%), other blockchain application areas were governance and regulation
(6.98%), registry and records management (6.98%), digital identification and authentication (4.65%),
and environmental sustainability (2.33%).

Finally, only 10 articles dealt with Fintech, 40% of them concerned with the applications of Fintech in
banking and financial services, 40% covering technological development and computing, and the
remaining 20% addressing the applications of Fintech in the business ecosystem.

Table 7. Classification of bitcoin articles by application domain or context (Source: Authors, 2018)

Bitcoin References # of Refs %

application
domain
Accounting and (Ram, Maroun, and Garnett 2016, Gross, Hoelscher, 12 11.01
financial and Reed 2015, Antonikova 2015, Harrison and Mano
regulation 2015, Jacobs 2011, Kurihara and Fukushima 2017,
Pakrou and Amir 2016, Irwin and Milad 2016,
Mikolajewicz-Wozniak and Scheibe 2015, Tu and
Meredith 2015, Swartz 2014, Ly 2014)
Law, taxation (Lee et al. 2015, Raskin 2015, Kowalski 2015, Irwin and 20 18.35
and legal Milad 2016, Trautman and Harrell 2017, Sirer 2016,
regulation Luther 2016b, Huang 2015, Tu and Meredith 2015,
Tsukerman 2015, Nieman 2015, Barre 2015, Small
2015, Swartz 2014, Ly 2014, Ajello 2015, Antonikova
2015, Wiseman 2016)
Cryptocurrency (Gandal and Halaburda 2016, Halaburda 2016, White 5 4.59
market 2015, Cunliffe et al. 2017, Kim 2015)
Financial market (Vassiliadis et al. 2017, McCallum 2015, Ciaian, 8 7.34
Rajcaniova, and Kancs 2016, Angel and McCabe 2015,
Kurihara and Fukushima 2017, Kauffman, Liu, and Ma
2015, Donier and Bouchaud 2015, Chu, Nadarajah, and
Chan 2015)
Financial & (Jacobs 2011, Piotrowska 2016, Tu and Meredith 2015, 23 21.10
digital payment Ober, Katzenbeisser, and Hamacher 2013, Angel and
services and McCabe 2015, Wonglimpiyarat 2016, Pakrou and Amir
systems 2016, Grant, Stiehler, and Boon 2013, Mikolajewicz-
Wozniak and Scheibe 2015, Allen 2017, Trautman and
Harrell 2017, Meiklejohn et al. 2016, Böhme et al.
2015, McCallum 2015, Rose 2015, Lambert 2015,
Kurihara and Fukushima 2017, Jordan 2015, Kim et al.
2017, Swartz 2014, Luther 2016a, Pîrjan et al. 2015,
Luther 2016b)
Technology and (Dotsika and Watkins 2017, Kauffman, Liu, and Ma 5 4.59
innovation 2015, Delgado-Segura, Tanas, and Herrera-
Joancomartí 2016, Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016,
Pakrou and Amir 2016)

Business & (Davidson and Block 2015, Sinha 2014, Bouri, Azzi, and 11 10.09
economic, Dyhrberg 2017, Kowalski 2015, Cocco and Marchesi
concepts, 2016, Tu and Meredith 2015, McCallum 2015, Ciaian,
theories and Rajcaniova, and Kancs 2016, Angel and McCabe 2015,
models Wonglimpiyarat 2016, Hendrickson, Hogan, and Luther
2016)
Ecommerce, (Gad 2014, Raskin 2015, Kowalski 2015, Pakrou and 5 4.59
online market Amir 2016, Basu 2014)
Page 15 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 places, supply
chains, transport
and logistics
Gambling and (Andrychowicz et al. 2016, Connell 2014) 2 1.83
lottery
Crime & illicit (Simser 2015, Dostov and Shust 2014b, Basu 2014, 13 11.93
activities (drugs, Irwin and Milad 2016, Cunliffe et al. 2017, Huang 2015,
money Ajello 2015, Isaacson 2017, Gad 2014, Broséus et al.
laundering, 2016, Andrychowicz et al. 2016, Piazza 2017, Masoni,
terrorism…) Guelfi, and Gensini 2016)
Mining (Cocco and Marchesi 2016, Kim et al. 2017) 2 1.83
Teaching (Barre 2015) 1 0.92
pedagogy
Social (Morisse and Ingram 2016, Kim et al. 2017) 2 1.83
phenomena
TOTAL 109 100.00

Table 8. Classification of blockchain articles by application domain or context (Source: Authors, 2018)

Blockchain References # of Refs %

application
domain
Digital (Wolfond 2017, Swan 2017) 2 4.65%
identification
and
authentication
Registry and (Swan 2017, Lemieux 2016, Sikorski, Haughton, and 3 6.98%
records Kraft 2017)
management
Contractual (Swan 2017, Letourneau and Whelan 2017, Sikorski, 5 11.63%
agreements Haughton, and Kraft 2017, Sklaroff 2017, Mik 2017)
Environmental (Cocco, Pinna, and Marchesi 2017) 1 2.33%
sustainability
Governance and (Babkin Alexander et al. 2017, Tapscott and Tapscott 3 6.98%
regulation 2017b, Kiviat 2015)
Industry (Tapscott and Tapscott 2017b, Davy, Wouter, and 6 13.95%
processes Elisabeth 2017, S. and A. 2017, Kshetri , Sikorski,
Haughton, and Kraft 2017, Shiyong et al. 2017)
Business, (Nowiński and Kozma 2017, Rooney, Aiken, and Rooney 11 25.58%
economics and 2017, Huckle and White 2016, Richter, Kraus, and
finance Bouncken 2015, Krishnan 2017, Prybila et al. ,
Underwood 2016, Collomb and Sok 2016, Low and Teo
2017, Wolfond 2017, Swan 2017)
Computing and (Ryan 2017, Evans 2017, Krishnan 2017, Kshetri , 12 27.91%
technology Sikorski, Haughton, and Kraft 2017, Khan and Salah ,
Underwood 2016, Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016,
Alcazar 2017, Bailis and Song 2017, Jin Ho and Jong
Hyuk 2017, Shiyong et al. 2017)
TOTAL 43 100.00

Table 9. Classification of Fintech articles by application domain or context (Source: Authors, 2018)

Page 16 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 Fintech References # of Refs %
application
domain
Banking and (Milne 2016, Medeiros and Chau 2016, Schueffel 2016, 4 40.00
finance services Pollari 2016)
Business (Teja 2017, Krishnan 2017) 2 20.00
ecosystem
Technological (Arner, Barberis, and Buckley 2017, Pollari 2016, 4 40.00
development & Krishnan 2017, Kauffman et al. 2017)
computation
TOTAL 10 100.00

Classification of Articles by Potential Benefits/Business Value

Tables 10, 11, and 12 present the classification of articles reviewed according to the potential benefits
or business value of Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech. 62 articles on Bitcoin, 33 articles on Blockchain,
and 7 on Fintech contained this information. Most articles acknowledged more than one benefit of
Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech. Areas of high-value benefits for each concept were identified based
on their popularity in the articles reviewed, as presented in Tables 13, 14, and 15. 11 areas of high-
value benefit were identified for Bitcoin articles, 11 for Blockchain articles, and 2 for Fintech articles.
The top five areas of benefit for Bitcoin included cost (58.06%), anonymity and privacy (32.26%),
disintermediation (29.03%), security (24.19%), and speed (19.35%). For Blockchain, the top five areas
of benefit included security (60.61% of articles on bitcoin benefits), immutability and fraud (45.45%),
decentralization and disintermediation (39.39%), transparency and accountability (39.39%), and trust
(33.33%). Only two areas of high-value benefit were identified for Fintech: service delivery and
innovation (85.71%), and cost (71.43%). These benefits were further classified using dimensions from
the framework proposed by (Shang and Seddon 2000) to classify ERP benefits. This brings out their
operational, managerial, strategic and infrastructural benefits from a business perspective, as shown
in Tables 16, 17 and 18.

Table 10. Classification of bitcoin by potential benefits (Source: Authors, 2018)

Potential benefits/business value of bitcoin Authors, Date

More efficient transactions; cheaper transactions, independent of geographic (Morisse and
boundaries, fast, secure and inclusive system Ingram 2016)
Store of wealth; speculative investment (Ram, Maroun, and
Garnett 2016)
Easier cross-border transactions; little transactional cost; trusted community, robust (Simser 2015)
code; support from currency garners in the computing community
Convenient mechanism for monetizing contributions that are currently zero priced (Luther 2016a)
Lower processing fees; protection against fraud; potential penetration of new (Lee et al. 2015)
markets not included in current global payment networks
Worldwide use; increasing number of users; no brokers; low transaction costs; high (Vassiliadis et al.
transactions speed; ultimately constant number of bitcoins in system (anti-inflation 2017)
mechanism); protection of personal data of all participants
Creates account without charge; no central vetting procedure; no real name required; (Böhme et al. 2015)
decentralized core technologies; cheaper consumer payments; diversification
(investments)
Faster transactions and payments; less expensive transactions and payments (Wolfson 2015)
Low transaction cost (Sinha 2014)

Page 17 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Effective means of making international transfers; effective means of paying (Collomb and Sok
remittances; lower transaction costs than standard banking fees; much speedier 2016)
settlement
Transparent; immutable; cryptographically verifiable by all participants in the bitcoin (Folkinshteyn and
network; independent currency; International scope; reliable; quick bug fixes; robust Lennon 2016)
infrastructure; control own money; disintermediation; high speed of transfer; low
cost of transfer; ease of innovation; open source application programming interface
(API); common language; high transaction security
Open source protocol; no central authority; no central recordkeeping; robustness (Gandal and
Halaburda 2016)
Secure; no central issuing authority (Milne 2016)
No central issuing or settlement authority; anonymity as privacy (Dostov and Shust
2014a)
No central management bodies; portability; durability; divisibility; security; accessible (Harwick 2016)
online
Rapid transactions; low cost of transactions; no central oversight and management (Halaburda 2016)
Smooth operations; online transactions; security; anonymity; low transaction costs (Piotrowska 2016)
Medium of exchange; fast transactions; accurate, secure, and monitored record (Abboushi 2017)
system; free of central authority; lower cost of international financial transactions;
low cost alternative to credit card system; easy to use system; global accessibility via
the Internet; cybersecurity; stable base layer protocol
No central issuing authority; Integrity of transactions; Secure transactions; Low (Plassaras 2013)
transaction cost
Open source software; reduced associated costs of settling and maintaining contracts; (Pîrjan et al. 2015)
efficient and reliable; transitioning from the bitcoin to an Alt-Coin
Payment alternative; commodity, asset class, or security ripe for speculative (Tu and Meredith
investment; solution to the ‘‘double spending’’ problem; lower costs and fees; 2015)
increased anonymity in transactions; insulation from inflation; insulation from
government manipulation; fewer risks for merchants; increased anonymity for users;
increased speed and ease of transfer/payment
Alternative payment method (Kowalski 2015)
Anonymity; reduction in certain transaction costs; infinite divisibility; Anti-spam (McCallum 2015)
Saves costs related to the production, transportation, and handling of physical (Ciaian, Rajcaniova,
currency; allows for money transfers at low costs and relatively fast; low transaction and Kancs 2016)
fees; short execution time; reduce opportunities for theft; global currency (no
transaction costs related to currency exchange); open source software algorithm;
medium of exchange; anonymity; transparency
Transparency; anonymity; privacy; irreversible transactions; reduction in transaction (Angel and McCabe
costs 2015)
Global currency; alternate means of payment (Rose 2015)
Minimal transactions costs and efficiency; cheap cost compared to other financial (Lambert 2015)
instruments; diversification of financial instruments for investors; hedging instrument
for other financial transactions
Free entry; anonymity (White 2015)
Low cost payments (Pakrou and Amir
2016)
High levels of security (Irwin and Milad
2016)
Alternative online currencies (Grant, Stiehler,
and Boon 2013)
Criminal activity (Lemieux 2016)
Reduction of transaction costs is the result; World-Wide Toll-Free Transfers; no (Richter, Kraus, and
possibility of censorship or blocking; no inflation; speedy transactions; Bouncken 2015)
transparency/tamper resistant; sustainable

Page 18 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Cost reduction; increasing the security of online transactions; innovation in financial (Mikolajewicz-
services; facilitating payment transactions Wozniak and
Scheibe 2015)
Tax-free transactions; anonymity (Krishnan 2017)
Fewer threats and less violence in drug deals; reduced risks of arrest and rip-off (Cunliffe et al.
2017)
Reduced regulatory issues; no monetary policy; anonymity (Dotsika and
Watkins 2017)
Alternative innovative means of payment (Kauffman, Liu, and
Ma 2015)
Lower transaction costs; beneficial for developing economies; efficient medium of (Kiviat 2015)
exchange
Secure; decentralized; user anonymity; rewarding mechanism; reputation (Delgado-Segura,
mechanism; high security Tanas, and Herrera-
Joancomartí 2016)
Low transaction cost; stable currency in weak markets (Tsukerman 2015)
Robust (Low and Teo 2017)
Open source system (Cocco and
Marchesi 2016)
Low international transaction cost (Extance 2015)
Easy and accessible to everyone; anonymity (Isaacson 2017)
Instantaneous and direct transfer of value (Sklaroff 2017)
Effect payments quickly; reduce transaction costs; secure transactions over great (Allen 2017)
distances; low transaction costs; fast and efficient transactions
Low transaction cost; no central authority; faster transactions (Trautman and
Harrell 2017)
Secure and pseudonymous payments (Hendrickson,
Hogan, and Luther
2016)
Alternative payments; scalable, irrevocable; anonymous payments (Meiklejohn et al.
2016)
Decentralized protocols that are secure; distributed system; no central authority; no (Andrychowicz et
double spending; flexibility in defining the condition on how the transaction can be al. 2016)
redeemed
High degree of security and; cuts down on transaction fees (Wiseman 2016)
Alternative currency; digital medium of exchange; store of value; no central authority; (Abramowicz 2016)
decision-making
Transfer value online; decentralized medium; free from government interference (Prentis 2015)
Lower transaction cost; decentralized
Confidentiality; security; decentralized; no government authority; payment freedom; (Huang 2015)
instantaneous and borderless transactions; low transaction fees; irreversible
transactions
Global currency (Nieman 2015)
Low transaction costs; anonymity; irreversible transactions; no government control; (Zohar 2015)
open source; transparency; stability; no double spending; no intermediaries; privacy;
auditability
High liquidity; reduced costs; high speed transactions (Chu, Nadarajah,
and Chan 2015)
Low cost alternative to real currencies. (Kim 2015)
Low transaction cost; privacy; financial independence (Swartz 2014)
Not reliant on the financial industry; provides anonymity to transaction participants (Harrison and
Mano 2015)
Low transaction costs (Ajello 2015)
Total number of publications 62

Page 19 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Table 11. Classification of blockchain by potential benefits (Source: Authors, 2018)

Potential benefits/business value of blockchain Authors, Date

More efficient government operations; improve service delivery in the public and (Wolfond 2017)
private sectors; reduces cost and fraud; simplify customer experience; facilitates the
immutable, secure, and privacy-respecting sharing and validation of digital attributes
for consumers and businesses; improved password management; transform
remittances—the largest flow of funds—into the developing world; provides
immutable land title registration
Cybersecurity; real-time money transfer; very low costs; transparency; secure (Swan 2017)
transactions; open source; efficient land titling and birth registration; leapfrog
technology for global financial inclusion; personalized economic services; long-tail
personalized economic services; payment channels and peer banking services; less
friction and human involvement needed to transfer goods and services; less physical
infrastructure needed to transfer goods and services
Optimizes the global financial infrastructure; enhance the efficiency of current (Cocco, Pinna, and
financial systems; achieving sustainable development; promote economic growth; Marchesi 2017)
accelerate the development of green technologies; reduce foreign exchange (FX)
transfer costs and times; augment existing business networks; provide increased
discoverability; reliable instant transactions; increased security; significant energy and
cost efficiency improvements; provide increased trust
Less costly; exchanging funds and managing staff payments (Luther 2016a)
Facilitates creativity; catalyses digital innovation; transactional generality; corporate (Collomb and Sok
governance benefits; quasi-exhaustive recording; precise recordings with quasi-real- 2016)
time Updates; facilitates enforcing capital or liquidity regulations;
makes it possible to have on the same digital data infrastructure both cash and
securities accounts; tool to track systemic risk; hard-to-corrupt authentication
mechanism
Key-access restrictions; reduces intermediary/transaction costs; enhances finance (Letourneau and
transactions; protecting against cyberattacks Whelan 2017)
Increases trust; reliable; quick bug fixes; open source; record integrity; API availability; (Folkinshteyn and
auditable; free participation; distributed availability; lower cost record tracking; Lennon 2016)
improves securities offerings and recordkeeping; reduces costs; eliminates
intermediaries; simplifies processes
More efficient business information systems; transparency (Evans 2017)
Increased security of transactions; integrity of transactions; verifiability of (Medeiros and
transactions; Transparency; interoperability; trusted solutions Chau 2016)
Transparency (Abboushi 2017)
Eliminates transaction costs; uses outside resources as easily as internal resources; (Tapscott and
stores and exchanges value without the need for traditional intermediaries (Internet Tapscott 2017b)
of value); distributed system; it is public; it is encrypted
Authenticating traded goods; disintermediation; lowering transaction costs; secure (Nowiński and
transactions; data security; transparency and integrity; anti-tampering and anti- Kozma 2017)
forgery; high efficiency; low cost
Transparency (Raskin 2015)
E-payment system; reduced need for trusted third parties in mediating bilateral (Ryan 2017)
communications; streamlines online exchanges; reduces corruption; reduces
mistakes; reduces fraud; reduces tax evasion; provides and builds trust and
reputation; saves time and costs; immediacy and immutability; reliable reputation
ratings
Decentralised transparency and auditability; immutable ledger; direct transactions; no (Huckle and White
government control; promotes greater institutional participation 2016)
Reliability; authenticity; identity; integrity; provenance; long-term digital (Lemieux 2016)
preservation; trustworthy public ledger
Securing IoT-enabled dataflow-oriented networked production processes; secure and (Davy, Wouter, and
trustworthy data management; decentralized identity and relationship management Elisabeth 2017)
Page 20 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 for users, sensors, actuators, gateways and cloud services; data transparency,
integrity, authenticity and authorization; auditing support for data exchange between
nodes in the production network; trustworthy digital identities and profiles; greater
transparency and auditing of all processes for the customer; flexibility in expressing
authorization policies; better auditing capabilities and availability
User privacy; almost incorruptible digital ledger (Krishnan 2017)
Authenticity of the transaction; transparency; ledger accounts shared by all and is (Mansfield-Devine
accessible to all; provides easy and efficient chronology and context to data 2017)
Low susceptibility to manipulation and forgery by malicious participants; identity and (Kshetri)
access management; removes the need for third parties in transactions;
permissionless and permissioned chains to meet security, privacy, and other
requirements; possible to target specific members in the chain such as regulators and
auditors; data is fully encrypted; cryptographic hash functions are used; data is
received only by the intended recipient
Anonymity; a financial incentive to publish blocks; optional transaction fees; (Sikorski,
facilitates M2M interactions; establish a M2M electricity market Haughton, and
Kraft 2017)
Address space management; identity and access management; data authentication (Khan and Salah)
and integrity; authorization, and privacy; secure communications.
Establishes decentralized trust; allow verification; flexibility (Prybila et al.)
Trustless transactions; efficient digital-asset transfers; efficient document and; (Kiviat 2015)
authorship verification; efficient title transfers; contract enforcement; transparent
public ledger; secure electronic transfer; speed and cost; decentralized smart
contracts; adaptable
Avoids information leakage; reduces transaction time; removes transaction (Underwood 2016)
intermediaries; reduces risk of fraud and cybercrime; observes transactions in real;
time; security; immutability; transparency; and ability to cut out the middleman; trust
Avoiding downside disruption risk; maximizing upside war-fighting opportunity; data (Alcazar 2017)
corruption and compromise prevention; compatible with existing DOD networks;
decentralized structure; reduces the possibility of data theft; reduce sender identity
compromise
Anonymity; privacy; confidentiality; endpoint security; smart contracts (Bailis and Song
2017)
Decentralized; trustless; secure; efficient recording system (Tsukerman 2015)
Higher security (Jin Ho and Jong
Hyuk 2017)
Recordkeeping cheaper and more accurate; decentralized consensus; instantaneous (Sklaroff 2017)
exchange; cheap and effective way to ensure the integrity of data
Reduces costs; natural check against bad-faith manipulation of contract terms;
anonymity
Prevent double spending (Allen 2017)
Safety, security, and reliability of exchanges online; transparency and accountability; (Tapscott and
privacy; efficient transaction costs; more effective learning environments; trustable Tapscott 2017a)
proof-of-truth mechanism
Trustless; incorruptible; secure; decentralised (Mik 2017)
Total number of publications 33

Table 12. Classification of Fintech by potential benefits (Source: Authors, 2018)

Potential benefits/business value of Fintech Authors, Date

Achieves European Union policy objectives; promotes the goals of ‘‘Capital Markets (Milne 2016)
Union’’ and ‘‘Banking Union’’; provides risk finance to smaller innovative companies
Fairness and trustworthiness of financial transactions; financial inclusion; new market (Medeiros and
opportunities; competitive edge; broad ranging applications; widely accepted Chau 2016)

Page 21 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 Developmental transformations: the emergence of digital financial services (DFS); (Arner, Barberis,
creation of financial start-ups; increases financial market efficiency; reduces public and Buckley 2017)
distrust in the financial services industry; alternative sources of finance for small and
medium enterprises; employment for financial professionals; commoditization of
technology and the market penetration of the internet and mobile phones,
particularly smart phones; reduces time-to-market at a potentially lower cost;
provides better access to finance; fosters more innovative products reaching the
market
Facilitates transactions; features to better serve low to middle-level customers; higher (Teja 2017)
convenience level; lower costs
Safe; transparent; rapid; affordable (Rooney, Aiken,
and Rooney 2017)
Lowers entry barriers for new players; creates new business models; meets (Pollari 2016)
increasingly demanding customer needs; new start-ups and ventures; enhances
customer experience; streamlines operations; financial inclusion; affordability and
literacy; trust
New financial start-ups; faster and more cost-effective data transactions (Krishnan 2017)
Total number of publications 7

Table 13. High-value areas of bitcoin benefits (Source: Authors, 2018)

High value/ References # of %*

benefits of Refs
Bitcoin
Anonymity & (Böhme et al. 2015, Halaburda 2016, Piotrowska 2016, Tu and Meredith 20 32.26
privacy 2015, McCallum 2015, Ciaian, Rajcaniova, and Kancs 2016, Angel and
McCabe 2015, White 2015, Krishnan 2017, Dotsika and Watkins 2017,
Delgado-Segura, Tanas, and Herrera-Joancomartí 2016, Isaacson 2017,
Hendrickson, Hogan, and Luther 2016, Meiklejohn et al. 2016, Dostov
and Shust 2014a, Huang 2015, Zohar 2015, Swartz 2014, Harrison and
Mano 2015)
Boundless (Morisse and Ingram 2016, Simser 2015, Vassiliadis et al. 2017, 10 16.13
(Global) & Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016, Ciaian, Rajcaniova, and Kancs 2016, Rose
inclusiveness 2015, Richter, Kraus, and Bouncken 2015, Huang 2015, Nieman 2015)
Cost (Morisse and Ingram 2016, Simser 2015, Chu, Nadarajah, and Chan 36 58.06
2015, Böhme et al. 2015, Wolfson 2015, Sinha 2014, Collomb and Sok
2016, Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016, Halaburda 2016, Piotrowska 2016,
Abboushi 2017, Plassaras 2013, Pîrjan et al. 2015, Tu and Meredith
2015, McCallum 2015, Ciaian, Rajcaniova, and Kancs 2016, Angel and
McCabe 2015, Lambert 2015, White 2015, Pakrou and Amir 2016,
Richter, Kraus, and Bouncken 2015, Mikolajewicz-Wozniak and Scheibe
2015, Krishnan 2017, Kiviat 2015, Tsukerman 2015, Extance 2015, Allen
2017, Trautman and Harrell 2017, Wiseman 2016, Prentis 2015, Huang
2015, Zohar 2015, Kim 2015, Swartz 2014, Ajello 2015)
Decentralization (Böhme et al. 2015, Gandal and Halaburda 2016, Delgado-Segura, Tanas, 6 9.68
(transactions) and Herrera-Joancomartí 2016, Andrychowicz et al. 2016, Prentis 2015,
Huang 2015)
Disintermediation (Vassiliadis et al. 2017, Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016, Gandal and 18 29.03
Halaburda 2016, Milne 2016, Dostov and Shust 2014a, Harwick 2016,
Halaburda 2016, Abboushi 2017, Plassaras 2013, Tu and Meredith 2015,
Dotsika and Watkins 2017, Sklaroff 2017, Trautman and Harrell 2017,
Andrychowicz et al. 2016, Abramowicz 2016, Prentis 2015, Huang 2015,
Zohar 2015)
Efficiency (Morisse and Ingram 2016, Pîrjan et al. 2015, Lambert 2015, Kiviat 2015, 5 8.06
Allen 2017)
Page 22 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 Immutability & (Chu, Nadarajah, and Chan 2015, Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016, 7 11.29
fraud Plassaras 2013, McCallum 2015, Meiklejohn et al. 2016, Huang 2015,
Zohar 2015)
Open source (Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016, Gandal and Halaburda 2016, Pîrjan et 5 8.06
al. 2015, Cocco and Marchesi 2016, Zohar 2015)

Security (Morisse and Ingram 2016, Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016, Milne 2016, 15 24.19
Harwick 2016, Piotrowska 2016, Abboushi 2017, Plassaras 2013, Ciaian,
Rajcaniova, and Kancs 2016, Irwin and Milad 2016, Mikolajewicz-
Wozniak and Scheibe 2015, Delgado-Segura, Tanas, and Herrera-
Joancomartí 2016, Wolfson 2015, Hendrickson, Hogan, and Luther 2016,
Wiseman 2016, Huang 2015)
Speed (Morisse and Ingram 2016, Vassiliadis et al. 2017, Wolfson 2015, 12 19.35
Collomb and Sok 2016, Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016, Halaburda 2016,
Abboushi 2017, Tu and Meredith 2015, Ciaian, Rajcaniova, and Kancs
2016, Richter, Kraus, and Bouncken 2015, Allen 2017, Chu, Nadarajah,
and Chan 2015)
Transparency (Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016, Ciaian, Rajcaniova, and Kancs 2016, 5 8.06
Angel and McCabe 2015, Richter, Kraus, and Bouncken 2015, Zohar
2015)
* These percentages show the proportion of articles with high-value benefits of bitcoin in the total number of
articles on bitcoin benefits identified (62)

Table 14. High-value areas of blockchain benefits (Source: Authors, 2018)

High value/ References # of %*

benefits of Refs
Blockchain
Efficiency (Wolfond 2017, Swan 2017, Cocco, Pinna, and Marchesi 2017, 9 27.27
Evans 2017, Nowiński and Kozma 2017, Mansfield-Devine 2017,
Kiviat 2015, Tsukerman 2015, Tapscott and Tapscott 2017a)
Immutability & (Wolfond 2017, Collomb and Sok 2016, Medeiros and Chau 2016, 15 45.45
fraud Nowiński and Kozma 2017, Ryan 2017, Huckle and White 2016,
Lemieux 2016, Davy, Wouter, and Elisabeth 2017, Krishnan 2017,
Kshetri , Khan and Salah , Underwood 2016, Alcazar 2017, Sklaroff
2017, Mik 2017)
Privacy (Wolfond 2017, Krishnan 2017, Kshetri , Khan and Salah , Alcazar 7 21.21
2017, Bailis and Song 2017, Tapscott and Tapscott 2017a)
Decentralization (Collomb and Sok 2016, Tapscott and Tapscott 2017b, Nowiński 13 39.39
& and Kozma 2017, Huckle and White 2016, Davy, Wouter, and
disintermediation Elisabeth 2017, Kshetri , Prybila et al. , Kiviat 2015, Underwood
2016, Alcazar 2017, Tsukerman 2015, Sklaroff 2017, Mik 2017)
Reliability (Cocco, Pinna, and Marchesi 2017, Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016, 7 21.21
Ryan 2017, Lemieux 2016, Alcazar 2017, Sklaroff 2017, Tapscott
and Tapscott 2017a)
Security (Wolfond 2017, Swan 2017, Cocco, Pinna, and Marchesi 2017, 20 60.61
Letourneau and Whelan 2017, Medeiros and Chau 2016, Tapscott
and Tapscott 2017b, Nowiński and Kozma 2017, Lemieux 2016,
Davy, Wouter, and Elisabeth 2017, Mansfield-Devine 2017,
Kshetri , Khan and Salah , Kiviat 2015, Underwood 2016, Alcazar
2017, Bailis and Song 2017, Tsukerman 2015, Jin Ho and Jong Hyuk
2017, Tapscott and Tapscott 2017a, Mik 2017)
Service delivery (Wolfond 2017, Swan 2017, Collomb and Sok 2016, Letourneau 7 21.21
& innovation and Whelan 2017, Ryan 2017, Huckle and White 2016, Sikorski,
Haughton, and Kraft 2017)

Page 23 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 Speed (Swan 2017, Collomb and Sok 2016, Ryan 2017, Kiviat 2015, 6 18.18
Underwood 2016, Sklaroff 2017)
Transaction cost (Wolfond 2017, Swan 2017, Luther 2016a, Letourneau and Whelan 10 30.30
2017, Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016, Tapscott and Tapscott
2017b, Nowiński and Kozma 2017, Ryan 2017, Kiviat 2015, Sklaroff
2017)
Transparency & (Swan 2017, Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016, Evans 2017, Medeiros 13 39.39
accountability and Chau 2016, Abboushi 2017, Nowiński and Kozma 2017, Raskin
2015, Davy, Wouter, and Elisabeth 2017, Mansfield-Devine 2017,
Prybila et al. , Kiviat 2015, Underwood 2016, Tapscott and Tapscott
2017a)
Trust (Cocco, Pinna, and Marchesi 2017, Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016, 11 33.33
Medeiros and Chau 2016, Ryan 2017, Lemieux 2016, Davy,
Wouter, and Elisabeth 2017, Prybila et al. , Kiviat 2015,
Underwood 2016, Tsukerman 2015, Mik 2017)
* These percentages show the proportion of articles with high-value benefits of blockchain in the total
number of articles on blockchain benefits identified (33)

Table 15. High-value areas of Fintech benefits (Source: Authors, 2018)

High value References # of %*

benefits of Refs
Fintech
Service delivery (Milne 2016, Arner, Barberis, and Buckley 2017, Teja 2017, Medeiros 6 85.71
and innovation and Chau 2016, Pollari 2016, Krishnan 2017)
Transaction costs (Arner, Barberis, and Buckley 2017, Teja 2017, Rooney, Aiken, and 5 71.43
Rooney 2017, Pollari 2016, Krishnan 2017)
* These percentages show the proportion of articles with high-value benefits of Fintech in the total number of
articles on Fintech benefits identified (7)

Table 16. Benefits of Bitcoin from a business perspective (Source: Authors, 2018)

Operational • Reduced transaction costs

• Increased transaction speed
• No central vetting procedure/authority (disintermediation)
• Anonymous(pseudonymous) transactions
• Transparent transactions
• Secure transactions
• Immutable transactions
• Instantaneous transfer of value
• Irreversible transactions
• Easily accessible to everyone with an internet connection
• Trusted community
• Convenient mechanism for monetizing contributions that are currently zero
priced
• Infinite divisibility
• World-Wide Toll-Free Transfers (Tax free)
• Independent currency

Strategic • Support business growth due to absence of geographic boundaries

• Build customer base due to increasing number of users
• Supports speculative investment

Infrastructure • Robust infrastructure

Page 24 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 • Decentralized core technologies
• No central record keeping
• Low cost of production and maintenance
• Robust code
• Open source

Table 17. Benefits of Blockchain from a business perspective (Source: Authors, 2018)

Operational • Reduced cost of recordkeeping

• Improved accuracy of recordkeeping
• Reduced fraud
• More secure transactions
• More transparent
• Increased transaction speed
• Quasi-real-time updates
• Disintermediation
• Improved data integrity
• Improved privacy
• Quasi-exhaustive recording
• Customer service improvements
• Improved password management

Managerial • Improved identity management

• Improved space management
• Improved service delivery
• Personalized financial services
• Enhanced efficiency of financial services
• Reduced foreign exchange (FX) transfer costs and times

Strategic • Support sustainable development gaols

• Promote economic growth
• Reduce corruption
• Accelerate the development of green technologies
• Augment existing business networks
• Catalyse digital innovation
• Provide increased discoverability
• Build customer trust

Infrastructure • Open source

• Less physical infrastructure needed for the transfer of goods and services

Table 18. Benefits of FinTech from a business perspective (Source: Authors, 2018)

Operational • Reduced time-to-market at a potentially lower cost

• Easier access to finance
• Streamlined operations
• More affordable financial services
• More inclusive financial services
• More trusted financial system
• Improved customer experience
• Reduced entry barriers for new players

Page 25 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 Managerial • Alternative sources of finance for small and medium enterprises;
• New employment opportunities for finance professionals
• commoditization of technology and the market penetration of the internet and
mobile phones
• Gain a competitive advantage
• Foster more innovative products reaching the market

Strategic • Opportunity to develop new digital services

• Increase financial market efficiency
• Facilitate the achievement of digital currency policy objectives
• Provide risk finance to smaller companies
• Develop new market opportunities
• Opportunity for new business models

Classification of Articles by Challenges/Issues

Tables 19, 20, and 21 present the classification of the articles reviewed according to challenges or
issues related to Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech. 65 articles brought out challenges/issues related to
Bitcoin, 16 articles did the same for Blockchain, and five for Fintech. Most of the articles reviewed
acknowledge more than one issue related to Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech. High-value challenges
for each concept were identified based on their popularity among the articles reviewed, as presented
in Tables 22 and 23. Eight areas of high-value challenge were identified for Bitcoin, three for
Blockchain, and none for Fintech. The top five areas of challenges related to Bitcoin included illicit
activities (63.08% of articles on Bitcoin challenges), regulation and legislation (55.38%), pricing and
economic value (43.08%), accounting and finance (41.54%), and security and crime (40.00%). The three
major areas identified for Blockchain included technology and standards (56.25%), security (43.75%),
and regulation and legislation (31.25%). These challenges were further categorized into dimensions
identified as relevant for practical implications, as shown in Tables 24, 25 and 26.

Table 19. Classification of articles by challenges/issues related to bitcoin (Source: Authors, 2018)

Challenges/Issues related to Bitcoin Authors, Date

Technologies and standards; internal oversight; transparency; scalability of (Morisse and Ingram 2016)
business infrastructure; robustness; price; collective identity; interdependency
between the technical system and the social systems; security concerns;
instabilities in the protocol; transaction malleability; considerable use for illicit
purposes; very few firms; nascent stage; stability and adaptability of firms
Cost and fair value models of accounting; limited research on governance, (Ram, Maroun, and
accountability and financial reporting paradigms; considerable use for illicit Garnett 2016)
purposes; lack of regulation; unrecognised at cost; no reliably measurable for
future cash flow; knowledge about how it should be accounted for by
reporting entities and communicated to the users of their financial
statements.
Proper classification of bitcoins on the balance sheet; recognizing changes in (Gross, Hoelscher, and
value of bitcoins after they are received Reed 2015)
Ecologically unfriendly; number of transactions per block; high computational (Cocco, Pinna, and
power needed Marchesi 2017)
Nascent stage and the evolution of the virtual currency is difficult to predict; (Simser 2015)
Untraceable; highly illiquid and unstable; Use in illegal activity; Private key
theft; Misadventures - loss of bitcoins; Hacking and denial of service; bitcoin-
denominated fraud; Unregulated gaming enterprises; Taxation; decentralized
operation; lack of a central settling authority
Page 26 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Incumbent-monies problem (cost required to transition from the incumbent (Luther 2016a)
money to bitcoin); competition from Alt-Coins (competition from other
cryptocurrencies, otherwise known as alt-coins); illicit transactions; regulatory
risk
Volatility in exchange rates; susceptibility to attacks from cybercriminals – (Lee et al. 2015)
hacking, fraud, scams; susceptible to illicit use by cybercriminals; unregulated
marketplace; potential fatal technical issues; lack of jurisdiction for the
Federal Reserve; experimental nature
Economic value; highly dependent on participants' trust in system; susceptible (Vassiliadis et al. 2017)
to speculative bubbles; no material form; high value fluctuations; susceptible
to user errors; decreases reward for users; provides computing power to the
system (‘‘miners’’); mining using CPU and GPU unprofitable.
Sustainability; double-spending; risk of loss; cost of production; trust (Dowd and Hutchinson
2015)
Validation time; computational costs; governance structure; payments are (Böhme et al. 2015)
irreversible; hacking and denial-of-service attacks; digital wallet service issues
(hard to install software, need to download blockchain, risk of loss of
bitcoins…); silk road and other illicit activities; regulation issues; taxation
issues
Volatile prices; hacked digital wallets regulatory issues; illicit activities; (Wolfson 2015)
legislative issues
No stable value; illicit activities; unregulated; unrecognized by central banks (Sinha 2014)
Illicit activities; fraud; user/developer error; risk of business failure; security (Folkinshteyn and Lennon
risk; code/crypto error risk; regulatory risk; viability; user interfaces 2016)
Purely digital; nascent market; many players entering and competing; slow (Gandal and Halaburda
transaction times; pre-determined number of coins in the bitcoin system; very 2016)
powerful specialized equipment to participate in the network; risk of theft
from wallet
Volatility clustering of the price returns; hashing capability; power (Cocco and Marchesi 2016)
consumption; the hardware and electricity expenses
Anonymity; illegal activities; cybersecurity (Extance 2015)
Cybercrime; Illegal transactions; Anonymity (Gad 2014)
Money laundering; financing of terrorism; cannot be used in the real economy (Dostov and Shust 2014a)
Value of bitcoin is only based on the shared perception of value; no universal
acceptance; inequality in the currency distribution; exchange rates highly
volatile; tax crimes; anonymity as hidden identity
Legal regulations; financial intermediation; stability of value; high cost of (Harwick 2016)
mining (mainly electricity); moneyness; borrowing and lending risks
Illegal trade; mining requires substantial energy; price volatility; validity as a (Halaburda 2016)
currency; cost of production
Volatility of its value; no legal tender status; illegal money laundering; illicit (Abboushi 2017)
use to support global crime; tax evasion; unsupervised capital traffic;
anonymity; unreported questionable activities; transactions are unidirectional
and irrevocable; slow pace of operation; infrastructural issues
Volatility; lack of liquidity (Bouri, Azzi, and Dyhrberg
2017)
Jurisprudence; classification; illegal activity; multi-signature technology; (Raskin 2015)
complications to bitcoin as tangible property
Risks of misuse, confusion, and obfuscation; cybersecurity (Isaacson 2017)
Legitimacy; lack of regulation; acceptance; arduous and time-consuming (Plassaras 2013)
‘‘mining’’ process; high cost of electricity; uncertainty of operations and
growth; network externalities; speculative attacks
Volatility; categorization (money or property); regulatory concerns and (Tu and Meredith 2015)
considerations; no legal tender status; risk of theft; no centralized entity;
anonymity concerns; susceptibility for misuse; illegal use; electronic storage;

Page 27 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

irreversible transfers; puffery; nondisclosure of material information;
affirmative misrepresentation; online attacks
Taxation; computing power; legal tender nor electronic money status; illicit (Kowalski 2015)
activities; limited regulation
Lack of an oversight institution; information asymmetry; cost of getting (Ciaian, Rajcaniova, and
acquainted with bitcoin system; cost of adoption of the payment technology; Kancs 2016)
negligible market presence globally; network externalities; no legal tender;
difficulty to procure bitcoins; dispute resolution not available; absence of
bitcoin denominated credit; unit of account; divisibility; relative price;
comparability problem; price volatility; store of value; non-inationary supply;
deationary pressure; cyber security; illegal activities
Business ethics; unrecoverable losses; hacked bitwallets; store of value (Angel and McCabe 2015)
Price volatility; illegitimate; store of value (Rose 2015)
Unregulated; illegal activities; market value; intrinsic value; destructibility; (Lambert 2015)
taxability
Speculative; price volatility; no regulation; risky (Kurihara and Fukushima
2017)
Not recognized as legal tender; no intrinsic value; price volatility; legality; (Wonglimpiyarat 2016)
vulnerable to theft and loss; interoperability; insecurity
Taxability; regulations (Jordan 2015)
Illicit transactions; lack of laws and regulations (Irwin and Milad 2016)
Security threat; danger of virtual money system collapse; impacts of the real (Richter, Kraus, and
world; monetary systems; money laundering, tax evasion and online criminal; Bouncken 2015)
value fluctuation of virtual money; lack of acceptance by governments, banks
or the economy; limited group of users; value fluctuation of virtual money;
impacts of real-world monetary systems; danger of virtual money system
collapse; acceptance and faith
Tax evasion; unregulated environment; lack of the system operator; lack of (Mikolajewicz-Wozniak and
precise legal regulations; difficulties with understanding how the system and Scheibe 2015)
its infrastructure operate; impedes the users' rights and make them subject to
abuse
Volatility and valuation; universal acceptability; lack of regulatory control; (Krishnan 2017)
fraudulent and criminal behaviour; exchangeability; security; theft; lack of
safety to depositors; irreversibility of transactions; anonymity; illegal activity;
legal status; no refunds
Illegal activities; traceability (Broséus et al. 2016)
Wild price volatility; fraudulent investment schemes; multimillion dollar hacks; (Kiviat 2015)
acceptance as a monetary standard; poor store of value; price volatility;
federal regulations
State regulation; destroyed, lost, or stolen; lack intrinsic value; price volatility; (Tsukerman 2015)
energy consumption during mining; silk road; medium of exchange; token of
value
Loss of value; cybersecurity; legal recognition (Low and Teo 2017)
International standard of regulation; illegal activity; final and irreversible; (Piazza 2017)
anonymity; cybercrime
Lacking governmental and central bank support; volatility of the price; store of (Allen 2017)
value; little or no regulatory system; risk of system failure
Illegal activity; Usability acceptability (Kim et al. 2017)
Limited payment laws and regulation; illegal activities; price volatility; (Trautman and Harrell
currency stability 2017)
Illegal activities; anonymity; cybercrime (Masoni, Guelfi, and
Gensini 2016)
Illicit transactions; government regulation; anonymity; disrupts government (Hendrickson, Hogan, and
activities Luther 2016)
Criminal activities (Meiklejohn et al. 2016)

Page 28 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 Illegal activities; price volatility; fluctuating value; classification; tax collection (Wiseman 2016)
Currency; financial security; price volatility (Prentis 2015)
Anonymity; Illicit transactions. (Huang 2015)
Mining limitations; illegal activities; exchange rate fluctuations (Barre 2015)
Trafficking of illegal goods; online gambling; money laundering; tax evasion; (Small 2015)
funding terrorism
Volatility; theft; international crime; bitcoin regulation; risk to investors (Swartz 2014)
No central control or regulation; illegal activity (Connell 2014)
Criminal activities; tax evasion; investment scams; limited regulation (Ly 2014)
Illegal activities; limited regulation (Ajello 2015)
Money laundering; lack of foresight by the regulation writers (Bryans 2014)
Complexity of the technology; inflation; lack of institutionalization (NeguriĂA 2014)
Excessive regulation; volatility; security breaches; criminal uses (Brito and Castillo 2013)
Legal risks; criminal activities; value fluctuation; theft and fraud; lack of trust (Turpin 2013)
Vulnerable to speculation and hoarding; labouring, electricity, and the (Maurer, Nelms, and
infrastructures of mining; anonymity; illegal activities; value fluctuations; Swartz 2013)
Bitcoin protocols do not provide an incentive for nodes to broadcast
transactions; not incentive-compatible
Money laundering; regulatory framework (Stokes 2012)
Volatility; general decline in value; anonymity; tax evasion (Pittman 2015)
Total number of publications 65

Table 20. Classification of articles by challenges/issues related to blockchain (Source: Authors, 2018)

Challenges/Issues related to Blockchain Authors, Date

Identity verification and authentication; trust between citizens and the (Wolfond 2017)
services they access
Scalability; complicated technology; unresolved technical issues; effective (Swan 2017)
government regulation; illegal practice detection and tracking
Performance; significant energy consumption; high cost of hardware; no (Cocco, Pinna, and
standardized implementation; scalability; costs; security; computational speed Marchesi 2017)
and processing power; block size limit; number of transactions
Storage burden issues over time; undesirable delays due to update (Böhme et al. 2015)
Disintermediation; governance, standards and interoperability (Collomb and Sok 2016)
Regulatory compliance; illicit commerce; scalability; interoperability with (Letourneau and Whelan
existing legacy systems; storage capacity; cybersecurity; industrial 2017)
standardization; computing power
Risk of business failure; (Folkinshteyn and Lennon
2016)
Offline readiness; lack of decentralization; depends upon the trustworthiness (Ryan 2017)
of those providing the feedback
Cost and managerial overhead; setting-up is too time demanding (Davy, Wouter, and
Elisabeth 2017)
Newness; limited adoption (Kshetri 2017)
Scalability; efficiency; arbitration/regulations; key collision; vulnerability (Khan and Salah 2017)
Cybersecurity; transaction confirmation time (Prybila et al. 2017)
Selfish miner problem; a sybil attack (Alcazar 2017)
Security of transaction; security of wallet; security of software (Jin Ho and Jong Hyuk
2017)
Drug dealing; money laundering; legal identity (Wenker 2014)
Privacy; security; scalability; throughput; latency; size and bandwidth; wasted (Yli-Huumo et al. 2016)
resources; usability; versioning, hard forks, multiple chains
Total number of publications 16

Page 29 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Table 21. Classification of articles by challenges/issues related to Fintech (Source: Authors, 2018)

Challenges/Issues related to Fintech Authors, Date

Co-ordination amongst competing institutions; no individual gains in (Milne 2016)
competitive advantage; reluctance to agree on standards; weak/lack of
incentives; network structure of banking; regulation of access to banking
platforms
Jurisprudence; regulatory activities; compliance; intellectual property; (Medeiros and Chau 2016)
branding
Monitoring and enforcing increasingly demanding regulatory requirements on (Arner, Barberis, and
fast changing, rapidly growing and cross-border markets; rapidly transforming Buckley 2017)
financial systems; Infrastructure to support Fintech; cooperation with industry
participants; compliance; cybersecurity
Collaboration; innovation (Teja 2017)
Efficiency of technology infrastructure; improving systems stability; resilience (Pollari 2016)
and security
Total number of publications 5

Table 22. High value areas of challenges related to bitcoin (Source: Authors, 2018)

High value References # of %*

challenges/issues Refs
related to Bitcoin
Accounting & (Ram, Maroun, and Garnett 2016, Chu, Nadarajah, and Chan 2015, 27 41.54
finance Vassiliadis et al. 2017, Wolfson 2015, Dostov and Shust 2014a,
Harwick 2016, Bouri, Azzi, and Dyhrberg 2017, Tu and Meredith
2015, Kowalski 2015, Ciaian, Rajcaniova, and Kancs 2016, Lambert
2015, Kurihara and Fukushima 2017, Wonglimpiyarat 2016,
Krishnan 2017, Kiviat 2015, Tsukerman 2015, Allen 2017,
Trautman and Harrell 2017, Wiseman 2016, Prentis 2015, Barre
2015, Swartz 2014, NeguriĂA 2014, Brito and Castillo 2013, Turpin
2013, Maurer, Nelms, and Swartz 2013, Pittman 2015)
Anonymity (Extance 2015, Gad 2014, Dostov and Shust 2014a, Abboushi 2017, 13 20.00
Tu and Meredith 2015, Krishnan 2017, Piazza 2017, Masoni, Guelfi,
and Gensini 2016, Hendrickson, Hogan, and Luther 2016,
Meiklejohn et al. 2016, Huang 2015, Maurer, Nelms, and Swartz
2013, Pittman 2015)
Pricing & (Morisse and Ingram 2016, Ram, Maroun, and Garnett 2016, 28 43.08
economic value Simser 2015, Luther 2016a, Chu, Nadarajah, and Chan 2015,
Vassiliadis et al. 2017, Böhme et al. 2015, Sinha 2014, Cocco and
Marchesi 2016, Dostov and Shust 2014a, Harwick 2016, Halaburda
2016, Abboushi 2017, Bouri, Azzi, and Dyhrberg 2017, Tu and
Meredith 2015, Ciaian, Rajcaniova, and Kancs 2016, Angel and
McCabe 2015, Rose 2015, Kurihara and Fukushima 2017,
Wonglimpiyarat 2016, Richter, Kraus, and Bouncken 2015,
Krishnan 2017, Kiviat 2015, Tsukerman 2015, Low and Teo 2017,
Allen 2017, Prentis 2015, Pittman 2015)
Security & crime (Morisse and Ingram 2016, Simser 2015, Lee et al. 2015, Vassiliadis 26 40.00
et al. 2017, Wolfson 2015, Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016, Gandal
and Halaburda 2016, Extance 2015, Gad 2014, Isaacson 2017, Tu
and Meredith 2015, Ciaian, Rajcaniova, and Kancs 2016, Angel and
McCabe 2015, Lambert 2015, Wonglimpiyarat 2016, Richter,
Kraus, and Bouncken 2015, Krishnan 2017, Kiviat 2015, Tsukerman
2015, Low and Teo 2017, Piazza 2017, Masoni, Guelfi, and Gensini
2016, Swartz 2014, Ly 2014, Brito and Castillo 2013, Turpin 2013)

Page 30 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 Energy (Cocco, Pinna, and Marchesi 2017, Vassiliadis et al. 2017, Cocco 9 13.85
consumption & and Marchesi 2016, Harwick 2016, Plassaras 2013, Kowalski 2015,
Environmental Tsukerman 2015, Barre 2015, Maurer, Nelms, and Swartz 2013)
friendliness
Illicit activities (Morisse and Ingram 2016, Ram, Maroun, and Garnett 2016, 41 63.08
Simser 2015, Luther 2016a, Lee et al. 2015, Vassiliadis et al. 2017,
Böhme et al. 2015, Wolfson 2015, Sinha 2014, Folkinshteyn and
Lennon 2016, Extance 2015, Gad 2014, Dostov and Shust 2014a,
Halaburda 2016, Abboushi 2017, Raskin 2015, Tu and Meredith
2015, Kowalski 2015, Ciaian, Rajcaniova, and Kancs 2016, Lambert
2015, Irwin and Milad 2016, Richter, Kraus, and Bouncken 2015,
Krishnan 2017, Broséus et al. 2016, Tsukerman 2015, Piazza 2017,
Kim et al. 2017, Trautman and Harrell 2017, Masoni, Guelfi, and
Gensini 2016, Hendrickson, Hogan, and Luther 2016, Meiklejohn et
al. 2016, Wiseman 2016, Huang 2015, Barre 2015, Small 2015,
Connell 2014, Ly 2014, Ajello 2015, Bryans 2014, Maurer, Nelms,
and Swartz 2013, Stokes 2012)
Regulation & (Morisse and Ingram 2016, Ram, Maroun, and Garnett 2016, 36 55.38
legislation Simser 2015, Luther 2016a, Lee et al. 2015, Böhme et al. 2015,
Wolfson 2015, Sinha 2014, Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016, Harwick
2016, Abboushi 2017, Raskin 2015, Plassaras 2013, Kowalski 2015,
Lambert 2015, Kurihara and Fukushima 2017, Jordan 2015, Irwin
and Milad 2016, Mikolajewicz-Wozniak and Scheibe 2015,
Krishnan 2017, Kiviat 2015, Tsukerman 2015, Low and Teo 2017,
Piazza 2017, Trautman and Harrell 2017, Hendrickson, Hogan, and
Luther 2016, Swartz 2014, Connell 2014, Ly 2014, Ajello 2015,
Bryans 2014, NeguriĂA 2014, Brito and Castillo 2013, Turpin 2013,
Stokes 2012, Pittman 2015)
Technologies & (Morisse and Ingram 2016, Cocco, Pinna, and Marchesi 2017, 16 24.62
standards Simser 2015, Böhme et al. 2015, Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016,
Gandal and Halaburda 2016, Abboushi 2017, Raskin 2015, Tu and
Meredith 2015, Wonglimpiyarat 2016, Mikolajewicz-Wozniak and
Scheibe 2015, Krishnan 2017, Piazza 2017, Allen 2017, NeguriĂA
2014, Maurer, Nelms, and Swartz 2013)
* These percentages show the proportion of articles with high-value challenges related to bitcoin in the total
number of articles on bitcoin challenges identified (65)

Table 23. High value areas of challenges related to blockchain (Source: Authors, 2018)

High value References # of %*

challenges/issues Refs
related to
Blockchain
Security 7 43.75
(Cocco, Pinna, and Marchesi 2017, Letourneau and Whelan 2017,
Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016, Khan and Salah , Prybila et al. , Jin Ho
and Jong Hyuk 2017, Yli-Huumo et al. 2016)
Regulation & (Swan 2017, Collomb and Sok 2016, Letourneau and Whelan 2017, 5 31.25
legislation Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016, Khan and Salah)

Technology & (Swan 2017, Cocco, Pinna, and Marchesi 2017, Böhme et al. 2015, 9 56.25
standards Collomb and Sok 2016, Letourneau and Whelan 2017, Ryan 2017,
Kshetri , Khan and Salah , Yli-Huumo et al. 2016)

* These percentages show the proportion of articles with high-value challenges related to blockchain in the
total number of articles on bitcoin challenges identified (16)
Page 31 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Table 24. Practical classification of Bitcoin challenges

Awareness & • Experimental nature

Understanding • Nascent market
• Difficulties with understanding how the system and its infrastructure operate

Human & • Limited internal oversight

Organisation • Inadequate business infrastructure
• Difficult stability and availability of firms
• Susceptible to user/developer errors
• Risk of business failure

Culture • Interdependency between the technical system and the social systems

Value & Cost • High price volatility

• Limited Cost and fair value models of accounting
• Unrecognized value in some contexts
• Not reliably measurable for future cash flow
• No proper classification on balance sheets
• Unregulated marketplace
• Incumbent-monies problem (cost required to transition from the incumbent
money to bitcoin)
• Competition from Alt-Coins (competition from other cryptocurrencies,
otherwise known as alt-coins);
• The evolution of the currency is difficult to predict
• Highly illiquid and unstable
• Volatility in exchange rates
• Highly dependent on participants' trust in system
• Susceptible to speculative bubbles
• High value fluctuations
• No material forms
• Expensive cost of mining (high cost of production)
• Risk of theft from digital wallet
• No legal tender status
• Danger of virtual money system collapse
• Poor store of value

Regulation & • Limited research on governance, accountability and financial reporting

Governance paradigms
• Lack of regulation
• Lack of central settling authority
• Lack of jurisdiction for the Federal Reserve
• No governing structure
• Taxation concerns
• Unrecognized by central banks
• Unsupervised capital traffic
• Lack of an oversight institution
• Lack of precise legal regulation (making users subject to abuse)
• Lacking governmental and central bank support

Security & Privacy • Security concerns

• Transparency concerns

Page 32 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 • Considerable use for illicit purposes (financing terrorism, cybercrime, money
laundering…)
• Traceability concerns
• Risk of private key theft
• Loss of bitcoins
• Susceptibility to attacks from cybercriminals
• Bitcoin-denominated fraud
• Irreversible payments
• Anonymity and identity concerns

Technology & • No technology standards

Standards • Instabilities in the protocol
• Potential fatal technical issues
• Digital wallet service issues (hard to install software, need to download
blockchain, risk of loss of bitcoins…)
• Very powerful specialized equipment to participate in the network
• Lack of system operator
• Highly complex technology
• Protocols do not provide an incentive for nodes to broadcast transactions

Environment & • Ecologically unfriendly

Energy • High computational power needed
• High power consumption
• High hardware and electricity expenses

Table 25. Practical classification of Blockchain challenges

Awareness & • Newness

Understanding • Limited adoption

Organisation • Offline readiness concerns

• Setting-up is too time demanding

Cost efficiency • Cost and managerial overhead

Regulation & • No government regulation

Governance • Disintermediation concerns
• Regulatory compliance issues
• Lack of decentralization

Security & Privacy • Identity verification and authentication concerns

• Highly trust-dependent
• Difficult illegal practice detection and tracking
• Susceptible to cyberattacks
• Key collision issues
• Security of transaction, of wallet, and of software
• Privacy concerns

Technology & • Complicated technology

Standards • Unresolved technical issues
• Scalability concerns
• High cost of hardware
• No standardized implementation

Page 33 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 • High computational speed and processing poser required
• Block size limit concerns
• Storage burden issues over time
• Undesirable delays due to update
• No interoperability standards
• Slow transaction confirmation time
• Throughput concerns
• Network size and bandwidth concerns

Environment & • High energy consumption

Energy

Table 26. Practical classification of Fintech challenges

Organisation • Lack of coordination amongst competing institutions

• No individual gains in competitive advantage
• Reluctance to agree on standards
• Weak/lack of incentives
• Network structure of banking
• Intellectual property concerns
• Limited cooperation between industry participants

Culture • Rapid transformation of financial systems

Regulation & • Regulation concerns about access to banking platforms

Governance • Compliance issues
• Monitoring and enforcing increasingly demanding regulatory requirements on
fast changing, rapidly growing and cross-border markets

Security & Privacy • Susceptible to cyberattacks

Technology & • Robust infrastructure needed to support Fintech
Standards • Limited system stability
• Resilience and security concerns

Classification of Articles by Industry

The distribution of articles by industry is shown in Table 27. The review of all publications showed the
following percentages according to their focus areas: 53 articles (40.15%) focused on financial services;
41 of them (31.06%) focused on public administration and defense, compulsory social security, and
law and taxation; eight (6.06%) focused on e-commerce; six each (4.55% each) focused on wholesale
and retail, and on information and communication technology; while the arts, entertainment, and
recreation, manufacturing, education, healthcare, transportation and storage, environmental
protection and sustainability, and other private sectors each had less than 3.00% of the articles focused
on them. The following industries were the focus of only one article each (0.76% each): administrative
and support services; chemical, electricity, gas, steam, and air conditioning; and real estate.

Table 27. Classification based on industry (Authors, Source, 2018)

No. of
Industry articles Authors, Date
(%)

Page 34 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Administrative 1 (Lemieux 2016)
and support (0.76%)
services
Arts, 2 (Nowiński and Kozma 2017, Kauffman et al. 2017)
entertainment (1.52%)
and recreation
Chemical, 1 (Sikorski, Haughton, and Kraft 2017)
electricity, gas, (0.76%)
steam and air
conditioning
Education 2 (Tapscott and Tapscott 2017a, Barre 2015)
(1.52%)
Financial 53 (Morisse and Ingram 2016, Ram, Maroun, and Garnett 2016, Cocco, Pinna, and
services (40.15%) Marchesi 2017, Vassiliadis et al. 2017, Jacobs 2011, Collomb and Sok 2016,
Letourneau and Whelan 2017, Milne 2016, Harwick 2016, Piotrowska 2016,
Medeiros and Chau 2016, Arner, Barberis, and Buckley 2017, 2016, Nowiński
and Kozma 2017, Teja 2017, Bouri, Azzi, and Dyhrberg 2017, Antonikova 2015,
Raskin 2015, Plassaras 2013, Pîrjan et al. 2015, Tu and Meredith 2015, Ober,
Katzenbeisser, and Hamacher 2013, Schueffel 2016, Kowalski 2015, Ciaian,
Rajcaniova, and Kancs 2016, Angel and McCabe 2015, Rose 2015, Kurihara and
Fukushima 2017, White 2015, Wonglimpiyarat 2016, Pakrou and Amir 2016,
Pollari 2016, Grant, Stiehler, and Boon 2013, Richter, Kraus, and Bouncken
2015, Mikolajewicz-Wozniak and Scheibe 2015, Krishnan 2017, Mansfield-
Devine 2017, Kauffman, Liu, and Ma 2015, Underwood 2016, Piazza 2017,
Allen 2017, Kim et al. 2017, Sirer 2016, Andrychowicz et al. 2016, Mik 2017,
Nieman 2015, Donier and Bouchaud 2015, Chu, Nadarajah, and Chan 2015,
Kristoufek 2015, Kondor et al. 2014, Maurer, Nelms, and Swartz 2013, Wang
and Vergne 2017)
Information 6 (Khan and Salah , Delgado-Segura, Tanas, and Herrera-Joancomartí 2016, Bailis
and (4.55%) and Song 2017, Jin Ho and Jong Hyuk 2017, Cocco and Marchesi 2016, Swan
communication 2016)
technology
Manufacturing 2 (Davy, Wouter, and Elisabeth 2017, Shiyong et al. 2017)
& production (1.52%)
Public 41 (Wolfond 2017, Simser 2015, Chu, Nadarajah, and Chan 2015, Jacobs 2011,
administration (31.06%) Babkin Alexander et al. 2017, Nowiński and Kozma 2017, Rooney, Aiken, and
and defence; Rooney 2017, Antonikova 2015, Tu and Meredith 2015, Ryan 2017, Huckle and
compulsory White 2016, Kowalski 2015, McCallum 2015, Lambert 2015, Jordan 2015, Irwin
social security; and Milad 2016, Lemieux 2016, Cunliffe et al. 2017, Kshetri , Broséus et al.
law, taxation 2016, Kiviat 2015, Alcazar 2017, Tsukerman 2015, Low and Teo 2017, Piazza
2017, Trautman and Harrell 2017, Hendrickson, Hogan, and Luther 2016,
Wiseman 2016, Mik 2017, Abramowicz 2016, Prentis 2015, Huang 2015,
Nieman 2015, Wenker 2014, Swartz 2014, Connell 2014, Ajello 2015, NeguriĂA
2014, Turpin 2013, Chiu 2017, Stokes 2012)
Healthcare 2 (Kshetri , Masoni, Guelfi, and Gensini 2016, Swan 2016)
(1.52%)
Real estate 1 (Lambert 2015)
activities (0.76%)
Transportation 2 (Basu 2014, S. and A. 2017)
and storage (1.52%)
Wholesale and 6 (Nowiński and Kozma 2017, Ciaian, Rajcaniova, and Kancs 2016, Lambert 2015,
retail trade (4.55%) White 2015, Mansfield-Devine 2017, Kshetri)
Other (private 3 (Wolfond 2017, Babkin Alexander et al. 2017, Kshetri)
sector) (2.27%)

Page 35 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 Other (e- 8 (Gross, Hoelscher, and Reed 2015, Collomb and Sok 2016, Rose 2015, Pakrou
commerce) (6.06%) and Amir 2016, Mansfield-Devine 2017, Kauffman et al. 2017, Sklaroff 2017,
Meiklejohn et al. 2016)
Other 2 (Cocco, Pinna, and Marchesi 2017, Al Kawasmi, Arnautovic, and Svetinovic
(environmental (1.52%) 2015)
protection and
sustainability)
Total 132
Note: Some articles are counted more than once because they cover more than one industry. Also, some
articles did not concern any specific industry.

Distribution of Articles by Research Approach

Table 28 presents the classification of the reviewed articles by research approach. Most of the
publications were reviews (53 articles, 34.42%), followed by conceptual articles (26 articles, 16.88%),
case studies (25 articles, 16.23%), data analyses (24 articles, 15.58%), experimental studies (10 articles,
6.49%), developmental studies (8 articles, 5.19%), and surveys (8 articles, 5.19%).

Table 28. Classification of articles by research approach (Source: Authors, 2018)

Research No. of Authors, Date

approach articles
(%)
Conceptual 26 (Wolfond 2017, Ram, Maroun, and Garnett 2016, Swan 2017, Davidson and
(16.88%) Block 2015, Sinha 2014, Collomb and Sok 2016, Letourneau and Whelan 2017,
Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016, Smit, Buekens, and Du Plessis 2016, Milne
2016, Nowiński and Kozma 2017, Ryan 2017, Huckle and White 2016, Ober,
Katzenbeisser, and Hamacher 2013, Wonglimpiyarat 2016, Chen 2018, Sikorski,
Haughton, and Kraft 2017, Prybila et al. , Jin Ho and Jong Hyuk 2017, Tapscott
and Tapscott 2017a, Hendrickson, Hogan, and Luther 2016, Andrychowicz et al.
2016, Swan 2016, Al Kawasmi, Arnautovic, and Svetinovic 2015, Wagner 2016,
Micheler 2015)
Review 53 (Chu, Nadarajah, and Chan 2015, Lee et al. 2015, Vassiliadis et al. 2017, Böhme
(34.42%) et al. 2015, Gad 2014, Harwick 2016, Halaburda 2016, Evans 2017, Medeiros
and Chau 2016, Abboushi 2017, 2016, Nowiński and Kozma 2017, Teja 2017,
Rooney, Aiken, and Rooney 2017, Antonikova 2015, Plassaras 2013, Pîrjan et al.
2015, Tu and Meredith 2015, Huckle and White 2016, Schueffel 2016, Kowalski
2015, McCallum 2015, White 2015, Basu 2014, Irwin and Milad 2016, Grant,
Stiehler, and Boon 2013, Mikolajewicz-Wozniak and Scheibe 2015, Davy,
Wouter, and Elisabeth 2017, Krishnan 2017, Mansfield-Devine 2017, Kshetri ,
Sikorski, Haughton, and Kraft 2017, Dotsika and Watkins 2017, Khan and
Salah , Prybila et al. , Underwood 2016, Bailis and Song 2017, Low and Teo
2017, Piazza 2017, Allen 2017, Trautman and Harrell 2017, Wiseman 2016,
Abramowicz 2016, Prentis 2015, Huang 2015, Nieman 2015, Wenker 2014,
Swartz 2014, Connell 2014, Ly 2014, Ajello 2015, NeguriĂA 2014, Chiu 2017,
Yli-Huumo et al. 2016)
Data Analysis 24 (Cocco, Pinna, and Marchesi 2017, Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016, Gandal and
(15.58%) Halaburda 2016, Bouri, Azzi, and Dyhrberg 2017, Ober, Katzenbeisser, and
Hamacher 2013, Ciaian, Rajcaniova, and Kancs 2016, Angel and McCabe 2015,
Kurihara and Fukushima 2017, Davy, Wouter, and Elisabeth 2017, Cunliffe et al.
2017, Sikorski, Haughton, and Kraft 2017, Kauffman et al. 2017, Dotsika and
Watkins 2017, Delgado-Segura, Tanas, and Herrera-Joancomartí 2016, Cocco
and Marchesi 2016, Kim et al. 2017, Meiklejohn et al. 2016, Donier and
Bouchaud 2015, Chu, Nadarajah, and Chan 2015, Kristoufek 2015, Kondor et al.
2014, Maurer, Nelms, and Swartz 2013, Stokes 2012, Wang and Vergne 2017)
Page 36 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 Survey 8 (Morisse and Ingram 2016, Halaburda 2016, Piotrowska 2016, Pakrou and Amir
(5.19%) 2016, S. and A. 2017, Mansfield-Devine 2017, Tsukerman 2015, Piazza 2017)
Experimental 10 (Vassiliadis et al. 2017, Raskin 2015, Ober, Katzenbeisser, and Hamacher 2013,
(6.49%) Angel and McCabe 2015, Rose 2015, Wonglimpiyarat 2016, Richter, Kraus, and
Bouncken 2015, Davy, Wouter, and Elisabeth 2017, Cocco and Marchesi 2016,
Kim 2015)
Case study 25 (Morisse and Ingram 2016, Gross, Hoelscher, and Reed 2015, Simser 2015, Lee
(and laws) (16.23%) et al. 2015, Folkinshteyn and Lennon 2016, Tu and Meredith 2015, Lemieux
2016, Broséus et al. 2016, Alcazar 2017, Jin Ho and Jong Hyuk 2017, Isaacson
2017, Allen 2017, Trautman and Harrell 2017, Wiseman 2016, Abramowicz
2016, Prentis 2015, Huang 2015, Nieman 2015, Shiyong et al. 2017, Swartz
2014, Connell 2014, Ly 2014, Ajello 2015, Turpin 2013, NeguriĂA 2014)
Developmental 8 (Luther 2016a, Dowd and Hutchinson 2015, Wolfson 2015, Arner, Barberis, and
(5.19%) Buckley 2017, Lambert 2015, Grant, Stiehler, and Boon 2013, Kauffman, Liu,
and Ma 2015, Masoni, Guelfi, and Gensini 2016)
Total 154
Note: Some articles are counted more than once because they cover more than one type of research
approach

Distribution of Articles by Journal

As shown in Table 29, nine journals were found to have published at least three articles on Bitcoin,
Blockchain, or Fintech, accounting for 29% of all reviewed publications (that is, 41 articles reviewed in
this study). PLOS ONE alone published nine articles (6.38% of all reviewed publications), while
Communications of the ACM published seven (4.96%), with five in Technology Innovation and
Management Review (3.55%). Cato Journal and the Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce
published four articles each (2.84% each), while only three relevant articles were found in each of the
following journals: Communications and Strategies; Future Generation Computer Systems; Future
Internet; and Law, Innovation &Technology (contributing 2.13% each to the total number of
publications reviewed).

Table 29. Classification of articles per journal (with minimum of 3 publications) (Source: Authors,
2018)

Journal No. %*
Cato Journal 4 2.84
Communications & Strategies 3 2.13
Communications of the ACM 7 4.96
Future Generation Computer Systems 3 2.13
Future Internet 3 2.13
Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce 4 2.84
Law, Innovation & Technology 3 2.13
PLOS ONE 9 6.38
Technology Innovation Management Review 5 3.55
TOTAL 41
* Number of articles in journal / total number of articles reviewed (141)

Figure 2 summarizes the role of bitcoin, blockchain and FinTech in the supply chain context.

Page 37 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 Fintech refers to the use of technology to deliver financial
services. This includes the use of crypto currencies based on
blockchain technology for financial transactions in supply
chain.

Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer version of electronic cash that would allow online end-to-end payments without going through a financial institution. It improves
supply chains in the following ways:
• Globally inclusive means of payment
• Low cost, transparent and fast transactions compared to traditional payment methods

Distribution
Retail

Blockchain technology can be used as an electronic log for transactions and other relevant messages regarding the supply chain. It improves supply
chains in the following ways:
• Enables the secure transfer of money, assets, and information • Enhances transparency throughout the supply chain
• Reduces fraud through immutable & shared transactional records • Reduces transaction costs by disintermediation
• Improves proof of origin and information/ownership tracking • Increases efficiency in transactions due to distributed digital ledger

Fintech in supply chain is mostly used for service innovation and transaction cost reduction

Figure 2. Positioning bitcoin, blockchain, and finTech in the supply chain context

Page 38 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Insights from Case Studies

Important Benefits Identified from the Case Studies

The analysis of three case studies provides some important insights. Currently, Manukora can use its
overall Blockchain platform to achieve a competitive advantage. On the consumer side, scan rates are
more than 10% in Asia (China has the highest scan rates) and less than 10% in North America. The
usage of Blockchain builds trust and integrity into the Manukora Honey supply chain. The platform
further allows Manukora to add provenance data, certification data, and quality reports, and to
associate them with each batch.

Yimishiji was awarded the Social Impact Fellowship from the Gerson Lehrman Group (GLG) in October
2017, as part of their ‘Tech for Social Good’ program. The award gives Yimishiji free access to 500,000
GLG experts to help develop their business. In November 2017, the Origin Trail project at Yimishiji was
awarded the Walmart China award for food-safety innovation, which includes business mentoring. As
the Origin Trail protocol is open source, barriers for usage are low while scalability is high. The protocol
can be utilized for rapid deployment to solve real-world problems in data integrity, enabling supply-
chain transparency and improving consumer trust. Moreover, should something go wrong in the
supply chain, such as the need to issue a food-safety recall, the problem can be easily and rapidly
traced to the source within seconds.

Key Challenges Identified from the Case Studies

Many challenges also are related to these cases. One encountered by Manukora was engaging with
and onboarding honey suppliers and getting buy-in to share data using a blockchain. The key to this
challenge is helping the parties understand the value and usage of a blockchain, how it works, and how
they can participate and share data. Another important challenge facing the firm is extending the
platform to third parties such as logistics providers, who need to access data and provide data back to
the platform. Overall it takes time to educate and get the extended supply chain on board. During
blockchain feasibility testing, system performance was impacted and slowed significantly. This is a
critical area of focus and trade-off as transactions ground to a halt. To counteract this problem, Trust
Codes moved to a smart contract approach, and new members joining the blockchain could do so
through identity management using an agreed-upon unique identity hash. Data is then held in the
Trust Codes cloud (or other blockchain solutions), to be called up by a party with a verified identity and
role. Trust Codes developed this platform approach to overcome the performance issues inherent in a
pure Blockchain approach. Overall, the solution will benefit further from an agreed-upon Blockchain
protocol to facilitate interoperability, which is something on which Trust Codes is focusing.

Yimishiji also faces several challenges. From the initiation of the project, a decision was made to ensure
alignment with GS1 supply-chain standards for data and information. As such, a technical challenge at
the outset included the mapping of the core GS1 standards in the solution, such as global trade item
number (GTIN) and global location number (GLN). Once this was done, the team could focus on using
the GS1 standards to set up the data-governance model and ensure the integrity of inbound data. With
connection of the first supplier, bad data was identified and corrected. Mapping the GS1 standards
and setting up data governance and data mapping are key to success. Furthermore, determining which
data attributes to share, as well as when and why to share them, is important for all parties, to ensure
protection of data as well as data integrity. After this is set up, onboarding of a new supplier is a
standardized and structured process. An important challenge is ensuring the platform is ready for
future applications of the Internet of Things, AI, and big-data analysis. As such, future usage of sensor
Page 39 sur 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

devices used on-farm, on-product, and in-transit—such as temperature control monitors—must be
easily connectable to the blockchain platform to provide business intelligence.

For Ireland Craft Beers, the Blockchain solution is used to support a connected community and
enhance the emotional bond between the consumer and the brand. For example, once the beer
launched in November 2017 as the ‘first craft beer on a blockchain’, it sold out in a short period of
time. The mobile application facilitated direct consumer feedback that suggests that those consumers
value transparency of the craft or artisan beer-making process. Moreover, they see value in brands
sharing product and process data to validate the beer’s authenticity and provenance.

Discussion

Results of this comprehensive review of articles on Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech disclose several
interesting revelations. Having presented clear definitions and concepts related to Bitcoin, Blockchain,
and Fintech, a classification framework was developed and used to perform an analysis of 141 articles
from five top academic databases.

Research publications on Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech began appearing in 2010, and this nascent
research is attributable to the introduction of Bitcoin in 2008. The first peer-reviewed papers on these
topics started appearing a few years later, both following and helping to extend the popularity of those
technologies. High-value areas of interest in the potential benefits and challenges of Bitcoin,
Blockchain, and Fintech were also identified. The degree of credibility for a benefit or challenge was
based on the number of published articles on the subject, and the minimum level of acceptability was
at least five articles. Thus, any other benefit or challenge not classified as high value needs further
investigation.

Financial services and public administration are understandably the industries with greatest interest
in Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech. Despite their nascent status, as electronic media of exchange these
technologies are already threatening the traditional financial systems, all the more serious in that they
are easily associated with other technologies. Financial-service organizations and systems are
investigating how to explore the advantages of Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech while striving to
overcome related challenges. The situation is different in public administration, where these new
systems are still difficult to regulate and control. In the absence of clear regulations applicable to these
technologies in most countries worldwide, they cannot be easily contained and controlled.

Researchers primarily used a review approach, to summarize previously published studies in various
industries and contexts rather than to report new facts or analyses. Many authors also used conceptual
studies and case studies to contribute to better understanding and to develop theories, practice, and
professional issues in ways that are unique to this specific context. Despite their youth, Bitcoin,
Blockchain, and Fintech have given rise to approaches that are undeniably useful in the analysis of
specific human problems, no matter the circumstances.

Implications for Research and Practice

Overall, this research serves as a baseline study, as it offers the opportunity to evaluate the level of
knowledge on Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech, and their evolution over time. The classification
framework as presented initiates and directs future empirical research on these topics. The definitions
and main characteristics of Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech are expected to help shed more light on
the definitional aspects of each concept.

Page 40 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Practically speaking, the fast-growing interest that many scholars and practitioners in almost every
industry are currently showing in Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech clearly confirms the timeliness of
this research. From a managerial perspective, this study highlights the main contexts or domains in
which applications of Bitcoin, Blockchain and Fintech could occur, while emphasizing their potential
benefits and business value. It also presents high-value challenges and issues related to Bitcoin,
Blockchain, and Fintech, as well as articles in which managers can find information concerning these
technologies in their respective industries. From a research perspective, this study sets out a general
classification of publications on Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech, and identifies key elements within
each category. It significantly extends and complements other findings from systematic reviews in this
research stream. From a professional practitioner’s perspective, this study offers critical insights into
the formulation and implementation of Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech strategies. It places Bitcoin,
Blockchain, and Fintech benefits and challenges in context, facilitating the identification of new
opportunities for innovation and the prioritization of business strategies.

Managers need to align existing organizational cultures and capabilities across the organization if they
want to make the most of Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech. The fact that users consider lower
transaction costs as the most frequently searched high-value potential benefit of Bitcoin should
convince managers to rethink business models in which transaction cost is integrated, as is the case in
many banks and financial institutions today. Moreover, Bitcoin offers anonymous transactions and
guarantees user privacy more successfully than most financial systems do. These transactions are also
relatively fast and secure, making Bitcoin very attractive. Therefore, it is in the interest of managers
and institutions looking to make the most of cryptocurrencies (e.g., bitcoin) to consider these priority
factors, while always keeping abreast of activity in this domain, as the trends vary extremely quickly
over time. As one of the best tools for secure and immutable transactions, Bitcoin minimizes fraud and
guarantees the reliability of transactional data in this data-driven world. The nonintervention of a
central authority or of any intermediate partially explains why bitcoin transactions are much cheaper
and faster, compared to any other means of transaction. Furthermore, this system is known to be
trustworthy, given the degree of transparency and accountability attached to it. Business managers
seeking high levels of transparency, accountability, and increased trust could benefit from the
blockchain technology. Major contributions of Fintech include lowering transaction costs in financial
operations, improving the quality of services rendered, and creating more innovative ways of offering
financial services. Managers from any industry need to better understand the full benefits of Fintech
if they intend to take advantage of them. In addition to these key potential benefits that can be used
to create business value, cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin, as well as related technologies (including
blockchain and Fintech), have yet to unveil all their benefits.

At the same, it is necessary for managers interested in Bitcoin, Blockchain, or Fintech to think about
the challenges and issues that come with these concepts. For example, Bitcoin has a very flawed
connotation arising from its alleged extensive use in illicit activities and cybercrimes. With the absence
or the extremely low level of regulation and legislation to date, many people are still not sure about
where and how to carry out transactions using their bitcoin. Besides, the fact that bitcoin has no legal
status, is not a store of value, is highly volatile, and has no accounting standard or classification makes
it very challenging to use for transactions. As for the blockchain technology, prospective users or
adopters should bear in mind that it is still new and at its primary stage of development, with very few
standards. In addition, blockchain requires very high computational power and an expensive IT
infrastructure, as well as a certain degree of security in transactions, in combination with wallet
operations, and alongside regulatory issues remaining to be addressed. The review also identifies
challenges or issues related to Fintech. This implies that managers exploring Fintech and interested in

Page 41 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

investing in the technology should take those into consideration within the context of their particular
business problem.

One limitation of this research work relates to the articles explored and reviewed, as those retrieved
from the five academic databases were all written in English. It could be of great interest to explore
other databases with articles written in other languages to complement the findings of this study.
Additionally, the systematic approach used to carry out this study and the selection of articles and
classifications were subjective. Other authors may find it interesting to replicate this study with their
own selection criteria and classification schemes.

Further Research and Conclusions

This paper presents a systematic review of the peer-reviewed academic literature published from 2007
to 2017, pertaining to Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech, based on their perceived application domains,
potential benefits, challenges, and applicable industries. It represents a baseline study for the
20072017 period that reveals the actual evolution of Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech as indicated in
peer-reviewed research. It also provides significant insights for academia to establish new research
domains, and for practitioners to assess their needs and ability to adopt any of these technologies. The
findings show that these technologies are evolving, and organizations are embracing them for
competitive advantage. Thus, organizations need to leverage research on these technologies to better
understand them, optimize their business strategies, and develop critical insights for decision-making.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first review combining Bitcoin, Blockchain, and
Fintech, and spanning the 20072017 timeframe.

The review and classification proposed in this study offer useful insights into Bitcoin, Blockchain, and
Fintech research. They place all three concepts in one paper, making a comparative analysis easier for
readers. In addition, the proposed definitions and findings can be used as a research agenda in Bitcoin,
Blockchain, and Fintech orientations and related discussions, amid the perception that further
research in this area should be aligned to its rapid development. Building a strong business case for
Bitcoin, Blockchain, or Fintech will require expanding businesses from their current state to more
sophisticated applications in the emerging market. Further research could focus on developing
explanatory and predictive theories and models for better understanding these technologies.
Specifically, emphasis may be put on strategies and techniques of creating business value from the
well-known benefits of the technologies, as well as on the ways and means of overcoming the explored
challenges of Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Fintech. Another angle of research may consist of investigating
these technologies in other domains, such as the healthcare sector, where the research is very limited.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the case study contributors; Paul Ryan, CEO of Trust Codes, Mike Bell,
CEO of Manukora Honey, Kieran Kelly, former CEO of ARC-NET, Tomaz Levak, CEO Origin Trail, Ziga
Drev, COO Origin Trail and Sava Savic, solution architect at Origin Trail for his valuable technical
comments. We are also thankful to reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions that helped
improving the content of the manuscript.

Page 42 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

References

Abboushi, Suhail. 2017. "Global virtual currency . Brief overview." The Journal of Applied Business
and Economics 19 (6):10-18.

Abramowicz, Michael. 2016. "Cryptocurrency-based law." Arizona Law Review 58 (2):359-420.

Ajello, Nicholas J. 2015. "Fitting a square peg in a round hole." Brooklyn Law Review 80 (2):435-461.

Al Kawasmi, Enas, Edin Arnautovic, and Davor Svetinovic. 2015. "Bitcoin-based decentralized carbon
emissions trading infrastructure model." Systems Engineering 18 (2):115-130. doi:
10.1002/sys.21291.

Alcazar, Vincent. 2017. "Data you can trust: Blockchain technology." Air & Space Power Journal 31
(2):91-101.

Allen, Hilary J. 2017. "$=€=BITCOIN?" Maryland Law Review 76 (4):877-939.

Ammous, Saifedean Hisham. 2016. "Blockchain technology: What is it good for?" Browser Download
This Paper.

Andrychowicz, Marcin, Stefan Dziembowski, Daniel Malinowski, and Łukasz Mazurek. 2016. "Secure
multiparty computations on bitcoin." Communications of the ACM 59 (4):76-84. doi:
10.1145/2896386.

Angel, James J., and Douglas McCabe. 2015. "The ethics of payments: Paper, plastic, or bitcoin?"
Journal of Business Ethics 132 (3):603-611. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2354-
x.

Aniello, Leonardo, Roberto Baldoni, Edoardo Gaetani, Federico Lombardi, Andrea Margheri, and
Vladimiro Sassone. 2017. "A prototype evaluation of a tamper-resistant high performance
blockchain-based transaction log for a distributed database." Dependable Computing
Conference (EDCC), 2017 13th European.

Anonymous. 2016. "Highlights from Structured Finance Industry Group (SFIG)." The Journal of
Structured Finance 22 (1):92-99. doi: 10.3905/jsf.2016.22.1.092.

Antonikova, Nika. 2015. "Real taxes on virtual currencies: What does the IRS say? ." Virginia Tax
Review 34 (3):433-466.

Arner, Douglas W., Jànos Barberis, and Ross P. Buckley. 2017. "FinTech, RegTech, and the
Reconceptualization of Financial Regulation." Northwestern Journal of International Law &
Business 37 (3):371-413.

Atzori, Marcella. 2015. "Blockchain Technology and Decentralized Governance: Is the State Still
Necessary?" SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2709713.

Babkin Alexander, V., Diana D. Burkaltseva, Wladislav W. Pshenichnikov, and Andrei S. Tyulin. 2017.
"Cryptocurrency and blockchain-technology in digital economy: development genesis." St.

Page 43 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

 Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal. Economics (5). doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.18721/JE.10501.

Bailis, Peter, and Han Song. 2017. "Research for Practice: Cryptocurrencies, Blockchains, and Smart
Contracts; Hardware for Deep Learning." Communications of the ACM 60 (5):48-51. doi:
10.1145/3024928.

Barre, Todd J. 2015. "Bitcoin: A Pedagogical Guide for the College Classroom." Journal of Education
for Business 90 (6):335-339. doi: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1046358.

Basden, James, and Michael Cottrell. 2017. "How utilities are using blockchain to modernize the
grid." Harvard Business Review.

Basu, Gautam. 2014. "The strategic attributes of transnational smuggling: Logistics flexibility and
operational stealth in the facilitation of illicit trade." Journal of Transportation Security 7
(2):99-113. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12198-013-0132-0.

Benbasat, I., D.K. Goldstein, and M. Mead. 1987. "The case research strategy in studies of
information systems." MIS Quarterly 11 (3):369-386.

Böhme, Rainer, Nicolas Christin, Benjamin Edelman, and Tyler Moore. 2015. "Bitcoin: Economics,
Technology, and Governance." The Journal of Economic Perspectives 29 (2):213-238. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.2.213.

Bouri, Elie, Georges Azzi, and Anne Haubo Dyhrberg. 2017. "On the return-volatility relationship in
the Bitcoin market around the price crash of 2013." Economics 11 (2):1-17. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2017-2.

Brito, Jerry, and Andrea Castillo. 2013. "Bitcoin: A primer for policymakers." Policy 29 (4):3-12.

Broséus, J., D. Rhumorbarbe, C. Mireault, V. Ouellette, F. Crispino, and D. Décary-Hétu. 2016.

"Studying illicit drug trafficking on Darknet markets: Structure and organisation from a
Canadian perspective." Forensic Science International 264:7-14. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.02.045.

Bryans, Danton. 2014. "Bitcoin and Money Laundering: Mining for an Effective Solution." Indiana
Law Journal 89 (1):441-472.

Chen, Rui-Yang. 2018. "A traceability chain algorithm for artificial neural networks using T–S fuzzy
cognitive maps in blockchain." Future Generation Computer Systems 80:198-210. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.09.077.

Chiu, Iris H. Y. 2017. "A new era in fintech payment innovations? A perspective from the institutions
and regulation of payment systems." Law, Innovation & Technology 9 (2):190-234. doi:
10.1080/17579961.2017.1377912.

Chu, Jeffrey, Saralees Nadarajah, and Stephen Chan. 2015. "Statistical Analysis of the Exchange Rate
of Bitcoin." PLoS ONE 10 (7):1-27. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133678.

Ciaian, Pavel, Miroslava Rajcaniova, and D'artis Kancs. 2016. "The digital agenda of virtual currencies:
Can BitCoin become a global currency?" Information Systems and eBusiness Management 14
(4):883-919. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10257-016-0304-0.

Page 44 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Cocco, Luisanna, and Michele Marchesi. 2016. "Modeling and Simulation of the Economics of Mining
in the Bitcoin Market." PLoS ONE 11 (10):1-31. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164603.

Cocco, Luisanna, Andrea Pinna, and Michele Marchesi. 2017. "Banking on Blockchain: Costs Savings
Thanks to the Blockchain Technology." Future Internet 9 (3):25. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/fi9030025.

Collomb, Alexis, and Klara Sok. 2016. "Blockchain / Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT): What
Impact on the Financial Sector?" Communications & Strategies (103):93-111,212,214.

Connell, John. 2014. "Alderney: gambling, Bitcoin and the art of unorthodoxy." Island Studies Journal
9 (1):69-78.

Crosby, Michael, Pradan Pattanayak, Sanjeev Verma, and Vignesh Kalyanaraman. 2016. "Blockchain
technology: Beyond bitcoin." Applied Innovation 2:6-10.

Cunliffe, Jack, James Martin, David Décary-Hétu, and Judith Aldridge. 2017. "An island apart? Risks
and prices in the Australian cryptomarket drug trade." International Journal of Drug Policy
50:64-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.09.005.

Davidson, Laura, and Walter E. Block. 2015. "Bitcoin, the regression theorem, and the emergence of a
new medium of exchange." Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 18 (3):311-338.

Davy, Preuveneers, Joosen Wouter, and Ilie-Zudor Elisabeth. 2017. "Trustworthy data-driven
networked production for customer-centric plants." Industrial Management & Data Systems
117 (10):2305-2324. doi: doi:10.1108/IMDS-10-2016-0419.

DeCovny, Sherree. 2015. "Chips Off the Old Blockchain." CFA Institute Magazine 26 (6):24-25.

Delgado-Segura, Sergi, Cristian Tanas, and Jordi Herrera-Joancomartí. 2016. "Reputation and Reward:
Two Sides of the Same Bitcoin." Sensors (14248220) 16 (6):1-23. doi: 10.3390/s16060776.

Donier, Jonathan, and Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. 2015. "Why Do Markets Crash? Bitcoin Data Offers
Unprecedented Insights." PLoS ONE 10 (10):1-11. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139356.

Dostov, Victor, and Pavel Shust. 2014a. "Cryptocurrencies: an unconventional challenge to the
AML/CFT regulators?" Journal of Financial Crime 21 (3):249-263.

Dostov, Victor, and Pavel Shust. 2014b. "Customer loyalty programs: money laundering and terrorism
financing risks." Journal of Money Laundering Control 17 (4):385-394.

Dotsika, Fefie, and Andrew Watkins. 2017. "Identifying potentially disruptive trends by means of
keyword network analysis." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 119:114-127. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.020.

Dowd, Kevin, and Martin Hutchinson. 2015. "Bitcoin will bite the dust." Cato Journal 35 (2):357-382.

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1989. "Building theories from case study research." Academy of
management review 14 (4):532-550.

Evans, Gary L. 2017. "Disruptive technology and the board: the tip of the iceberg 1." Economics and
Business Review 3 (1):205-223. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2017.1.11.

Page 45 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Extance, Andy. 2015. "The future of cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin and beyond." Nature 526 (7571):21-
23. doi: 10.1038/526021a.

Folkinshteyn, Daniel, and Mark Lennon. 2016. "Braving Bitcoin: A technology acceptance model
(TAM) analysis." Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research 18
(4):220-249. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2016.1275242.

Gad, Mahmoud. 2014. "Crimeware Marketplaces and Their Facilitating Technologies." Technology
Innovation Management Review 4 (11):28-33.

Gandal, Neil, and Hanna Halaburda. 2016. "Can We Predict the Winner in a Market with Network
Effects? Competition in Cryptocurrency Market." Games 7 (3):16. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/g7030016.

Grant, Philip Stanley, Beate Stiehler, and Edward Boon. 2013. "Through bubbles and crises: An
analysis of the Journal of Financial Services Marketing from 2000 to 2012." Journal of
Financial Services Marketing 18 (4):260-270. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/fsm.2013.21.

Gross, Andrew, Jamie Hoelscher, and Brad Reed. 2015. "Accounting issues related to accepting
bitcoins." Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies 21 (4):71-74.

Guo, Ye, and Chen Liang. 2016. "Blockchain application and outlook in the banking industry."
Financial Innovation 2 (1):24.

Halaburda, Hanna. 2016. "Digital Currencies: Beyond Bitcoin." Communications & Strategies
(103):77-92,213.

Harrison, Jennifer, and Ronald Mano. 2015. "Accounting for Virtual Currency Transactions." Journal
of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts & Letters 92:109-118.

Harwick, Cameron. 2016. "Cryptocurrency and the Problem of Intermediation." The Independent
Review 20 (4):569-588.

Hendrickson, Joshua R., Thomas L. Hogan, and William J. Luther. 2016. "The political economy of
bitcoin." Economic Inquiry 54 (2):925-939. doi: 10.1111/ecin.12291.

Huang, Alice. 2015. "Reaching within Silk Road: The need for a new supoena power that targets
illegal bitcoin transactions." Boston College Law Review 56 (5):2093-2125.

Huckle, Steve, and Martin White. 2016. "Socialism and the Blockchain." Future Internet 8 (4):49. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/fi8040049.

Irwin, Angela S. M., and George Milad. 2016. "The use of crypto-currencies in funding violent jihad."
Journal of Money Laundering Control 19 (4):407-425.

Isaacson, Scott. 2017. "The Bamboozling Bite of Bitcoin: Bitcoin Doesn't Make White Collar Crime
Possible, But It Does Make It Easier!" Utah Bar Journal 30 (4):32-36.

Jacobs, Edwin. 2011. "Bitcoin : A Bit Too Far ?" Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce 16 (2):1-4.

Jin Ho, Park, and Park Jong Hyuk. 2017. "Blockchain Security in Cloud Computing: Use Cases,
Challenges, and Solutions." Symmetry (20738994) 9 (8):1-13. doi: 10.3390/sym9080164.

Page 46 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Jordan, Jerry L. 2015. "The role of Gold in the market-based monetary system." Cato Journal 35
(2):233-250.

Kauffman, Robert J., Kwansoo Kim, Sang-Yong Tom Lee, Ai-Phuong Hoang, and Jing Ren. 2017.
"Combining machine-based and econometrics methods for policy analytics insights."
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 25:115-140. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2017.04.004.

Kauffman, Robert J., Jun Liu, and Dan Ma. 2015. "Innovations in financial IS and technology
ecosystems: High-frequency trading in the equity market." Technological Forecasting and
Social Change 99:339-354. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.12.001.

Khan, Minhaj Ahmad, and Khaled Salah. 2017. "IoT security: Review, blockchain solutions, and open
challenges." Future Generation Computer Systems. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.11.022.

Kim, Thomas. 2015. "The Predecessors of Bitcoin and Their Implications for the Prospect of Virtual
Currencies." PLoS ONE 10 (4):1-18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123071.

Kim, Young Bin, Jurim Lee, Nuri Park, Jaegul Choo, Jong-Hyun Kim, and Chang Hun Kim. 2017. "When
Bitcoin encounters information in an online forum: Using text mining to analyse user
opinions and predict value fluctuation." PLoS ONE 12 (5):1-14. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0177630.

Kiviat, Trevor I. 2015. "Beyond bitcoin: Issues in regulating blockchain transactions." Duke Law
Journal 65 (3):569-608.

Klaus, Ian. 2017. "Don Tapscott and Alex Tapscott: Blockchain Revolution." New Global Studies 11
(1):47-53. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ngs-2017-0002.

Kondor, Dániel, Márton Pósfai, István Csabai, and Gábor Vattay. 2014. "Do the Rich Get Richer? An
Empirical Analysis of the Bitcoin Transaction Network." PLoS ONE 9 (2):1-10. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0086197.

Kowalski, Patryk. 2015. "Taxing Bitcoin Transactions Under Polish Tax Law." Comparative Economic
Research 18 (3):139-152. doi: 10.1515/cer-2015-0025.

Krishnan, Dandapani. 2017. "Electronic finance – recent developments." Managerial Finance 43

(5):614-626. doi: doi:10.1108/MF-02-2017-0028.

Kristoufek, Ladislav. 2015. "What Are the Main Drivers of the Bitcoin Price? Evidence from Wavelet
Coherence Analysis." PLoS ONE 10 (4):1-15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123923.

Kshetri, Nir. 2017. "Blockchain's roles in strengthening cybersecurity and protecting privacy."
Telecommunications Policy. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2017.09.003.

Kurihara, Yutaka, and Akio Fukushima. 2017. "The Market Efficiency of Bitcoin: A Weekly Anomaly
Perspective." Journal of Applied Finance and Banking 7 (3):57-64.

Lambert, Elizabeth E. 2015. "The internal revenue service and bitcoin: A taxing relationship." Virginia
Tax Review 35 (1):88-115.

Page 47 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Lee, Judith, Arthur Long, Marcellus McRae, Jeff Steiner, and Stephanie Gosnell Handler. 2015.
"Bitcoin basics: A primer on virtual currencies." Business Law International 16:21.

Lemieux, Victoria Louise. 2016. "Trusting records: is Blockchain technology the answer?" Records
Management Journal 26 (2):110-139.

Letourneau, Keith B., and Stephen T. Whelan. 2017. "Blockchain: Staying Ahead of Tomorrow." The
Journal of Equipment Lease Financing (Online) 35 (2):1-6.

Lim, Ming K, Witold Bahr, and Stephen CH Leung. 2013. "RFID in the warehouse: A literature analysis
(1995–2010) of its applications, benefits, challenges and future trends." International
Journal of Production Economics 145 (1):409-430.

Linn, L, and M Koo. 2016. "Blockchain for health data and its potential use in health it and health care
related research." ONC/NIST Use of Blockchain for Healthcare and Research Workshop.
Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States: ONC/NIST.

Low, Kelvin F. K., and Ernie G. S. Teo. 2017. "Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies as property?" Law,
Innovation & Technology 9 (2):235-268. doi: 10.1080/17579961.2017.1377915.

Luther, William J. 2016a. "Bitcoin and the Future of Digital Payments." The Independent Review 20
(3):397-404.

Luther, William J. 2016b. "Mises and the moderns on the inessentiality of money in equilibrium."
Review of Austrian Economics 29 (1):1-13. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11138-015-0321-
0.

Ly, Matthew Kien-Meng. 2014. "Coining bitcoin's "legal-bits": Examining regulatory framework for
bitcoin and virtual currencies." Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 27 (2):587-608.

Mansfield-Devine, Steve. 2017. "Beyond Bitcoin: using blockchain technology to provide assurance in
the commercial world." Computer Fraud & Security 2017 (5):14-18. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-3723(17)30042-8.

Marshall, Mo. 2018. "IBM and shipping giant Maersk launch blockchain company for global logisics."
VentureBeat Accessed 20/01/2018. https://venturebeat-
com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/venturebeat.com/2018/01/16/ibm-and-shipping-giant-maersk-
launch-blockchain-company-for-global-logisics/amp/.

Masoni, Marco, Maria Renza Guelfi, and Gian Franco Gensini. 2016. "Darknet and bitcoin, the
obscure and anonymous side of the internet in healthcare." Technology & Health Care 24
(6):969-972. doi: 10.3233/THC-161244.

Maurer, Bill, Taylor C. Nelms, and Lana Swartz. 2013. "“When perhaps the real problem is money
itself!”: the practical materiality of Bitcoin." Social Semiotics 23 (2):261-277. doi:
10.1080/10350330.2013.777594.

McCallum, Bennett T. 2015. "The bitcoin revolution." Cato Journal 35 (2):347-356.

Medeiros, Maya, and Brian Chau. 2016. "Fintech - Stake a Patent Claim?" Intellectual Property
Journal 28 (3):303-314.

Page 48 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Meiklejohn, Sarah, Marjori Pomarole, Grant Jordan, Kirill Levchenko, Damon McCoy, Geoffrey M.
Voelker, and Stefan Savage. 2016. "A Fistful of Bitcoins: Characterizing Payments among Men
with No Names." Communications of the ACM 59 (4):86-93. doi: 10.1145/2896384.

Micheler, Eva. 2015. "Custody chains and asset values: Why crypto-securities are worth
contemplating." Cambridge Law Journal 74 (3):505-533. doi: 10.1017/S0008197315000598.

Mik, Eliza. 2017. "Smart contracts: terminology, technical limitations and real world complexity."
Law, Innovation & Technology 9 (2):269-300. doi: 10.1080/17579961.2017.1378468.

Mikolajewicz-Wozniak, Alicja, and Anna Scheibe. 2015. "Virtual currency schemes - the future of
financial services." Foresight : the Journal of Futures Studies, Strategic Thinking and Policy 17
(4):365-377.

Milne, Alistair. 2016. "Competition Policy and the Financial Technology Revolution in Banking."
Communications & Strategies (103):145-161,213.

Morisse, Marcel, and Claire Ingram. 2016. "A mixed blessing: Resilience in the entrepreneurial socio-
technical system of bitcoin." Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management :
JISTEM 13 (1):3-26. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4301/S1807-17752016000100001.

Nakamoto, Satoshi. 2008. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system.

NeguriĂA, Octav. 2014. "Bitcoin-between legal and financial performance." Contemporary Readings
in Law & Social Justice 6 (1):242-248.

Ngai, Eric WT, Li Xiu, and Dorothy CK Chau. 2009. "Application of data mining techniques in customer
relationship management: A literature review and classification." Expert systems with
applications 36 (2):2592-2602.

Ngai, EWT, Karen KL Moon, Frederick J Riggins, and Y Yi Candace. 2008. "RFID research: An academic
literature review (1995–2005) and future research directions." International Journal of
Production Economics 112 (2):510-520.

Nieman, A. 2015. "A few South African cents' worth on bitcoin." Potchefstroom Electronic Law
Journal 18 (5):1979-2010. doi: 10.4314/pelj.v18i5.25.

Nowiński, Witold, and Miklós Kozma. 2017. "How Can Blockchain Technology Disrupt the Existing
Business Models?" Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review 5 (3):173-188. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2017.050309.

Ober, Micha, Stefan Katzenbeisser, and Kay Hamacher. 2013. "Structure and Anonymity of the
Bitcoin Transaction Graph." Future Internet 5 (2):237-250. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/fi5020237.

Pakrou, Majid, and Khademalizadeh Amir. 2016. "The Relationship between Perceived Value and the
Intention of Using Bitcoin." Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce 21 (2):1-18.

Piazza, Fiammetta. 2017. "Bitcoin in the dark web: A shadow over banking secrecy and a call for
global respoonse." Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 26 (3):521-546.

Pilkington, Marc. 2016. "Blockchain technology: principles and applications." Research handbook on
digital transformations:225.
Page 49 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Piotrowska, Anna Iwona. 2016. "Fields of potential use of cryptocurrencies in the payment services
market in Poland-results of an empirical study." Copernican Journal of Finance and
Accounting 5 (2):201-217.

Pîrjan, Alexandru, Dana-Mihaela Petrosanu, Mihnea Huth, and Mihaela Negoita. 2015. "Research
issues regarding the bitcoin and alternative coins digital currencies." Journal of Information
Systems & Operations Management:1-14.

Pittman, Ashley. 2015. "The evolution of giving: Considerations for regulation of cryptocurrency
donation deductions." Duke Law & Technology Review 14 (1):48-68.

Plassaras, Nicholas A. 2013. "Regulating Digital Currencies: Bringing Bitcoin within the Reach of the
IMF." Chicago Journal of International Law 14 (1):377-407.

Pollari, Ian. 2016. "The rise of Fintech: Opportunities and challenges." JASSA (3):15-21.

Prentis, Mitchell. 2015. "Digital metal: Regulating bitcoin as a commodity." Case Western Reserve
Law Review 66 (2):609-638.

Prybila, Christoph, Stefan Schulte, Christoph Hochreiner, and Ingo Weber. 2017. "Runtime
verification for business processes utilizing the Bitcoin blockchain." Future Generation
Computer Systems. doi: 10.1016/j.future.2017.08.024.

Ram, Asheer, Warren Maroun, and Robert Garnett. 2016. "Accounting for the Bitcoin: accountability,
neoliberalism and a correspondence analysis." Meditari Accountancy Research 24 (1):2-35.

Raskin, Max I. 2015. "Realm of the bitcoin: Bitcoin and civil procedure." Fordham Journal of
Corporate & Financial Law 20 (4):969-1011.

Richter, Chris, Sascha Kraus, and Ricarda B. Bouncken. 2015. "Virtual Currencies Like Bitcoin As A
Paradigm Shift In The Field Of Transactions." The International Business & Economics
Research Journal (Online) 14 (4):575-n/a.

Rooney, Hugh, Brian Aiken, and Megan Rooney. 2017. "Q. Is Internal Audit Ready for Blockchain?"
Technology Innovation Management Review 7 (10):41-44.

Rose, Chris. 2015. "The Evolution Of Digital Currencies: Bitcoin, A Cryptocurrency Causing A
Monetary Revolution." The International Business & Economics Research Journal (Online) 14
(4):617-n/a.

Ryan, Philippa. 2017. "Smart Contract Relations in e-Commerce: Legal Implications of Exchanges
Conducted on the Blockchain." Technology Innovation Management Review 7 (10):14-21.

S., Boyce Wesley, and Mundy Ray A. 2017. "Practice or lip service: exploring collaboration
perspectives in purchasing." IMP Journal 11 (3):452-467. doi: doi:10.1108/IMP-05-2016-
0009.

Schueffel, Patrick. 2016. "Taming the Beast: A Scientific Definition of Fintech." Journal of Innovation
Management 4 (4):32-54.

Shang, Shari, and Peter B Seddon. 2000. "A comprehensive framework for classifying the benefits of
ERP systems." AMCIS 2000 proceedings:39.

Page 50 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Shiyong, Yin, Bao Jinsong, Zhang Yiming, and Huang Xiaodi. 2017. "M2M Security Technology of CPS
Based on Blockchains." Symmetry (20738994) 9 (9):1-16. doi: 10.3390/sym9090193.

Shrier, David, Weige Wu, and Alex Pentland. 2016. "Blockchain & infrastructure (identity, data
security)." MIT Connection Science:1-18.

Sikorski, Janusz J., Joy Haughton, and Markus Kraft. 2017. "Blockchain technology in the chemical
industry: Machine-to-machine electricity market." Applied Energy 195:234-246. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.039.

Simser, Jeffrey. 2015. "Bitcoin and modern alchemy: In code we trust." Journal of Financial Crime 22
(2):156-169.

Sinha, Abhishek. 2014. "Bitcoins: A Super Bubble Ready to Burst." FIIB Business Review 3 (3):3-6.

Sirer, Emin Gün. 2016. "The State (and Security) of the Bitcoin Economy." Communications of the
ACM 59 (4):85-85. doi: 10.1145/2896382.

Sklaroff, Jeremy M. 2017. "Smart contracts and the cost of inflexibility." University of Pennsylvania
Law Review 166 (1):263-303.

Small, Stephen. 2015. "Bitcoin: The Napster of currency." Houston Journal of International Law 37
(2):581-641.

Smit, J. P., Filip Buekens, and Stan Du Plessis. 2016. "Cigarettes, dollars and bitcoins - An essay on the
ontology of money." Journal of Institutional Economics 12 (2):327-347. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1744137415000405.

Stokes, Robert. 2012. "Virtual money laundering: the case of Bitcoin and the Linden dollar."
Information & Communications Technology Law 21 (3):221-236. doi:
10.1080/13600834.2012.744225.

Swan, Melanie. 2016. "The Future of Brain-Computer Interfaces: Blockchaining Your Way into a
Cloudmind." Journal of Evolution & Technology 26 (2):60-81.

Swan, Melanie. 2017. "Anticipating the Economic Benefits of Blockchain." Technology Innovation
Management Review 7 (10):6-13.

Swartz, Nicole D. 2014. "Bursting the Bitcoin Bubble: The Case To Regulate Digital Currency as a
Security or Commodity." Tulane Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property 17:319-335.

Tapscott, Don, and Alex Tapscott. 2017a. "The blockchain revloution & Higher Education." Education
Review 52 (2):10-24.

Tapscott, Don, and Alex Tapscott. 2017b. "How Blockchain Will Change Organizations." MIT Sloan
Management Review 58 (2):10-13.

Teja, Adrian. 2017. "Indonesian Fintech Business: New Innovations or Foster and Collaborate in
Business Ecosystems?" The Asian Journal of Technology Management 10 (1):10-18.

Trautman, Lawrence J. 2016. "Is disruptive blockchain technology the future of financial services?".

Page 51 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Trautman, Lawrence J., and Alvin C. Harrell. 2017. "Bitcoin versus regulated payment systems: What
gives? ." Cardozo Law Review 38 (3):1041-1097.

Tsukerman, Misha. 2015. "The block is hot: A survey of the state of bitcoin regulation and
suggestions for the future." Berkeley Technology Law Journal 30:1127-1169.

Tu, Kevin V., and Michael W. Meredith. 2015. "Rethinking virtual currency regulation in the bitcoin
age." Washington Law Review 90 (1):271-347.

Turpin, Jonathan B. 2013. "Bitcoin: The Economic Case for a Global, Virtual Currency Operating in an
Unexplored Legal Framework." Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 21 (1):335-368.

Underwood, Sarah. 2016. "Blockchain Beyond Bitcoin." Communications of the ACM 59 (11):15-17.
doi: 10.1145/2994581.

Vassiliadis, Savvas, Perikles Papadopoulos, Maria Rangoussi, Tomasz Konieczny, and Jacek Gralewski.
2017. "Bitcoin value analysis based on cross-correlations." Journal of Internet Banking and
Commerce 22 (S7):1-12.

Wagner, David. 2016. "Fairness and the Coin Flip." Communications of the ACM 59 (4):75-75. doi:
10.1145/2898429.

Wamba, Samuel Fosso, Shahriar Akter, Andrew Edwards, Geoffrey Chopin, and Denis Gnanzou. 2015.
"How ‘big data’can make big impact: Findings from a systematic review and a longitudinal
case study." International Journal of Production Economics 165:234-246.

Wamba, Samuel Fosso, Abhijith Anand, and Lemuria Carter. 2013. "A literature review of RFID-
enabled healthcare applications and issues." International Journal of Information
Management 33 (5):875-891.

Wang, Sha, and Jean-Philippe Vergne. 2017. "Buzz Factor or Innovation Potential: What Explains
Cryptocurrencies’ Returns?" PLOS ONE 12 (1):1-17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169556.

Wenker, Nicolas. 2014. "Online currencies, real-world chaos: The struggle to regulate the rise of
bitcoin." Texas Review of Law & Politics 19 (1):145-197.

White, Lawrence H. 2015. "The market for cryptocurrencies." Cato Journal 35 (2):383-402.

Wiseman, Scott A. 2016. "Property or currency? The tax dilemma behind bitcoin." Utah Law Review
2016 (2):417-440.

Wolfond, Greg. 2017. "A Blockchain Ecosystem for Digital Identity: Improving Service Delivery in
Canada's Public and Private Sectors." Technology Innovation Management Review 7 (10):35-
40.

Wolfson, Shael N. 2015. "Bitcoin: The Early Market." Journal of Business & Economics Research
(Online) 13 (4):201.

Wonglimpiyarat, Jarunee. 2016. "The new Darwinism of the payment system: Will Bitcoin Replace
our Cash-based Society?" Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce 21 (S2):1-15.

Wright, Aaron, and Primavera De Filippi. 2015. "Decentralized blockchain technology and the rise of
lex cryptographia."
Page 52 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148

Yin, R.K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Yli-Huumo, Jesse, Deokyoon Ko, Sujin Choi, Sooyong Park, and Kari Smolander. 2016. "Where Is
Current Research on Blockchain Technology?—A Systematic Review." PLoS ONE 11 (10):1-
27. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163477.

Zohar, Aviv. 2015. "Bitcoin: Under the Hood." Communications of the ACM 58 (9):104-113. doi:
10.1145/2701411.

Page 53 of 54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281148