mathematics

Article
Cryptocurrencies as a Financial Tool:
Acceptance Factors
Eloy Gil-Cordero 1, * , Juan Pedro Cabrera-Sánchez 1 and Manuel Jesús Arrás-Cortés 2
1 Departament of Business Administration and Marketing, University of Seville, 41018 Seville, Spain;
[email protected]
2 University of Seville, 41018 Seville, Spain; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 21 October 2020; Accepted: 2 November 2020; Published: 6 November 2020


Abstract: Cryptocurrencies are a new form of digital asset that operate through blockchain technology
and whose purpose is to be used as a means of exchange. Some, such as bitcoin, have become
globally recognized in recent years, but the uncertainty surrounding cryptocurrencies raises questions
about their intended use. This study has the task of investigating the different factors that affect the
intention behind the use of cryptocurrencies by developing a new research model and using Partial
Least Squares (PLS) to assess it. The results show that all the constructs proposed have significative
influence, either directly or indirectly, on the intention behind the use of cryptocurrencies. The findings
provide value and utility for companies’ and cryptocurrencies’ intermediaries to formulate their
business strategies.

Keywords: cryptocurrencies; intention to use; e-Wom; trust; web quality; perceived risk

1. Introduction
Virtual money has become popular at different times in the history of contemporary human
beings [1]. The number of people using cryptocurrencies today has experienced significant growth and
is comparable to the populations of some small countries [2]. In its simplest form, a cryptocurrency
can be considered as a digital asset built to function as a medium of exchange based on cryptographic
technology to ensure the transactional flow, as well as to control the creation of additional monetary
units [3].
This growth has translated into an aggregate daily trade volume of cryptocurrency exchanges of
more than USD 391 billion [4]. Within these exchanges, the most popular cryptocurrency is bitcoin.
However, the world of cryptocurrencies does not end here because there are almost 3750 alternative
cryptocurrencies [4]. If we proceed to a comparison, in May 2013 there were only 13 cryptocurrencies [5],
so this exponential growth shows the great interest in virtual currencies [6].
However, what are the main factors of intention to use cryptocurrencies? If we take into account
the main uses of cryptocurrencies: digital asset/investment for speculative purposes, online exchange
medium, payment line and non-monetary use cases on the net [2], we determine that most uses are
established in the online environment where trust is a key factor for the adoption and acceptance of
new technologies [7,8] included in cryptocurrencies [9–11].
In this online environment, electronic word of mouth or e-Wom refers to, “any positive or negative
statement made by potential, actual or former customers about a product or company, which is made
available to a multitude of people and institutions through the Internet” [12]. Furthermore, in this
sense, numerous articles establish that in these online environments, the e-Wom is a fundamental
piece as an antecedent to trust [13–16]. However, few researchers have given importance to the term
e-Wom as a background for trust in cryptocurrencies [17], and none have contributed to the mediating

Mathematics 2020, 8, 1974; doi:10.3390/math8111974 www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics

Mathematics 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 16
Mathematics 2020, 8, 1974 2 of 16

contributed to the mediating effects of it. Similarly, although e-Wom is positive, users should acquire
cryptocurrencies in different
effects of it. Similarly, websites.
although e-WomIt isissignificant in theshould
positive, users literature review
acquire the importanceinofdifferent
cryptocurrencies web
quality for It
websites. theis significant
blockchaininenvironment [18] but
the literature review thehas a total oflack
importance web of research
quality for theregarding
blockchain
cryptocurrencies.
environment [18] but has a total lack of research regarding cryptocurrencies.
Finally, most
Finally, mostresearchers
researchers agree thatthat
agree perceived
perceived riskrisk
plays a key
plays rolerole
a key in cryptocurrencies
in cryptocurrencies [19,20],
[19,20],
as well as performance
as well as performance expectancy
expectancy asas
a background
a backgroundfor forthe
theintention
intentionofofuse
use[19,21,22]
[19,21,22]being
beingessential
essential to
to take
take them
them into
into account
account for
for aa research
research model.
model.
Therefore,
Therefore, based
basedon theabove,
on the above,ourourmain main objective
objective is to determine
is to determine the main
the main factors factors of
of cryptocurrency
cryptocurrency use by providing a model where trust plays a fundamental
use by providing a model where trust plays a fundamental role. This work is very useful role. This work is because
very
useful because cryptocurrencies
cryptocurrencies can be either
can be successful, successful, either as a speculative
as a speculative good, as amethod
good, as a payment payment ormethod
giving it a
or giving it a more
more global use, global use, all depending
all depending on the of
on the knowledge knowledge
the populationof theinpopulation in these
these currencies andcurrencies
the support
andthey
the receive
supportfrom theygovernments
receive from and governments
people inand people
general [23].in For
general [23]. Foritthis
this reason, is ofreason, it is of to
great interest
great interest
know to know the
the intention intention
of use in orderof use in order
to know to know
if we will be if we
ablewill be able
to take to take advantage
advantage of all the of all
benefits
thethat
benefits that this of
this “currency “currency
the future”of offers
the future” offers us.itSpecifically,
us. Specifically, is very useful it for
is very
thoseuseful
companiesfor those
that are
companies
hesitant that are hesitant to implement/accept
to implement/accept payments with cryptocurrencies
payments with cryptocurrencies in their activity. in their activity.

2. Proposed
2. Proposed Model
Model andand Hypothesis
Hypothesis Development
Development
Different
Different factors
factors have
have been
been studied
studied ininthe
theuse
useofofcryptocurrencies
cryptocurrenciesand andtheir
their environment
environment [10,24–27],
[10,24–
27],trust
trustbeing
beingone
oneof of
thethe
mainmainones [24,28–31];
ones however,
[24,28–31]; it is necessary
however, to take
it is necessary tointo
takeaccount other variables
into account other
variables that affect trust as an antecedent and to have a record in the literature review such as e-and
that affect trust as an antecedent and to have a record in the literature review such as e-Wom
WomPerceived Risk [13,32].
and Perceived RiskIn this sense,
[13,32]. In thiswe sense,
will propose
we willtopropose
include these variables
to include in variables
these our research model
in our
with the
research webwith
model qualitytheas an quality
web antecedent
as anofantecedent
the Trust. of the Trust.
To To develop
develop thethe model,
model, we wehavehave
takentaken
as a as a reference
reference the Technology
the Technology Acceptance
Acceptance Model Model
[33], a[33],
a model
model veryvery contrasted
contrasted in the
in the adoption
adoption of new
of new technologies.
technologies. In In this
this model,the
model, theBehavioral
BehavioralIntention
Intention of
of use has as a precedent the Perceived Utility and the Perceived Ease
has as a precedent the Perceived Utility and the Perceived Ease of Use together with of Use together with the Attitude
the
towards
Attitude this new
towards this technology.
new technology. In this context,
In this context,Perceived
Perceived Utility and
Utility andPerformance
PerformanceExpectancy
Expectancyare
areequivalent
equivalentand anddetermine
determineconstructs
constructsasasprecedents
precedentsofofthe theBehavioral
BehavioralIntention
Intentionofofuse, and
use, and that is is
that why
we have also decided to include that variable in our
why we have also decided to include that variable in our research model. research model.

2.1.2.1. Proposed
Proposed Model
Model
TheThe model
model thatthat
wewe have
have proposed
proposed forfor
thethe realization
realization of this
of this research
research is represented
is represented in in Figure
Figure 1. 1.

Figure 1. Proposed model.

Figure 1. Proposed model.
Mathematics 2020, 8, 1974 3 of 16

2.2. e-Wom
As previously defined, electronic word of mouth or e-Wom refers to, “any positive or negative
statement made by potential, actual or former customers about a product or company, which is made
available to a multitude of people and institutions through the Internet” [12].
The Internet allows customers to share their opinions and experiences about goods and services
with other customers [12]. An example of a suitable platform for e-Wom is social networks [34–36].
Its users can share their impressions through comments, photos, videos or even applications and it is
because of these very visual contents that e-Wom is more enjoyable and attractive [37].
However, as we can deduct from the above, in e-Wom the recommendations are usually from
strangers with whom there is no connection or trust, so consumers have difficulty determining the
credibility of the information [38]. Studies by Mangold and Faulds [39] suggested that consumers
perceive social media as a more reliable source of brand information than the seller-generated content
itself, communicated through the traditional promotional mix comprising advertising, sales promotion
and public relations [39]. Therefore, the H1a hypothesis will be established to measure the relationship
between e-Wom and consumer trust.
On the other hand, online consumer reviews (e-Wom) include experiences, evaluations and
opinions on products of previous consumers, which all play a fundamental role in the behavioral
intention [40], in line with academic literature [41–45]. The e-Wom plays a fundamental role in all
emerging technologies [46] such as cryptocurrencies, so we will establish the H1b hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1a (H1a). e-Wom positively influences the trust in cryptocurrencies.

Hypothesis 1b (H1b). e-Wom positively influences the Behavioral Intention to use cryptocurrencies.

2.3. Quality of the Website

We define web quality as the users’ evaluation of the features of a website that meet their needs
and reflect the overall excellence of the website [47].
One of the most difficult assumptions for consumers to make in e-commerce is good salesmanship
and the assumption that it complies with commercial standards in order to have confidence in it
(Liao et al., 2006). Trust reduces the uncertainty associated with the seller, giving the consumer
the perception of some control over a transaction [48], which encourages future transactions [49,50],
and helps establish long-term relationships [49].
As we can deduct from the above, trust is becoming a key element of success in the online
environment [51]. McKnight [52] stated that in a website, the consumer goes through a previous
exploratory stage before being ready to carry out commercial transactions. As the consumer has
no experience with the website, trust is based on aspects such as reputation. Once this first phase
is overcome, the consumer will decide to carry out higher risk operations (for example, placing an
order) [52]. In this context, we can perceive a certain relationship between trust and the quality of the
website and this in turn will be decisive to increase the behavioral intention, since this will be one of
the main objectives of cryptocurrencies [20,24,53], so we consider the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2a (H2a). The quality of the website has a positive influence on trust in cryptocurrencies.

Hypothesis 2b (H2b). The quality of the website influences the Behavioral Intention to use cryptocurrencies.

2.4. Perceived Risk

Bauer was the first author to use the term perceived risk, indicating that consumer behavior
involves risks. In this sense, any action taken will produce consequences that cannot be anticipated
with certainty, some of which may be undesirable [54]. Thus, perceived risk refers to possible losses
resulting from the decisions that the consumer has to make in uncertain contexts [55].
Mathematics 2020, 8, 1974 4 of 16

From the perspective of cryptocurrencies, there are two points of view. The first is that most of
them are frauds and speculative bubbles [56]. This is due to the complexity of the way in which they
operate and the need to have a relatively advanced knowledge of cryptography and computer science
in order to understand their real behavior. Therefore, for these authors, the cryptomarket is the perfect
place for speculation and disinformation [57].
The second is that the blockchain technology will have relevance in the future and that perhaps
some coins do have real utility [56], but these new payment methods are still unknown to many people.
This leads to uncertainty.
Perceived risk can be a determining factor in the decision to trust each other [58], i.e., if a consumer
associates a high level of risk with an online transaction, then the level of trust in the seller decreases,
and the need to control the transaction increases [59].
In fact, several studies have empirically validated the negative effect of trust on perceived risk [60].
For example, Pavlou [50] and Jarvenpaa [61] reported that increased consumer trust in an online seller
can reduce risk perception [48,61]. Similarly, if we reduce the perceived risk, it is possible that the
behavioral intention of the users with the cryptocurrencies will improve [10,19]. This leads us to think
about a possible relationship and we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3a (H3a). Perceived risk adversely affects trust in cryptocurrencies.

Hypothesis 3b (H3b). Perceived risk adversely influences the Behavioral Intention to use cryptocurrencies.

2.5. Trust
Lewicki and Wiethoff [62] described trust as “the belief and willingness of an individual to act on
the words, actions and decisions of another” [62], i.e., that an individual is willing to rely, or intends
to rely, on another party with a sense of relative security, despite the lack of control over that party,
and although negative consequences are likely [52].
It is known that bitcoin offers opportunities for fraud and tax evasion [63] thus becoming
the preferred route for money laundering and for cybercriminals [64]. This means that the use of
cryptosystems in illegal activities [30] has become the main concern for cryptocurrencies users [65],
with the direct consequence that consumers are reluctant to buy them [48].
However, this confidence can be generated by the credulity in the technology behind
cryptocurrencies [30]. In this sense, cryptocurrencies are not easy to forge [66] as they use cryptographic
methods that guarantee confidentiality while providing a transparent method of verification without
intermediaries [67]. Based on the above, cryptocurrencies record the transactions made in the
blockchain, which is a public registry and therefore offers a level of transparency that avoids trusting a
central authority, as is the case with the multinational PayPal [68,69].
Therefore, in this system, in addition to reducing transactions and costs, it maintains credibility
and motivates its use [67], which leads us to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Trust positively influences the intention to use cryptocurrencies.

Moderating Effects of Trust

As we have seen previously, trust is a very important construct in behavioral intention [70],
with special influence in online environments [71–73], being in agreement with the literature in which
it is fulfilled in the same way in cryptocurrencies [10,53], but not being considered as a variable
that can have a moderating effect between e-Wom and behavioral intention, despite the fact that the
literature advises us to study the moderating effects that confidence may have on e-Wom [74]. Similarly,
confidence in its multiple variables has been studied as a moderating effect of perceived risk [75] both in
offline and online environments, being studied as a moderating effect in online environments between
Mathematics 2020, 8, 1974 5 of 16

perceived risk and behavioral intention [76], but not being analyzed within this online environment
for cryptocurrencies.
Finally, although web quality has been widely studied in the literature [47,77] and used in
conjunction with trust [78–82] we find a gap in the literature when used to see its direct effects on
cryptocurrencies, despite being bought and negotiated almost entirely by the web, to which we must
add the total absence of moderating effects of trust on web quality to increase behavioral intention.
For all the above reasons we formulate the following hypotheses as moderating effects.

Hypothesis 5 (H5). Trust will moderate the effects of e-Wom on use behavior in such a way that it will be
stronger with high Trust.

Hypothesis 6 (H6). Trust will moderate the effects of web quality on use behavior in such a way that it will be
stronger with high Trust.

Hypothesis 7 (H7). Trust will moderate the effects of perceived risk on use behavior in such a way that it will
be weaker with high Trust.

2.6. Performance Expectancy

Performance Expectancy is defined as the degree to which an individual believes that using a
specific technology would be useful in improving his or her performance in certain activities [83].
Firstly, due to the absence of intrinsic value, the value of cryptocurrency depends mainly on
the number of users, i.e., an increase in the number of bitcoin buyers. Therefore, and based on the
law of supply and demand [84], which indicates that supply is directly proportional, with positive
proportionality constant, to price [85], this will cause an increase in its overall value [84].
Its usefulness, however, does not go hand in hand with increased value [84]. Recent studies have
shown that, despite the growth in the number of shoppers, this growth is not balanced by the number
of establishments accepting payment with cryptocurrencies [2]. Nowadays, cryptocurrencies are used
for buying goods or services.
Based on the findings of Venkatesh [83], it is perceived that, in this research, people will adopt
the blockchain technology if they believe it will have positive results. Therefore, it is expected that
performance expectancy will have a positive influence on behavioral intention.
With all this information, we can highlight the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 8 (H8). Performance Expectancy positively influences the intention of use of cryptocurrencies.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sampling and Data Collection

In order to test the previously defined hypotheses, a form was developed. The questions included
in this questionnaire were validated by the opinion of different authors.
The population selected to carry out this research were individuals residing in Spain aged 18 or
older who had some previous notions about what cryptocurrencies were since our target population
consists only of potential early adopters [86].
Convenience sampling was used [87]. The form was completed between December 2019 and
March 2020 and was an anonymous online form. A total of 411 forms were obtained, 84 forms being
eliminated because they did not have a record of the previous cryptocurrencies’ experience.
Table 1 contains the demographic data of the sample used in this research:
Mathematics 2020, 8, 1974 6 of 16

Table 1. Sample features Men/Women/Other.

Feature Frequency %
Man 226 69%
Woman 97 30%
Gender
Other 4 1%
Total 327 100%
18−24 8 2%
25−34 177 54%
35−44 65 20%
Age
45−44 45 14%
≥55 32 10%
Total 327 100%

3.2. Measurement of Variables

Likert scales have been used to measure the items of each variable, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). The variables used in this research were adapted from previous studies to the context
of this research [88–92]. All scales are shown in Appendix A.

3.3. Data Analysis

For the validation of the model we used PLS in order to specify the reliability and validity of
the measurement scales and to evaluate the structural model [93,94]. Specifically, we have used the
software package Smart-PLS 3 [95] with a bootstrapping of 5000 samples to estimate the significance
of the parameters. PLS is appropriate when the objective of the analysis is to predict and identify
determinants of consumer behavior [94].

4. Results
Prior to the analysis of the model, we have carried out an analysis of the reliability of the
constructions and their measurement scales in order to evaluate the model itself a posteriori.
To analyze the reliability and validity of the measurement model, we have considered a minimum
factorial load of 0.7 on its own latent variables to be acceptable for constructs measured in mode B as
recommended in the literature [96,97]. We found that all indicators met this criterion except for the
CW3 variable. For this reason, we decided to eliminate this indicator from the analysis, keeping the
others constant. These results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Individual reliability of measurement scales (factorial loads).

Web Performance Behavioral Perceived

Trust e-Wom
Quality Expectancy Intention Risk
C1 0.911
C2 0.935
C3 0.880
C4 0.778
C5 0.880
C6 0.823
Mathematics 2020, 8, 1974 7 of 16

Table 2. Cont.

Web Performance Behavioral Perceived

Trust e-Wom
Quality Expectancy Intention Risk
CW1 0.979
CW2 0.979
ER1 0.893
ER2 0.939
ER3 0.893
ER4 0.915
EW1 0.922
EW2 0.874
EW3 0.907
EW4 0.936
EW5 0.886
IU1 0.901
IU2 0.868
IU3 0.907
IU4 0.727
PR1 0.834
PR2 0.915
PR3 0.797
PR4 0.833

Then, using Cronbach’s composite and alpha reliability indicators, we proceeded to analyze the
reliability of the constructions. In all the cases, our indicators were higher than the 0.7 suggested by
Nunnally [98]. Furthermore, by analyzing the average variance extracted (AVE), convergent validity
has been guaranteed.
In our case, all the indicators offered levels higher than the 0.5 proposed by Bagozzi and
Yi [99,100]. These indicators appear in Table 3, in which we can check that all the constructions meet
all the requirements.

Table 3. Composite reliability and convergent validity.

Cronbach’s Composite Average Extracted

Rho_A
Alpha Reliability Variance (AVE)
Web Quality 0.956 0.956 0.978 0.958
Trust 0.935 0.939 0.949 0.756
e-Wom 0.945 0.947 0.958 0.819
Performance Expectancy 0.931 0.933 0.951 0.828
Behavioral Intention 0.874 0.890 0.914 0.729
Perceived Risk 0.868 0.912 0.909 0.715

As a second step, we analyzed the discriminant validity. To do this, we used the Fornell and
Larcker test where the square root of the AVE of each latent variable is compared with the correlations
of this variable with the rest [101]. We can see the results of this test in Table 4 and with them we can
check that we ensure the discriminant validity of all the latent variables used in this analysis.
Mathematics 2020, 8, 1974 8 of 16

Table 4. Discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker Test).

Web Performance Behavioral Perceived

Trust E-Wom
Quality Expectancy Intention Risk
Web Quality 0.979
Trust 0.701 0.869
e-Wom 0.769 0.859 0.905
Performance Expectancy 0.591 0.639 0.713 0.910
Behavioral Intention 0.659 0.782 0.811 0.711 0.854
Perceived Risk −0.190 −0.289 −0.220 −0.131 −0.216 0.846

Besides, we checked the R-square of the second order constructs: Trust and Behavioral Intention
in Table 5. As we can observe, our model has an average explanatory power of 68.5%, well above the
minimum level of 10% recommended by Falk and Miller (1992).

Table 5. R-squared of the model.

R2 Adjusted R2
Trust 0.753 0.750
Behavioral Intention 0.687 0.685

Therefore, to evaluate the structural model, the values of the path coefficients and the explained
variance of the endogenous variables (R-squared) are analyzed. The path coefficients indicate the
intensity of the relationship between the dependent and independent variables. We have used the
sampling technique called bootstrapping with 5000 samples to calculate the reliability of the path
coefficients in the previously hypothesized relationships.
We detail it in Table 6.

Table 6. Contrast of the structural model (Path Coefficients).

Path p-Values
Web Quality → Trust 0.095 * 0.040
Trust → Behavioral Intention 0.555 *** 0.000
e-Wom → Trust 0.764 *** 0.000
Performance Expectancy → Behavioral Intention 0.356 *** 0.000
Perceived Risk → Trust –0.103 *** 0.000
*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05. (based on 1 tail and bootstrap test with 5000 samples).

Additionally, we have calculated the Standardized Root Mean-Square (SRMR) coefficient for the
entire sample. SRMR is a measure of the overall model fit that is especially suitable for PLS. In our
study the value of this coefficient is 0.053, thus ensuring the fit of the model according to the proposed
limitation of obtaining levels lower than 0.08 [96].
We have also found moderating effects as Trust moderates the relationships between Web Quality,
e-Wom and Perceived Risk with Behavioral Intention as shown in Table 7.
 Additionally, we have calculated the Standardized Root Mean-Square (SRMR) coefficient for the
entire sample. SRMR is a measure of the overall model fit that is especially suitable for PLS. In our
study the value of this coefficient is 0.053, thus ensuring the fit of the model according to the proposed
limitation of obtaining levels lower than 0.08 [96].
We have
Mathematics 2020, 8,also
1974 found moderating effects as Trust moderates the relationships between 9Web of 16
Quality, e-Wom and Perceived Risk with Behavioral Intention as shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Indirect effects of Web Quality, e-Wom and Perceived Risk in Behavioral Intention.
Table 7. Indirect effects of Web Quality, e-Wom and Perceived Risk in Behavioral Intention.
Path p-Values
Path p-Values
WebWeb
Quality →
Quality Trust->->Behavioral
Trust Behavioral Intention
Intention 0.052 * 0.052 0.043
* 0.043
e-Wom →
e-Wom Trust
Trust->->
Behavioral
Behavioral Intention
Intention 0.424 *** 0.424 ***
0.000 0.000
Perceived Risk
Perceived →
Risk Trust
Trust->->Behavioral
Behavioral Intention
Intention –0.057 *** –0.057 ***
0.000 0.000
*** p***
< 0.001, ** p**<p0.01,
p < 0.001, * p* p< <
< 0.01, 0.05.
0.05.(based
(based on
on 1 tailand
1 tail andbootstrap
bootstraptesttest with
with 50005000 samples).
samples).

The complete results

results of
of the
the model
model are
are shown
shown in
in Figure
Figure 2.
2.

2. Results of the Proposed

Figure 2. model. *** p <
Proposed model. < 0.001, ** p <
< 0.01, * pp << 0.05. (based
(based on 1 tail and
and
bootstrap test with 5000
5000 samples).
samples).

5. Discussion, Conclusions
5. Discussion, Conclusions and
and Future
Future Research
Research
5.1. Discussion
5.1. Discussion
When analyzing these results, we have to emphasize that all the variables are well measured and
have discriminating validity as well as that all the proposed hypotheses are fulfilled.
We must emphasize that both Trust and Performance Expectancy have a significant load on the
Behavioral Intention to use and are highly significant. Likewise, both the Web Quality, e-Wom and
Perceived Risk are significant antecedents of Trust, with e-Wom providing the greatest weight.
In analyzing these results, we note that we accept all the proposed hypotheses with a high level of
significance. Thus, in order of influence, the variable that contributes most to the Behavioral Intention
is Trust. As for the latter, the variable that contributes most is e-Wom.
What is also noteworthy is the high explanatory capacity of the model with an adjusted R squared
of 0.75 for Trust and 0.685 for Behavioral Intention.
On the other hand, although e-Wom, Web Quality and Perceived Risk are antecedents of Trust,
indirectly they also affected the Intention of Use, or what is the same, there was a mediating effect of
Trust in the relationships between e-Wom, Web Quality and Perceived Risk with Behavioral Intention.
In this sense, the more Trust the e-Wom will positively affect the intention of use, the Web Quality
will also positively affect the intention of use and the Perceived Risk will be lower in the Behavioral
Intention of use.
Mathematics 2020, 8, 1974 10 of 16

5.2. Conclusions
The main novelties of this research are both the model developed for cryptocurrencies and the
mediations between variables found. A new model has been developed and a very high explanatory
capacity has been accomplished as the major achievement.
In this research we have set as our main objective the empirical study of the Behavioral Intention
of crypto currencies. So once the study model has been established, and after the analysis of the results,
we observe that the variable that has the greatest influence on consumer Behavioral Intention is Trust,
above Performance Expectancy. We, therefore, recommend that companies and organizations that
issue and intermediate cryptocurrencies place special emphasis on generating Trust in the consumer.
Due to the above, in our study we have included a series of variables that, once our results are obtained,
effectively influence this trust. These variables are e-Wom, Perceived Risk and Web Quality, in this
sense, e-Wom is the construct that has more weight on trust. Taking into account the above and the
studies developed by Mangold and Faulds [39], we recommend that intermediaries and creators of
cryptocurrencies take into consideration the importance of consumer satisfaction to increase Trust.
Hence, it is necessary to know the criticisms in the online world and to pay attention to negative
comments, since these opinions of consumers are perceived as a more reliable source of information
about brands than the content generated by the seller [39].
On the other hand, Perceived Risk has a negative effect on Trust; that is, the more Perceived Risk,
the less Trust is generated in cryptocurrencies. Therefore, it is recommended that companies offer
users the possibility of having all their transactions under control, and that these are clear and secure,
even with perfect traceability: if customers do not trust that their personal data will be kept with the
maximum confidentiality and that the payment is secure, the purchase will not be carried out [102–104].
This series of measures will lead to a reduction in the consumer’s Perceived Risk and therefore an
increase in his/her Trust, according to the indirect relationship between these two variables that our
study has shown.
Although its influence is much less on Trust compared to the two previous constructs, it is
important that both companies and users take into account Web Quality, in this sense it is possible for
the low quality of the web to be due to the multitude of existing websites with little design and more
oriented to expert consumers in cryptocurrencies and which, therefore, do not take into account the
non-expert consumers that have proliferated as a result of the expansion of bitcoin. In this regard, based
on our results and the studies of Morgan and Hunt, we recommend that the creators and intermediaries
of cryptocurrencies try to increase the quality of the website as much as possible, since the generation
of a high degree of trust would lead to a high level of commitment [105] which would conduce clients
to carry out a repurchase behavior [106] on the same website. In addition to the above, it would be
advisable for users to make sure and inform themselves of the characteristics of the website from which
they are going to operate. We advise this in what McKnight [52] calls the exploratory phase, so that the
consumer of cryptocurrencies acquires trust with the website before making any purchase.
Finally, in our research, although to a lesser extent than Trust, Performance Expectancy and
Behavioral Intention also have an influence. In this sense, the recommendations we make are, on the
one hand, to organizations and/or companies that interact with cryptocurrencies, to encourage them to
increase their Performance Expectancy by taking cryptocurrencies into account for their commercial
transactions since these represent great cost savings, as the cost of a bitcoin (BTC) transaction [107]
is less than BTC 0.00077 [108] which is less than 1% of the transaction amount [109]. Furthermore,
on the other hand, they should consider consumers as such, being an alternative to traditional transfers
since the immediacy, transparency and globality of cryptocurrencies make them a better option
than standard transfers offered by banks or other financial services. To conclude, we would like
to make a final recommendation at a national level, so that the final users and intermediaries of
cryptocurrencies use our study to improve Behavioral Intention, since one of the possible future
scenarios for cryptocurrencies is that they may become national currencies, given that some authors
Mathematics 2020, 8, 1974 11 of 16

such as Lansky [110] advance this statement and show the benefits of adopting cryptocurrencies as
national currencies.

5.3. Future Research and Limitations

Despite the fact that in this study we have covered variables that, after analyzing the results,
do indeed influence cryptocurrencies, it would be interesting to check whether this same fact is true
of a sample at an international level, since the sample studied is at a national level and mostly of
people between the ages of 18 and 44. Likewise, it would be interesting to include other relevant
variables to study the way in which they affect cryptocurrencies, such as volatility, ease of use or
facilitating conditions.
Another interesting aspect to study is regularization. As we have previously commented, authors
such as Lansky [110] see the feasibility of states accepting cryptocurrencies as one more financial
instrument. Some others, such as Jacobs [23], go further and think that cryptocurrencies can become a
world currency, since factors such as their globality and immediacy favor them in this aspect.
Probably, the greatest limitation of this research has been to obtain a sociodemographically
unbalanced sample (although they are the users of cryptomoney in Spain), and it would be interesting
to obtain a larger sample that is as balanced as possible and carry out multi-group analyses to see if the
behavior is homogeneous or if, on the contrary, there are heterogeneities and different behaviors.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.G.-C., J.P.C.-S. and M.J.A.-C.; methodology, E.G.-C., J.P.C.-S.
and M.J.A.-C.; software, E.G.-C., J.P.C.-S. and M.J.A.-C.; validation, E.G.-C., J.P.C.-S. and M.J.A.-C.; formal
analysis, E.G.-C., J.P.C.-S. and M.J.A.-C.; investigation, E.G.-C., J.P.C.-S. and M.J.A.-C.; resources, E.G.-C., J.P.C.-S.
and M.J.A.-C.; data curation, E.G.-C., J.P.C.-S. and M.J.A.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, E.G.-C., J.P.C.-S.
and M.J.A.-C.; writing—review and editing, E.G.-C., J.P.C.-S. and M.J.A.-C.; visualization, E.G.-C., J.P.C.-S.
and M.J.A.-C.; supervision, E.G.-C., J.P.C.-S. and M.J.A.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Measurement Scales

Construct Items Reference
PE1. I find the use of cryptocurrencies useful in my daily life.
PE2. The use of cryptocurrencies increases my chances of achieving tasks that are important to me.
Performance Expectancy (PE) Mahomed, (2018)
PE3. The use of cryptocurrencies and related services (wallets, exchanges) helps me accomplish tasks more quickly.
PE4. The use of cryptocurrencies increases my productivity.
IU1. I intend to use cryptocurrencies instead of traditional money.
UI2. I plan to use cryptocurrencies in the next 6-12 months.
Behavioral Intention (BI) Ross (2016)
UI3. I prefer to use cryptocurrencies in payment.
IU4. If payment with cryptocurrencies is not available as a payment method in a purchase, I would request it.
C1. I believe that cryptocurrencies are trustworthy.
C2. I have confidence in cryptocurrencies.
C3. I do not doubt the veracity of cryptocurrencies, their systems, and related services.
Trust (T) Mahomed, (2018)
C4. I am confident that the legal and technological structures protect me from problems with cryptocurrencies.
C5. Even if they were not regulated, I would still trust cryptocurrencies.
C6. Cryptocurrencies are capable of doing their job.
EW1. I would recommend the use of cryptocurrencies to other potential consumers.
EW2. I will point out the positive aspects of cryptocurrencies if someone exposes them to criticism.
Shaikh and
e-Wom (EW) EW3. I share the positive aspects of cryptocurrencies.
Karjaluoto (2016)
EW4. I recommend the use of cryptocurrencies to people who ask my advice on such matters.
EW5. I encourage family and friends to use cryptocurrencies.
CW1.The Web of the cryptocurrencies is of high quality.
Everard and
Web Quality (WQ) CW2. The expected quality of the cryptocurrency’s website is extremely high.
Galletta (2006)
CW3. The Web of Cryptocurrencies seems to be of very poor quality.
RP1.I think that the use of cryptocurrencies puts my privacy at risk.
RP2.The mere use of cryptocurrencies exposes me to a general risk.
Featherman and
Perceived Risk (PR) RP3. Using cryptocurrencies puts my financial activities at risk.
Pavlou (2003)
RP4. I think hackers can control my transaction history if I use cryptocurrencies.
Although Perceived Risk is a multilevel construct, we have used the scale of Overall Risk that includes all Risks
Mathematics 2020, 8, 1974 12 of 16

References
1. Graeber, D. Debt: The First Five Thousand Years; Melville House: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
2. Hileman, G.; Rauchs, M. Global Cryptocurrency Benchmarking Study. Camb. Cent. Altern. Financ. 2017, 33,
33–113.
3. Chohan, U.W. Cryptocurrencies: A Brief Thematic Review. SSRN 3024330 2017. Available online: https:
//papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3024330 (accessed on 21 September 2020).
4. Coinmarketcap. Market Capitalization. Available online: www.coinmarketcap.com (accessed on
28 October 2020).
5. White, L.H. The Market for Cryptocurrencies. Cato J. 2015, 35, 383. [CrossRef]
6. Wisniewska, A. Altcoins; Institute of Economic Research Working Papers; Institute of Economic Research:
Great Barrington, MA, USA, 2016.
7. Patil, P.; Tamilmani, K.; Rana, N.P.; Raghavan, V. Understanding Consumer Adoption of Mobile Payment
in India: Extending Meta-UTAUT Model with Personal Innovativeness, Anxiety, Trust, and Grievance
Redressal. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 54, 102144. [CrossRef]
8. Slade, E.L.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Piercy, N.C.; Williams, M.D. Modeling Consumers’ Adoption Intentions of
Remote Mobile Payments in the United Kingdom: Extending UTAUT with Innovativeness, Risk, and Trust.
Psychol. Mark. 2015, 32, 860–873. [CrossRef]
9. Khatimah, H.; Halim, F. Consumers’ Intention to Use e-Money in Indonesia Based on Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Am. J. Sustain. Agric. 2014, 8, 34–40.
10. Mendoza-Tello, J.C.; Mora, H.; Pujol-López, F.A.; Lytras, M.D. Social Commerce as a Driver to Enhance Trust
and Intention to Use Cryptocurrencies for Electronic Payments. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 50737–50751. [CrossRef]
11. Novendra, R.; Gunawan, F.E. An Analysis of Bitcoin Acceptance in Indonesia. ComTech Comput. Math. Eng.
Appl. 2017, 8, 241–247.
12. Hennig-Thurau, T.; Gwinner, K.P.; Walsh, G.; Gremler, D.D. Electronic Word-of-Mouth via Consumer-Opinion
Platforms: What Motivates Consumers to Articulate Themselves on the Internet? J. Interact. Mark. 2004, 18,
38–52. [CrossRef]
13. Bulut, Z.A.; Karabulut, A.N. Examining the Role of Two Aspects of EWOM in Online Repurchase Intention:
An Integrated Trust–Loyalty Perspective. J. Consum. Behav. 2018, 17, 407–417. [CrossRef]
14. Cheng, X.; Zhou, M. Study on Effect of EWOM: A Literature Review and Suggestions for Future Research.
In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Management and Service Science, Wuhan, China,
24–26 August 2010; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 1–4.
15. Pyle, M.A.; Smith, A.N.; Chevtchouk, Y. In EWOM We Trust: Using Naïve Theories to Understand Consumer
Trust in a Complex EWOM Marketspace. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 122, 145–158. [CrossRef]
16. Rahman, M.A.; Abir, T.; Yazdani, D.M.N.; Hamid, A.B.A.; Al Mamun, A. Brand Image, EWOM, Trust
and Online Purchase Intention of Digital Products among Malaysian Consumers. Xi’an Jianzhu Keji Daxue
Xuebao/J. Xi’an Univ. Archit. Technol. 2020, 12, 4935–4946.
17. Perez, C.; Sokolova, K.; Konate, M. Digital Social Capital and Performance of Initial Coin Offerings. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 152, 119888. [CrossRef]
18. Chen, H.-C.; Damarjati, C.; Prasetyo, E.; Arofiati, F.; Sugiyo, D. Blockchain Technology Benefit in Tackling
Online Shopping Transaction Revocation Issue. In Proceedings of the 2020 The 6th International Conference
on Frontiers of Educational Technologies, Tokyo, Japan, 5–8 June 2020; pp. 191–195.
19. Arias-Oliva, M.; Pelegrín-Borondo, J.; Matías-Clavero, G. Variables Influencing Cryptocurrency Use:
A Technology Acceptance Model in Spain. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 475. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Mendoza-Tello, J.C.; Mora, H.; Pujol-López, F.A.; Lytras, M.D. Disruptive Innovation of Cryptocurrencies in
Consumer Acceptance and Trust. Inf. Syst. E-Bus. Manag. 2019, 17, 195–222. [CrossRef]
21. Al-Amri, R.; Zakaria, N.H.; Habbal, A.; Hassan, S. Cryptocurrency Adoption: Current Stage, Opportunities,
and Open Challenges. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Res. 2019, 9, 293–307. [CrossRef]
22. Alzahrani, S.; Daim, T.U. Evaluation of the Cryptocurrency Adoption Decision Using Hierarchical Decision
Modeling (HDM). In Proceedings of the 2019 Portland International Conference on Management of
Engineering and Technology (PICMET), Portland, OR, USA, 25–29 August 2019; IEEE: New York, NY, USA,
2019; pp. 1–7.
23. Jacobs, G. Cryptocurrencies and the Challenge of Global Governance. Cadmus 2018, 3, 109–123.
Mathematics 2020, 8, 1974 13 of 16

24. Alaeddin, O.; Altounjy, R. Trust, Technology Awareness and Satisfaction Effect into the Intention to Use
Cryptocurrency among Generation Z in Malaysia. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2018, 7, 8–10.
25. Saleh, A.-H.A.I.; Ibrahim, A.A.; Noordin, M.F.; Mohadis, H.M. Factors Influencing Adoption of
Cryptocurrency-Based Transaction from an Islamic Perspective. Glob. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 2020,
20, 20–32.
26. Schaupp, L.C.; Festa, M. Cryptocurrency Adoption and the Road to Regulation. In Proceedings of the 19th
Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age, Delft,
The Netherlands, 30 May–1 June 2018; pp. 1–9.
27. Shahzad, F.; Xiu, G.; Wang, J.; Shahbaz, M. An Empirical Investigation on the Adoption of Cryptocurrencies
among the People of Mainland China. Technol. Soc. 2018, 55, 33–40. [CrossRef]
28. Aggarwal, G.; Patel, V.; Varshney, G.; Oostman, K. Understanding the Social Factors Affecting the
Cryptocurrency Market. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1901.06245.
29. Arli, D.; van Esch, P.; Bakpayev, M.; Laurence, A. Do Consumers Really Trust Cryptocurrencies?
Mark. Intell. Plan. 2020. [CrossRef]
30. Bucko, J.; Pal’ová, D.; Vejacka, M. Security and Trust in Cryptocurrencies. In Proceedings of the Central
European Conference in Finance and Economics, Herl’any, Slovakia, 30 September–1 October 2015; pp. 14–24.
31. Dingle, S. In Math We Trust: Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency and the Journey to Being Your Own Bank; Jonathan Ball
Publishers: Cape Town, South Africa, 2018.
32. Serra-Cantallops, A.; Cardona, J.R.; Salvi, F. Antecedents of Positive EWOM in Hotels. Exploring the Relative
Role of Satisfaction, Quality and Positive Emotional Experiences. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020.
[CrossRef]
33. Davis, F.A. Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems. Ph.D.
Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, December 1985; p. 291.
34. Yoon, S.-J. A Social Network Approach to the Influences of Shopping Experiences on E-Wom. J. Electron.
Commer. Res. 2012, 13, 213.
35. Choi, Y.K.; Seo, Y.; Yoon, S. E-WOM Messaging on Social Media. Internet Res. 2017, 27, 495–505. [CrossRef]
36. Chen, H.; Papazafeiropoulou, A.; Chen, T.-K.; Duan, Y.; Liu, H.-W. Exploring the Commercial Value of Social
Networks. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2014, 27. [CrossRef]
37. Erkan, I.; Evans, C. The Influence of EWOM in Social Media on Consumers’ Purchase Intentions: An Extended
Approach to Information Adoption. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 61, 47–55. [CrossRef]
38. Park, C.; Lee, T.M. Information Direction, Website Reputation and EWOM Effect: A Moderating Role of
Product Type. J. Bus. Res. 2009, 62, 61–67. [CrossRef]
39. Mangold, W.G.; Faulds, D.J. Social Media: The New Hybrid Element of the Promotion Mix. Bus. Horiz. 2009,
52, 357–365. [CrossRef]
40. Park, D.-H.; Lee, J. EWOM Overload and Its Effect on Consumer Behavioral Intention Depending on
Consumer Involvement. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2008, 7, 386–398. [CrossRef]
41. Jalilvand, M.R.; Samiei, N. The Impact of Electronic Word of Mouth on a Tourism Destination Choice.
Internet Res. 2012. [CrossRef]
42. Kamtarin, M. The Effect of Electronic Word of Mouth, Trust and Perceived Value on Behavioral Intention
from the Perspective of Consumers. Int. J. Acad. Res. Econ. Manag. Sci. 2012, 1, 56.
43. Kwok, L.; Mao, Z.; Huang, Y.-K. Consumers’ Electronic Word-of-Mouth Behavioral Intentions on Facebook:
Does Message Type Have an Effect? Tour. Hosp. Res. 2019, 19, 296–307. [CrossRef]
44. Lee, D.; Kim, H.S.; Kim, J.K. The Role of Self-Construal in Consumers’ Electronic Word of Mouth (EWOM) in
Social Networking Sites: A Social Cognitive Approach. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 1054–1062. [CrossRef]
45. Uslu, A. The Relationship of Service Quality Dimensions of Restaurant Enterprises with Satisfaction,
Behavioral Intention, EWOM and the Moderator Effect of Atmosphere. Tour. Manag. Stud. 2020, 16, 23–35.
46. Chen, S.-C. Understanding the Effects of Technology Readiness, Satisfaction and Electronic Word-of-Mouth
on Loyalty in 3C Products. Aust. J. Bus. Manag. Res. 2011, 1.
47. Aladwani, A.M.; Palvia, P.C. Developing and Validating an Instrument for Measuring User-Perceived Web
Quality. Inf. Manag. 2002, 39, 467–476. [CrossRef]
48. Pavlou, P.A. Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology
Acceptance Model. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2003, 7, 101–134.
Mathematics 2020, 8, 1974 14 of 16

49. Bhattacherjee, A. Individual Trust in Online Firms: Scale Development and Initial Test. J. Manag. Inf. Syst.
2002, 19, 211–241.
50. Pavlou, P.A.; Gefen, D. Building Effective Online Marketplaces with Institution-Based Trust. Inf. Syst. Res.
2004, 15, 37–59. [CrossRef]
51. Corritore, C.L.; Kracher, B.; Wiedenbeck, S. On-Line Trust: Concepts, Evolving Themes, a Model. Int. J. Hum.
Comput. Stud. 2003, 58, 737–758. [CrossRef]
52. McKnight, D.H.; Chervany, N.L. Trust and Distrust Definitions: One Bite at a Time. In Trust in Cyber-Societies;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2001; pp. 27–54.
53. Albayati, H.; Kim, S.K.; Rho, J.J. Accepting Financial Transactions Using Blockchain Technology and
Cryptocurrency: A Customer Perspective Approach. Technol. Soc. 2020, 62, 101320. [CrossRef]
54. Bauer, R.A. Conceptualization and Measurement of Perceived Risk in Online Shopping. Mark. Manag. J.
1967, 16, 138–147.
55. Murray, K.B.; Schlacter, J.L. The Impact of Services versus Goods on Consumers’ Assessment of Perceived
Risk and Variability. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1990, 18, 51–65. [CrossRef]
56. Liu, Y.; Tsyvinski, A.; Wu, X. Common Risk Factors in Cryptocurrency; National Bureau of Economic Research:
New York, NY, USA, 2019.
57. Solimano, A. Crypto-Currencies, Speculation and the Evolution of Monetary Systems. Rev. Perf. Económicos
2018. [CrossRef]
58. Hong, I.B.; Cha, H.S. The Mediating Role of Consumer Trust in an Online Merchant in Predicting Purchase
Intention. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 927–939. [CrossRef]
59. Olivero, N.; Lunt, P. Privacy versus Willingness to Disclose in E-Commerce Exchanges: The Effect of Risk
Awareness on the Relative Role of Trust and Control. J. Econ. Psychol. 2004, 25, 243–262. [CrossRef]
60. Hong, I.B. Understanding the Consumer’s Online Merchant Selection Process: The Roles of Product
Involvement, Perceived Risk, and Trust Expectation. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2015, 35, 322–336. [CrossRef]
61. Jarvenpaa, S.L.; Tractinsky, N.; Vitale, M. Consumer Trust in an Internet Store. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2000, 1,
45–71. [CrossRef]
62. Lewicki, R.J.; Wiethoff, C. Trust, Trust Development, and Trust Repair. In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution:
Theory and Practice; Deutsch, M., Coleman, P.T., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2006; pp. 92–119.
63. Smith, A.; Weismann, M.F. Are You Ready for Digital Currency? J. Corp. Account. Financ. 2014, 26, 17–21.
[CrossRef]
64. Yin, H.S.; Vatrapu, R. A First Estimation of the Proportion of Cybercriminal Entities in the Bitcoin Ecosystem
Using Supervised Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data
(Big Data), Boston, MA, USA, 11–14 December 2017; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 3690–3699.
65. Chiu, J.; Koeppl, T.V. The Economics of Cryptocurrencies–Bitcoin and Beyond. SSRN 3048124. 2017. Available
online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3048124 (accessed on 20 September 2020).
66. Vandervort, D.; Gaucas, D.; St Jacques, R. Issues in Designing a Bitcoin-like Community Currency.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, San Juan,
Puerto Rico, 26–30 January 2015; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 78–91.
67. Dierksmeier, C.; Seele, P. Cryptocurrencies and Business Ethics. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 152, 1–14. [CrossRef]
68. DeMartino, I. The Bitcoin Guidebook: How to Obtain, Invest, and Spend the World’s First Decentralized
Cryptocurrency; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
69. Chauhan, A.; Malviya, O.P.; Verma, M.; Mor, T.S. Blockchain and Scalability. In Proceedings of the 2018
IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion (QRS-C), Lisbon,
Portugal, 16–20 July 2018; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 122–128.
70. Wang, S.W.; Ngamsiriudom, W.; Hsieh, C.-H. Trust Disposition, Trust Antecedents, Trust, and Behavioral
Intention. Serv. Ind. J. 2015, 35, 555–572. [CrossRef]
71. Gu, J.-C.; Lee, S.-C.; Suh, Y.-H. Determinants of Behavioral Intention to Mobile Banking. Expert Syst. Appl.
2009, 36, 11605–11616. [CrossRef]
72. Lin, H.-F. Understanding Behavioral Intention to Participate in Virtual Communities. CyberPsychol. Behav.
2006, 9, 540–547. [CrossRef]
73. Liu, C.; Marchewka, J.T.; Lu, J.; Yu, C.-S. Beyond Concern—A Privacy-Trust-Behavioral Intention Model of
Electronic Commerce. Inf. Manag. 2005, 42, 289–304. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2020, 8, 1974 15 of 16

74. Ladhari, R.; Michaud, M. EWOM Effects on Hotel Booking Intentions, Attitudes, Trust, and Website
Perceptions. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 46, 36–45. [CrossRef]
75. Chen, Y.; Yan, X.; Fan, W.; Gordon, M. The Joint Moderating Role of Trust Propensity and Gender on
Consumers’ Online Shopping Behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 43, 272–283. [CrossRef]
76. Kaur, S.; Arora, S. Role of Perceived Risk in Online Banking and Its Impact on Behavioral Intention: Trust as
a Moderator. J. Asia Bus. Stud. 2020. [CrossRef]
77. Ahn, T.; Ryu, S.; Han, I. The Impact of Web Quality and Playfulness on User Acceptance of Online Retailing.
Inf. Manag. 2007, 44, 263–275. [CrossRef]
78. Hsiao, K.; Lin, J.C.; Wang, X.; Lu, H.; Yu, H. Antecedents and Consequences of Trust in Online Product
Recommendations. Online Inf. Rev. 2010. [CrossRef]
79. Hwang, Y. Investigating the Effects of Percieved Web Quality on Etrust, Mediated by Hedonic Needs and
Anxiety. In Proceedings of the 11th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2005, Omaha, NE,
USA, 11–14 August 2005; p. 34.
80. Hwang, Y.; Kim, D.J. Customer Self-Service Systems: The Effects of Perceived Web Quality with Service
Contents on Enjoyment, Anxiety, and e-Trust. Decis. Support Syst. 2007, 43, 746–760. [CrossRef]
81. Liao, C.; Palvia, P.; Lin, H.-N. The Roles of Habit and Web Site Quality in E-Commerce. Int. J. Inf. Manag.
2006, 26, 469–483. [CrossRef]
82. Prakoso, M.T.R.; Farida, N. Pengaruh Shared Value Dan Web Quality Terhadap Online Repurchase Intention
Melalui Trust Sebagai Variabel Intervening (Studi Kasus Pada Mahasiswa Universitas Diponegoro Konsumen
Lazada. Co. Id). J. Ilmu Adm. Bisnis 2018, 7, 449–455.
83. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a
Unified View. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [CrossRef]
84. Lubyanskiy, A.M. Dynamics and Prospects of the Cryptocurrency Development in the Modern Global
Financial System. Mod. Sci. 2017, 6-1, 67–70.
85. Simón, C.B.; López, J.C.C.; Rodríguez, D.M.; Quiles, A.N.; Micó, R.J.V. Un Modelo de Oferta y Demanda Con
Incertidumbre. Model. Sci. Educ. Learn. 2019, 12, 111–122. [CrossRef]
86. Eikmanns, B.; Sandner, P.G. Bitcoin: The Next Revolution in International Payment Processing? An Empirical
Analysis of Potential Use Cases. 2015. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
id=2619759 (accessed on 20 September 2020).
87. San Martín, H.; Herrero, Á. Influence of the User’s Psychological Factors on the Online Purchase Intention
in Rural Tourism: Integrating Innovativeness to the UTAUT Framework. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 341–350.
[CrossRef]
88. Mahomed, N. Understanding Consumer Adoption of Cryptocurrencies. Master’s Thesis, University of
Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, 2018.
89. Shaikh, A.A.; Karjaluoto, H. Mobile Banking Services Continuous Usage–Case Study of Finland.
In Proceedings of the 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Koloa,
HI, USA, 5–8 January 2016; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 1497–1506.
90. Everard, A.; Galletta, D.F. How Presentation Flaws Affect Perceived Site Quality, Trust, and Intention to
Purchase from an Online Store. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2005, 22, 56–95. [CrossRef]
91. Featherman, M.S.; Pavlou, P.A. Predicting E-Services Adoption: A Perceived Risk Facets Perspective. Int. J.
Hum. Comput. Stud. 2003, 59, 451–474. [CrossRef]
92. Roos, C. The Motivation and Factors Driving Crypto-Currency Adoption in SMEs. Master’s Thesis,
University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, 2016.
93. Chin, W.W.; Dibbern, J. An Introduction to a Permutation Based Procedure for Multi-Group PLS Analysis:
Results of Tests of Differences on Simulated Data and a Cross Cultural Analysis of the Sourcing of
Information System Services between Germany and the USA. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 171–193.
94. Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Mena, J.A. An Assessment of the Use of Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling in Marketing Research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 414–433. [CrossRef]
95. Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.M. SmartPLS. “SmartPLS 3.” SmartPLS GmbH: Boenningstedt,
Germany, 2015.
Mathematics 2020, 8, 1974 16 of 16

96. Henseler, J.; Dijkstra, T.K.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Diamantopoulos, A.; Straub, D.W.; Ketchen, D.J.;
Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Calantone, R.J. Common Beliefs and Reality About PLS. Organ. Res. Methods 2014, 17,
182–209. [CrossRef]
97. Roldán, J.L.; Sánchez-Franco, M.J. Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling: Guidelines for Using Partial
Least Squares in Information Systems Research; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2012. [CrossRef]
98. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; MCGraw- Hill College: New York, NY, USA, 1978.
99. Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th ed.;
Pearson Education Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010.
100. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94.
[CrossRef]
101. Barclay, D.; Higgins, C.; Thompson, R. The Partial Least Squares (PLS) Approach to Causal Modelling:
Personal Computer Adoption and Use as an Illustration. Technol. Stud. 1995, 2, 285–309.
102. Belanger, F.; Hiller, J.S.; Smith, W.J. Trustworthiness in Electronic Commerce: The Role of Privacy, Security,
and Site Attributes. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2002, 11, 245–270. [CrossRef]
103. Yusta, A.I.; Ruiz, M.P.M. Análisis de Los Factores Que Condicionan La Elección Del Canal de Compra Por
Parte Del Consumidor: Evidencias Empíricas En La Industria Hotelera. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de
la Empresa 2009, 12, 93–122. [CrossRef]
104. McCole, P.; Ramsey, E.; Williams, J. Trust Considerations on Attitudes towards Online Purchasing:
The Moderating Effect of Privacy and Security Concerns. J. Bus. Res. 2010, 63, 1018–1024. [CrossRef]
105. Morgan, R.M.; Hunt, S.D. The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. J. Mark. 1994, 58, 20–38.
[CrossRef]
106. Chiu, C.-M.; Hsu, M.H.; Lai, H.; Chang, C.-M. Exploring Online Repeat Purchase Intentions: The Role of
Habit. In Proceedings of the PACIS, Taipei, Taiwan, 9–12 July 2010; p. 63.
107. Ban, Z.; Lánsky, J.; Mildeova, S.; Tesar, P. A Probe Survey of Bitcoin Transactions Through Analysis of
Advertising in an On-Line Discussion Forum. Acta Inform. Pragensia 2019, 8, 112–138. [CrossRef]
108. BitInfo. Bit Info. Available online: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html
(accessed on 28 October 2020).
109. Brito, J.; Castillo, A. Bitcoin: A Primer for Policymakers; Mercatus Center at George Mason University:
Arlington, VA, USA, 2013.
110. Lansky, J. Possible State Approaches to Cryptocurrencies. J. Syst. Integr. 2018, 9, 19–31. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).