Article

Intention to Use Cryptocurrencies for Business Transactions:

The Case of North Carolina
Shakir Ullah

Department of Accounting, Finance, Healthcare and Information Systems, Broadwell College of Business &
Economics, Fayetteville State University, 1200 Murchison Rd., Fayetteville, NC 28301, USA; [email protected]

Abstract: Financial technologies and payment applications have revolutionized money

flow recently, with cryptocurrencies offering decentralization, though still limited in trans-
actional use. This study investigates the factors influencing the use of cryptocurrencies
for business transactions in North Carolina (NC). This exploratory research utilizes an
extended technology acceptance model (TAM) using survey data collected from 228 North
Carolina residents and applying Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-
SEM) to find the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Our
results indicate that perceived usefulness, social influence, and personal innovativeness
significantly impact users’ intentions to adopt cryptocurrencies as a medium of exchange.
A surprising finding is that ownership has a negative effect on the intention to use cryptos
for business transactions. The findings imply that regulators and cryptocurrency issuers
should make the system more useful, take full advantage of social media to promote cryp-
tos, and encourage crypto holders to use cryptos for their intended utility rather than just
as speculative instruments.

Keywords: cryptocurrencies; medium of exchange; intention to use; perceived usefulness;

social influence; FinTech; blockchain

1. Introduction
The world has advanced in financial technology, digital payments, and the Internet
Academic Editor: Thanasis Stengos of Things (IoT) (Allioui & Mourdi, 2023). One such innovation is using cryptocurrencies
Received: 9 December 2024 (Chohan, 2023) that seek to offer security, transparency, and anonymity (Alzoubi, 2024).
Revised: 18 January 2025 Cryptocurrencies are especially useful in the remittance sector of emerging economies,
Accepted: 21 January 2025 where a significant portion of the population is employed in other countries and sends
Published: 27 January 2025
money home through cryptos because it is fast and cheap (El Hajj & Farran, 2024; Vincent
Citation: Ullah, S. (2025). Intention to & Evans, 2019).
Use Cryptocurrencies for Business
Cryptocurrencies were initially created as a mechanism enabling people to pay for
Transactions: The Case of North
Carolina. Journal of Risk and Financial
goods and services with the help of digital currencies (Panda et al., 2023). However, in
Management, 18(2), 58. https:// the real world, the primary application of cryptocurrencies is in trading and investment,
doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18020058 with minimal application in acquiring goods and services (Luo & Yu, 2024). This slow
Copyright: © 2025 by the author.
adoption of cryptocurrencies as a payment method may be attributed to fluctuating prices,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. risk propensity, lack of information, and regulatory uncertainty (Sridharan et al., 2023).
This article is an open access article Assessing the future use of cryptocurrencies as an instrument in the world economy is
distributed under the terms and crucial for businesses, investors, and governments (Sandua, 2023; Sestino et al., 2024). Thus,
conditions of the Creative Commons
it is relevant to ask whether cryptocurrencies will become the means of regular business
Attribution (CC BY) license
transactions or remain an exclusively speculative instrument (Molina, 2023), and this is the
(https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).
question we try to answer, especially in the context of North Carolina, which is midway

J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18020058

J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 2 of 21

along the East Coast of the United States and away from the financial and business hubs of
the country.
Previous research has identified factors affecting the intention to use cryptocurrencies,
including perceived usefulness, Perceived Ease-of-Use, and perceived risk (Ecer et al.,
2024; Hayashi & Routh, 2024; Kim, 2021). As defined by Nadeem et al. (2021), cryp-
tocurrencies’ adoption is relatively low, and consumers need to learn more about trust,
security, and perceived value as the primary influencers in adopting cryptocurrencies for
business transactions (El Hajj & Farran, 2024). Most of the prior research on the adoption
of cryptocurrencies is at the global or national level, and little is known about regional-
or local-level adoption (Jegerson et al., 2024). This research is relevant to the existing
literature in that it investigates the adoption and usage of cryptocurrencies in the United
States, focusing on North Carolina. This study aims to establish the factors that affect the
uptake of cryptocurrencies for daily and business transactions on a regional basis in the
United States. Further, although prior research has examined the different factors that
influence consumers’ intention to use cryptocurrencies, the literature still needs to be more
conclusive. This research, therefore, seeks to fill this gap by establishing the key factors
affecting consumers’ intention to use cryptocurrencies in North Carolina. Some researchers
have investigated the antecedents of consumers’ cryptocurrency usage intention (Kim, 2021;
Pillai et al., 2024), identifying certain behavioral factors, such as perceived usefulness and
ease-of-use, for customers’ intention to use (Ecer et al., 2024; Namahoot & Rattanawiboon-
som, 2022). However, these studies have been conducted in different geographical regions,
and there needs to be more research on this in the United States. Even different states
in the US have their unique demographic dynamics, and we argue that these behavioral
aspects need to be investigated at the state level. Thus, this study identifies the factors that
may be significant to North Carolinians regarding accepting cryptocurrencies for business
transactions (Hayashi & Routh, 2024).
Survey data were collected from 228 respondents in North Carolina, and Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was applied to analyze relationships
among the constructs of the extended technology acceptance model (TAM), including
perceived usefulness, Perceived Ease-of-Use, social influence, perceived trust, ownership,
financial literacy, transparency, innovativeness, perceived risk, and intention to use cryp-
tocurrencies.
This paper is organized into the following sections. Section 2 provides a literature
review and hypothesis development; Section 3 explains the methodology; Section 4 presents
the results; Section 5 discusses the findings; Section 6 summarizes the conclusions; and
Section 7 provides implications, limitations, and suggestions for further research.

2. Literature Review
Blockchain was invented in 2008 as a technology for Bitcoin, the first decentralized
digital currency, which sought to remove the intermediaries in financial transactions (Panda
et al., 2023). Blockchain was introduced as a public ledger to record all the transactions of
Bitcoin transparently and unalterably (Lisdorf, 2023; Nakamoto, 2008). Cryptocurrencies
are not backed by conventional financial bodies such as banks or a central bank (Podder,
2023). However, they are developed, traded, and protected by intricate numerical formulas
and computer-distributed systems (Alam, 2024; Yadav et al., 2023). Transactions are
validated and documented by a network of nodes or participants, not a central agency or
middleman (Howell et al., 2023). This makes having a much more secure system more
accessible and less prone to fraud or manipulation (Pham et al., 2024; Potla, 2023). The
independence from a central authority or regulation gives freedom and decentralization
to cryptocurrencies that cannot be availed in the traditional financial system (Kayani &
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 3 of 21

Hasan, 2024). Although cryptocurrencies have already influenced the financial sector in a
rather significant way, many professionals believe that the use of cryptos will expand to
routine business transactions (Hmimnat & El Bakouchi, 2023). Because of cryptocurrencies’
complexity, firms specializing in cryptocurrencies, like cryptocurrency brokerages and
investment funds, have also been established to assist individuals and institutions in
investing in cryptocurrencies (Danial, 2023; Olabanji et al., 2024).
While earlier attempts at increasing the usage of cryptocurrencies were made with
DigiCash and Hashcash, neither of these currencies gained much usage until a mysterious
author launched Bitcoin through a paper known as the white paper in 2008 (Hanl, 2018; Lee
et al., 2018). Bitcoin is an electronic currency that was introduced by an unknown person
(Hanl, 2018).
The disparity in emerging and developed economies has identified varied reasons
for holding cryptocurrencies (Koziuk, 2022). In emerging economies, cryptocurrencies
are a development enabler that helps make transactions and protect against volatile local
currencies, while in developed countries, cryptocurrencies are viewed more as an instru-
ment of investment (Rubanov et al., 2022). These use cases are not separate; some people
in emerging economies are trading cryptocurrencies as an investment asset, while some
people in developed economies are using them as a store of value or for other things (Gupta
et al., 2023; Levulytė & Šapkauskienė, 2021).
In the following subsections of the literature review, we develop our hypotheses
based on the extended TAM, starting with the original TAM variables and then adding the
extended variables that the author recognized as uniquely applicable to cryptocurrencies.

2.1. Perceived Usefulness and Intention to Use Cryptocurrencies

Perceived usefulness is a person’s belief that using a particular technology will help
them perform better or benefit them (Romero-Rodríguez et al., 2023). In cryptocurrencies,
this perception is critical in determining users’ intention to adopt and use these digital
currencies (García-Monleón et al., 2023). Research has shown that the perceived usefulness
of cryptocurrencies is a significant predictor of the intention to use cryptocurrencies (Islam
et al., 2023). Arias-Oliva et al. (2019) found that perceived usefulness is critical in the
technology acceptance model. They found that individuals who think cryptocurrencies are
suitable for practical uses are more likely to use them, suggesting that demonstrating the
practical benefits of cryptocurrencies to potential users is essential (Ter Ji-Xi et al., 2021).
Furthermore, a study conducted by Mishra et al. (2024) shows that perceived useful-
ness plays a significant role in the intention to adopt cryptocurrencies. This aligns with
the broader technology acceptance literature, which holds that users are more likely to use
technologies as long as they are helpful (Granić, 2023). These findings have implications
for how the perceived usefulness of cryptocurrencies can increase users’ adoption rates
(Al-Omoush et al., 2024).
People will more likely adopt cryptocurrencies when they believe they can obtain
tangible benefits, such as investment opportunities or increased transaction efficiency
(Sukumaran et al., 2023). The work of Rahardja et al. (2023) also strengthens this relationship
by showing that perceived usefulness is mediated by perceived trust and perceived risk in
the intention to use cryptocurrencies. This implies that perceived usefulness is essential but
only with an overall context of trust and risk perceptions that may affect users’ intentions
(Ventre & Kolbe, 2020), and we assume this will also hold in the context of North Carolina.
Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1. Perceived usefulness (PU) positively influences the intention to use cryptocurrencies in NC.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 4 of 21

2.2. Perceived Ease-of-Use and Intention to Use Cryptocurrencies

As a foundational framework, the technology acceptance model (TAM) explains how
users’ Perceived Ease-of-Use and usefulness of a new technology, such as cryptocurrencies,
affect their intention to adopt it (Namahoot & Rattanawiboonsom, 2022). For instance,
research from Jariyapan et al. (2022) finds that the perceived benefits of cryptocurrencies
are positively related to perceived value and behavioral intentions to use cryptocurrencies.
Furthermore, the results obtained by Saif Almuraqab (2020) also support the idea that
the Perceived Ease-of-Use is a strong predictor of the intention to use digital currencies. A
study by Avcı et al. (2023) also shows that ease-of-use is one of the main factors influencing
consumers’ attitudes toward cryptocurrency adoption. In the case of North Carolina, we
also expect that if people find cryptos easy-to-use as a payment method, they most likely
will. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2. Perceived Ease-of-Use (PEU) positively influences the intention to use cryptocurrencies in NC.

2.3. Financial Literacy and Intention to Use Cryptocurrencies

Financial literacy consists of understanding and effectively using various financial
skills, such as personal financial management, budgeting, and investing (Hasanuh & Putra,
2020). This competence is increasingly critical in adopting innovative financial technolo-
gies, including cryptocurrencies (Kumari et al., 2023). According to research, people who
know more about finance are more likely to make informed decisions about investments—
including cryptocurrencies (Sa’diyah et al., 2024). For example, Alomari and Abdullah
(2023) showed that financial literacy plays a significant role in accepting and using cryp-
tocurrencies, as people who are more financially literate are better at understanding the
risks and benefits of investment in cryptocurrencies. Likewise, Dabbous et al. (2022) discov-
ered that financial technology awareness is an essential determinant of users’ willingness
to adopt cryptocurrencies and diminish the perceived risks of these digital assets. In addi-
tion, research has indicated that financial literacy is associated with significantly higher
financial confidence in financial decision-making and decision-machination to invest in
cryptocurrencies (Jariyapan et al., 2022).
Furthermore, Kumari and Kumar (2023) indicate that although financial literacy
plays a part in shaping users’ behavioral intentions toward cryptocurrencies, it might
not be the sole determiner, as other factors, such as technological awareness and personal
innovativeness, are also very important in determining users’ behavioral intentions towards
cryptocurrencies. The work of Maleh et al. (2024) further illustrates this complexity
by showing a positive correlation between financial literacy and the intention to use
cryptocurrencies while insisting on the necessity of further explorations of the underlying
mechanisms. We assume that the educated North Carolina population will be more inclined
to use cryptos as a medium of exchange rather than just a speculative instrument. Hence,
we develop hypothesis H1.

H3. Financial literacy (FL) positively influences the intention to use cryptocurrencies in NC.

2.4. Ownership and Intention to Use Cryptocurrencies

One might argue that people who own cryptocurrencies for various reasons, like
investment purposes, are more likely to use them in actual business transactions. Therefore,
it is important to understand the relationship between ownership and the intention to
use cryptocurrencies. A growing body of literature exploring different psychological,
social, and economic factors that may influence cryptocurrency adoption has been used
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 5 of 21

to support the hypothesis that ownership (OW) positively influences the intention to use
cryptocurrencies.
Sachitra and Rajapaksha (2023) suggest that those who value innovation and achieve-
ment are more likely to embrace cryptocurrencies and that ownership may increase these
values, increasing the intention to use cryptocurrencies (Al-Omoush et al., 2024).
In addition, social factors have a significant role in cryptocurrency adoption (Steinmetz
et al., 2021). Alzahrani and Daim (2019) state that social norms affect people’s decision
to adopt cryptocurrencies. These social dynamics reveal that ownership can increase an
individual’s social capital and lead to a positive relationship between cryptocurrencies and
ownership and the intention to use (Siqueira et al., 2020).
In addition, the relationship between ownership and the intention to use cryptocurrencies
is affected by economic factors (Steinmetz et al., 2021). Kovalchuk et al. (2024) showed
that more cryptocurrency trading is correlated with economic growth and that ownership
can bring about confidence in cryptocurrencies as a medium of exchange. This is also
consistent with the work of Mazambani (2024), who found that a positive attitude towards
cryptocurrencies is significantly correlated with the behavioral intention to adopt them. It
was found that individuals who gain ownership are more likely to have favorable attitudes
toward cryptocurrencies and more likely to intend to use them (Steinmetz et al., 2021).
Some researchers suggest that ownership may mitigate perceived risks, which leads
to a more favorable intention of using cryptocurrencies (Sagheer et al., 2022). Based on
the literature, we assume a positive relationship between the ownership of cryptos and
their use as a medium of exchange in North Carolina. Hence, the following hypothesis
is proposed:

H4. Ownership (OW) positively influences the intention to use cryptocurrencies in NC.

2.5. Personal Innovativeness and Intention to Use Cryptocurrencies

Personal innovativeness is the extent to which an individual is willing to adopt new
ideas and technology (Mendoza-Tello et al., 2019). It has been found that personal inno-
vativeness has a significant effect on willingness to adopt cryptocurrencies (Hasan et al.,
2022). Dilanchiev et al. (2024) noted that innovativeness is positively associated with
adopting cryptocurrencies, as those who are more innovative are more likely to seek out
and use new financial technologies. According to their findings, innovative people are more
likely to embrace new financial products and services, which would help cryptocurrency
adoption (Kumari et al., 2023). This is consistent with Kumari et al. (2023), who found that
performance expectancy mediates between personal innovativeness and the intention to
use cryptocurrencies. This means that innovative people also have a higher intention to use
cryptocurrencies and perceive these technologies as beneficial and valuable, encouraging
their behavior of adoption (Mendoza-Tello et al., 2019). As with Wongsunopparat and
Nanjun (2023), research on personal innovativeness also supports the idea that personal
innovativeness is positively related to consumers’ attitudes toward adopting cryptocurren-
cies. Hence, we believe that North Carolinians who consider themselves more innovative
are more likely to use cryptos not just for trading or investment but also for the actual
purchase and sale of goods and services. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H5. Personal innovativeness (PI) positively influences the intention to use cryptocurrencies in NC.

2.6. Perceived Risk and Intention to Use Cryptocurrencies

The risk dimension includes financial, legal, and security risks, which can be perceived
as very high and can deter people from engaging with cryptocurrencies (Huang et al.,
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 6 of 21

2023). Maheta and Mehta (2024) note that regulatory barriers are a significant concern
for potential users because regulatory uncertainty can lead to an uncertain environment.
This is consistent with the findings from Dabbous et al. (2022), who claim that perceived
risk can significantly impede using cryptocurrencies for financial transactions in high-risk
contexts. The results of their research suggest that the lack of consensus on the dangers
of cryptocurrencies is one of the reasons why users are hesitant and that perceived risk
negatively affects the intention to use (Huang et al., 2023).
Additionally, the existing literature has highlighted the role of perceived trust in
mitigating perceived risk (Qalati et al., 2021). According to Rahardja (2023), individuals
who are more open to new technologies are more likely to perceive lower risks regarding
cryptocurrencies. In this sense, increasing trust might mitigate perceived risks and encour-
age a more favorable intention to use cryptocurrencies (Dabbous et al., 2022). In contrast,
Arias-Oliva et al. (2019) did not find perceived risk to significantly influence the intention
to use cryptocurrencies for electronic payments, suggesting that there is not a universal
relationship. Furthermore, the results of Soomro and Ghumro (2024) supported the belief
that perceived risk plays a pivotal role in adopting cryptocurrencies. According to their
research, perceived risk trust and social norms significantly impact users’ intention to adopt
cryptocurrencies (Ögel & Ögel, 2021). This shows how perceived risk is multifaceted and
interacts with other psychological factors (Li & Li, 2023). Based on this discussion, we
assume that North Carolinians who consider cryptos riskier will be less likely to use them
as a medium of exchange. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H6. Perceived risk (PR) negatively influences the intention to use cryptocurrencies in NC.

2.7. Perceived Trust and Intention to Use Cryptocurrencies

Trust in technological attributes is crucial for users’ confidence, especially in cryptocur-
rencies, as there are so many scams in this area (Marella et al., 2020). Rahardja et al. (2023)
confirm that trust is essential because users tend to distrust cryptocurrencies because of
their complexity and the controversies around cryptocurrencies.
In addition, Yassin (2023) shows that perceived trust is an essential predictor of the
intention to use cryptocurrencies, confirming that trust is a critical factor in cryptocurrency
adoption. Jariyapan et al. (2022) also find that consumer protection measures in cryptocur-
rency exchanges can increase adoption rates by enhancing trust. Just as in Arli et al. (2021),
trust is vital for potential adopters to trust the credibility and reliability of cryptocurrencies.
Furthermore, Maheta and Mehta (2024) show that the volatility of cryptocurrencies makes
investors hesitant. This is supplemented by Ahsan and Gupta (2024), who explore how
perceived trust influences the likelihood of cryptocurrency adoption in high-risk contexts.
Therefore, people in North Carolina who trust cryptos as a sound alternative to fiat cur-
rency will most likely use them for business transactions. Hence, the following hypothesis
is proposed:

H7. Perceived trust (PT) positively influences the intention to use cryptocurrencies in NC.

2.8. Social Influence and Intention to Use Cryptocurrencies

Social influence refers to the impact of the opinions of peers, societal norms, and
other people on an individual’s choice of the technology adoption process (Wolske et al.,
2020). In cryptocurrencies, social influence can come through family, friends, social media,
and so on (Subramanian, 2021). According to Mansoor et al. (2024), social factors are
the dominant driving force in the desire to use cryptocurrencies. This is consistent with
the larger picture of adopting technology, where intention is so important. Sachitra and
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 7 of 21

Rajapaksha (2023) corroborate this further by pointing to social factors such as subjective
norms and influencers’ influence on cryptocurrency adoption in emerging markets. Social
influence plays a huge role among younger demographics and is significantly correlated
with behavioral intention to adopt cryptocurrencies in Saudi Arabia among university
students (Ter Ji-Xi et al., 2021).
Additionally, Chhillar et al. (2024) also point out that social influence is a significant
predictor of cryptocurrency acceptance and that investors are swayed by the opinions and
actions of their peers. Nurbarani and Soepriyanto (2022) show that demographic factors can
moderate subjective norms’ influence on cryptocurrency investment decisions, whereby
social pressure may push or restrain individuals’ investments. The integration of social
influence into the existing models of technology acceptance has improved the predictability
of users’ intention to adopt cryptocurrencies (Alaklabi & Kang, 2022; Jariyapan et al., 2022).
We assume our findings will align with the existing literature and that social influence will
make people in North Carolina more inclined to use crypto for business transactions. Thus,
the following hypothesis is posited:

H8. Social influence (SC) positively influences the intention to use cryptocurrencies in NC.

2.9. Transparency and Intention to Use Cryptocurrencies

Trust and credibility in the cryptocurrency ecosystem are primarily based on trans-
parency; therefore, building confidence in an uncertain regulatory environment is critical
(Ibrahimy et al., 2023). For user trust and confidence to grow, cryptocurrency transactions
must be transparent (Handayani et al., 2023). According to Alsmadi et al. (2023), clear and
well-defined rules significantly affect users’ intention to adopt cryptocurrencies. This study
shows that transparent legal frameworks can reduce the uncertainty regarding cryptocur-
rencies’ use, which increases users’ willingness to use such digital assets (van der Linden &
Shirazi, 2023). Gil-Cordero et al. (2020) also show that the immediacy and transparency
inherent to cryptocurrencies make them more attractive than traditional financial services.
Other studies also found that the transparency of cryptocurrency transactions can make
users more likely to have a more positive attitude toward using cryptocurrencies and their
intentions (Miraz et al., 2022).
Additionally, Dabbous et al. (2022) add that the need for more consensus on risks
involved in cryptocurrency adoption can be resolved by higher transparency. According
to their findings, if users know the risks and benefits of using cryptocurrencies, they
are more likely to intend to use these digital currencies (Al-Omoush et al., 2024). This is
consistent with the broader literature on technology adoption that consistently indicates that
transparency increases user confidence and decreases perceived risk (Soomro & Ghumro,
2024). Additionally, there is an essential interaction between transparency and user attitudes
(Zhang et al., 2019). Trust, closely related to transparency, has a robust role in predicting
users’ intention to adopt cryptocurrencies (Soomro & Ghumro, 2024). This relationship
further emphasizes the significance of transparency as a standalone factor as well as a
vehicle for trust within the cryptocurrency ecosystem (ur Rehman et al., 2019). We assume
that if the NC population believes crypto transactions are more transparent, at least to them,
they will be willing to use them. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H9. Transparency (TP) positively influences the intention to use cryptocurrencies in NC.

2.10. Theoretical Model

Based on the literature review above and the identified hypotheses, we propose the
following theoretical framework shown in Figure 1.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21

J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 8 of 21

Based on the literature review above and the identified hypotheses, we propose the
following theoretical framework shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Theoretical
Figure 1. Theoretical framework of model.
framework of model.

3. Methodology
We use
We usethetheTechnology
TechnologyAdoption Adoption Model
Model (TAM)
(TAM) to test ourour
to test theoretical framework
theoretical framework and
the relationship between variables. Data were collected through
and the relationship between variables. Data were collected through an online question- an online questionnaire
from the
naire from residents of North
the residents of Carolina
North Carolinain the United States. North
in the United States.Carolina (NC) was
North Carolina selected
(NC) was
because of the funding agency’s requirement for this research
selected because of the funding agency’s requirement for this research to be conducted to be conducted in NC and
in
its diverse
NC and itseconomic landscape,
diverse economic providingproviding
landscape, a microcosm for cryptocurrency
a microcosm adoption trends.
for cryptocurrency adop-
The
tion Institutional Review Board
trends. The Institutional (IRB)’sBoard
Review approval wasapproval
(IRB)’s received wasbefore embarking
received beforeonembark-
the data
collection
ing on the process, meaning
data collection that allmeaning
process, steps were thattaken to safeguard
all steps were taken participants,
to safeguard including
partici-
receiving consent.
pants, including receiving consent.
Participants were required to have prior knowledge of cryptocurrencies to ensure
informed responses.
responses.ItItwas was assumed
assumed thatthat participants
participants whowho did know
did not not knowaboutabout cryp-
cryptocur-
tocurrencies
rencies were notwere innot in aposition
a good good positionto gauge to the
gaugeriskstheandrisks and benefits
benefits of using of using
them them
in trans-
in transactions. An initial screening questionnaire was used
actions. An initial screening questionnaire was used for this purpose. A negative response for this purpose. A nega-
tive response
disqualified disqualified
them from taking them partfrom
in thistaking part Data
research. in this research.
were collected Data
overwere collected
a four-month
over a four-month period from February 2024 to May 2024
period from February 2024 to May 2024 using convenience sampling. Participants were using convenience sampling.
Participants
recruited were recruited
through online forums, through socialonline
media,forums, socialinvitations.
and email media, andAfter emaildiscarding
invitations. 2
After discarding 2 incomplete responses due to missing data,
incomplete responses due to missing data, 228 responses were used in the final analysis. 228 responses were used
in the final
Before analysis.
proceeding withBefore proceeding
the statistical with the
analysis, statistical
data screening analysis, data screening
was conducted was
to ensure
conducted to ensure accuracy and integrity. The mean replacement
accuracy and integrity. The mean replacement method was used to replace some missing method was used to
replace as
values, some
the missing
proportion values, as the proportion
of missing data was below of missing data was
5%, adhering tobelow 5%, adhering to
the recommendations
the recommendations of Little and Rubin (2014). The
of Little and Rubin (2014). The mean replacement method replaces missing values mean replacement method replaces
with
missing values with the average of that variable’s observed values,
the average of that variable’s observed values, ensuring that the overall mean remains ensuring that the overall
mean remains
unchanged. unchanged.
Thus, the dataset Thus,wasthe dataset wasfor
appropriate appropriate for further
further statistical statistical analysis.
analysis.
We used an extended version of the TAM, adding
We used an extended version of the TAM, adding variables such as financial variables such as financialliteracy,
literacy,
ownership, personal
ownership, personal innovativeness,
innovativeness, perceivedperceived risk,risk, social
social influence,
influence, and and transparency
transparency to to
make this research more relevant to the dynamics involved
make this research more relevant to the dynamics involved in the cryptocurrency space. in the cryptocurrency space.
These
These additional
additional variables
variables were were built
built intointo hypotheses
hypotheses in in the
the literature
literature review
review section
section and and
supported by appropriate
supported by appropriate citations. citations.
The measurement
The measurement and and structural
structural modelsmodels were
were assessed
assessed for for convergent
convergent and and discrimi-
discrimi-
nant validity following the PLS-SEM methodology. Confirmatory
nant validity following the PLS-SEM methodology. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Factor Analysis (CFA)
evaluated the relationships between items and their corresponding constructs. The inter-
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 9 of 21

nal consistency of the constructs was measured using Cronbach’s alpha and Composite
Reliability (CR), which is a more robust alternative to Cronbach’s alpha (Paiva et al., 2014).
Convergent validity was assessed using the Average Variance Extracted (AVE), which
evaluates how much variance is explained by the indicators of a construct. All AVE values
exceeded the minimum recommended value of 0.50 (Cheung et al., 2024), indicating that
the constructs accounted for more than half of the variance in their indicators.
Discriminant validity was tested using the Fornell–Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait–
Monotrait (HTMT) ratio. According to the Fornell–Larcker criterion, the square root of each
construct’s AVE was higher than the correlations with other constructs, confirming that each
construct was distinct from the others. The HTMT ratio further supported this, with values
below the recommended threshold of 0.85, ensuring satisfactory discriminant validity.
The structural model assessment involved testing the significance of relationships
between variables using path coefficients, t-values, and standard errors using the boot-
strapping technique in Smart PLS 4. The coefficient of determination (R2 ) was calculated to
measure the model’s predictive accuracy. The R2 value of 0.518 indicates that the model
has a moderate level of explained variance which can be interpreted as the fact that in-
dependent variables explain 51.8% of the variance in the dependent variable (Hair et al.,
2019). This is also supported by the Q-Square value of 0.456, as shown in Table 8. To further
assess the strength of the relationships in the model, the effect size (f2 ) was calculated and
is shown in Table 7. According to Cohen (2013), f2 values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 indicate
small, medium, and large effects, respectively.
We also conducted a Common Method Bias (CMB) test using the Variance Inflation
Factor in SmartPLS4. The results are given in Table 1, which shows that all values for the
independent variables are less than the recommended threshold of 3.3. This confirms that
CMB does not exist. The VIFs for the dependent (endogenous) variable are greater than 3.3,
reflecting the strong explanatory power of the model.

Table 1. Variance Inflation Factor (VIF).

Construct VIF Construct VIF Construct VIF Construct VIF

FL1 2.82 OW1 2.15 PI3 2.11 SC1 2.96
FL2 2.79 OW2 2.15 PR1 1.5 SC2 3.54
FL3 1.5 PEU1 2.1 PR2 1.8 SC3 2.85
IU1 3.48 PEU2 2.24 PR4 1.37 TP1 1.44
IU2 4.18 PEU3 1.35 PU1 2.29 TP2 1.27
IU3 3.2 PEU4 1.2 PU2 2.51 TP3 2.61
IU4 2.56 PI1 1.49 PU3 2.2 TP4 2.2
IU5 1.62 PI2 1.74 PU4 2.25 TR1 2.01
TR3 1.86 TR2 2.13

4. Results and Discussion

Before concluding, we present several tests we conducted to check the model’s reliabil-
ity and validity. Table 2 shows the analysis of the constructs, assessed with factor loadings,
Cronbach’s alpha, Composite Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) to
determine the reliability and validity of these constructs. The strong factor loadings across
all constructs indicate that items represent the constructs well. Most constructs have high
reliability according to the Cronbach’s alpha above 0.7, which is acceptable. Composite
Reliability (CR) also supports the constructs’ reliability, with values consistently above 0.8,
indicating the items’ ability to measure their respective constructs. The AVE values are all
above 0.5, indicating that the constructs explain a large portion of the variance in the items,
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 10 of 21

and thus, convergent validity is achieved. Overall, the results are reliable and valid for
using the constructs to measure their concepts in a structural equation model.

Table 2. A convergent validity test.

Composite Reliability

Composite Reliability
Cronbach’s Alpha

Cronbach’s Alpha
Average Variance

Average Variance
Extracted (AVE)

Extracted (AVE)
Factor Loading
Factor loading
Construct

Construct
Items

Items
(CR)

(CR)
Perceived
Intention to Use IU1 0.98 0.87 0.905 0.659 PU1 1 0.88 0.916 0.733
Usefulness
IU2 1.01 PU2 1
IU3 1.14 PU3 1.04
IU4 1.03 PU4 0.97
IU5 0.76 Social Influence SC1 1 0.91 0.943 0.847
Ownership OW1 0.99 0.85 0.928 0.865 SC2 0.99
OW2 1.01 SC3 1.01
Perceived
PEU1 1.11 0.76 0.842 0.577 Transparency TP1 0.93 0.76 0.848 0.59
Ease-of-Use
PEU2 1.06 TP2 0.58
PEU3 0.77 TP3 1.18
PEU4 0.9 TP4 1.2
Personal
PI1 0.96 0.78 0.874 0.698 Perceived Trust TR1 0.92 0.84 0.902 0.755
Innovativeness
PI2 0.96 TR2 1.01
PI3 1.06 TR3 1.06
Financial
Perceived Risk PR1 1.06 0.73 0.789 0.574 FL1 1.02 0.84 0.901 0.752
Literacy
PR2 0.88 FL2 1.05
PR4 0.5 FL3 0.93
Note: CR stands for Composite Reliability, and AVE stands for Average Variance Extracted.

The Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratios, presented in Table 3, are essential to assess

the discriminant validity of different constructs in a research model. This analysis shows
that intention to use (IU) has relatively strong associations with PU (0.609), SC (0.654), and
TP (0.604), indicating that these factors significantly influence users’ intention to adopt
the system. As with PU and TP, Perceived Ease-of-Use (PEU) shows high correlations
with PU (0.648) and TP (0.712), indicating that ease-of-use is highly correlated with the
perceptions of usefulness and transparency. Perceived trust (PT) also correlates highly
with TP (0.729), implying a strong relationship between trust and transparency. The other
constructs, perceived risk (PR) and ownership (OW), show lower HTMT values, indicating
that these constructs are more distinct than others and provide good discriminant validity.
Typically, HTMT values less than 0.85 are believed acceptable, and values higher than that
may indicate problems with discriminant validity between the constructs. Therefore, our
HTMT values establish the discriminant validity of our model because all the values are
below 0.85.
To further evaluate the discriminant validity among constructs, we used the Fornell–
Larcker criterion, which is a robust means of making sure constructs are sufficiently distinct
from each other; the results are in Table 4. The diagonal values in this context represent
the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct, and the off-
diagonal values represent correlations between different constructs. For a construct to
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 11 of 21

show adequate discriminant validity, the square root of its AVE should be higher than its
correlation with other constructs.

Table 3. Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratios for Construct Validity Assessment.

FL IU OW PEU PI PR PT PU SC TP
FL
IU 0.274
OW 0.176 0.289
PEU 0.392 0.492 0.302
PI 0.486 0.556 0.212 0.542
PR 0.225 0.146 0.114 0.181 0.246
PT 0.063 0.47 0.132 0.478 0.273 0.183
PU 0.133 0.609 0.098 0.648 0.348 0.155 0.521
SC 0.313 0.654 0.326 0.415 0.392 0.135 0.368 0.438
TP 0.276 0.604 0.283 0.712 0.454 0.171 0.729 0.68 0.598

Table 4. Fornell–Larcker criterion values for assessing discriminant validity of constructs.

FL IU OW PEU PI PR PT PU SC TP
FL 0.867
IU 0.234 0.812
OW −0.149 −0.252 0.93
PEU 0.303 0.419 −0.259 0.76
PI 0.403 0.454 −0.174 0.417 0.836
PR 0.167 0.159 −0.015 0.154 0.179 0.758
PT 0.034 0.409 −0.11 0.407 0.229 0.153 0.869
PU 0.115 0.533 −0.076 0.565 0.293 0.159 0.443 0.856
SC 0.275 0.588 −0.288 0.35 0.334 0.162 0.327 0.397 0.92
TP 0.236 0.511 −0.236 0.565 0.36 0.171 0.556 0.542 0.526 0.768

As all the diagonal values in Table 4 are greater than the off-diagonal values, our
model satisfies the Fornell–Larcker criterion for discriminant validity. For instance, the
correlation between the FL criterion and IU is 0.234, less than the square root of the AVE for
the FL criterion (0.867). Other constructs, such as PU and SC, also show internal validity
through their diagonal values and small off-diagonal correlations.
We also used cross-loading analysis to measure how each indicator item is related to its
intended construct instead of other constructs. The cross-loadings in Table 5 show that each
item has high loading on their respective construct, indicating a strong correlation with the
intended factor. For instance, FL1 has a very high loading (0.883) on its construct (FL) but a
notably lower loading (0.161) on other constructs. This pattern suggests that the items are
adequate at measuring their specific constructs and thus have good construct validity. The
items’ discriminant validity is further reinforced by the significant differences between the
loadings on the intended constructs and other factors, which do not significantly correlate
with unrelated constructs. However, some items, such as IU4, have moderate cross-loading
on other constructs (0.508 on SC), indicating a possible overlap, and must be carefully
considered. This might also indicate that because IU is the ultimate independent variable,
the items of different constructs will naturally have a higher correlation with it. Overall, the
analysis validates the alignment of the indicators with their respective constructs, which
supports the overall validity of the measurement model.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 12 of 21

Table 5. Cross-loading.

FL IU OW PEU PI PR PT PU SC TP
FL1 0.88 0.16 −0.12 0.23 0.31 0.16 −0.02 0.05 0.25 0.20
FL2 0.91 0.23 −0.13 0.31 0.41 0.17 0.05 0.12 0.29 0.21
FL3 0.80 0.20 −0.14 0.23 0.31 0.10 0.05 0.12 0.17 0.21
IU1 0.17 0.84 −0.19 0.27 0.30 0.08 0.38 0.42 0.57 0.48
IU2 0.16 0.87 −0.15 0.30 0.33 0.11 0.31 0.46 0.51 0.48
IU3 0.22 0.90 −0.27 0.42 0.43 0.18 0.36 0.48 0.50 0.49
IU4 0.20 0.83 −0.27 0.39 0.42 0.14 0.34 0.44 0.51 0.39
IU5 0.21 0.59 −0.13 0.34 0.38 0.13 0.26 0.36 0.25 0.17
OW1 −0.14 −0.26 0.94 −0.24 −0.20 −0.01 −0.10 −0.07 −0.28 −0.25
OW2 −0.13 −0.21 0.92 −0.25 −0.11 −0.02 −0.10 −0.07 −0.25 −0.18
PEU1 0.23 0.33 −0.28 0.86 0.37 0.10 0.32 0.51 0.23 0.44
PEU2 0.21 0.42 −0.15 0.89 0.37 0.15 0.42 0.58 0.33 0.55
PEU3 0.23 0.15 −0.01 0.62 0.31 0.16 0.12 0.22 0.20 0.26
PEU4 0.30 0.29 −0.29 0.65 0.23 0.08 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.39
PI1 0.34 0.36 −0.22 0.33 0.79 0.19 0.21 0.18 0.36 0.34
PI2 0.29 0.33 −0.11 0.31 0.81 0.13 0.12 0.24 0.18 0.19
PI3 0.38 0.44 −0.12 0.40 0.91 0.13 0.23 0.31 0.30 0.36
PR1 0.16 0.18 −0.04 0.18 0.16 0.97 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.21
PR2 0.14 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.18 0.77 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.03
PR4 0.13 0.01 −0.11 −0.08 0.11 0.45 −0.13 0.03 0.00 −0.03
PT1 0.01 0.33 −0.04 0.42 0.20 0.15 0.86 0.37 0.28 0.52
PT2 0.06 0.30 −0.15 0.35 0.16 0.07 0.86 0.41 0.24 0.46
PT3 0.02 0.42 −0.10 0.31 0.23 0.17 0.89 0.38 0.32 0.48
PU1 0.15 0.38 −0.06 0.49 0.25 0.15 0.43 0.83 0.26 0.48
PU2 0.06 0.49 0.00 0.51 0.27 0.14 0.37 0.87 0.38 0.47
PU3 0.08 0.48 −0.12 0.47 0.27 0.13 0.31 0.86 0.31 0.43
PU4 0.11 0.47 −0.07 0.47 0.21 0.13 0.42 0.86 0.40 0.48
SC1 0.26 0.53 −0.22 0.31 0.29 0.16 0.28 0.33 0.91 0.47
SC2 0.27 0.55 −0.31 0.34 0.28 0.15 0.34 0.40 0.93 0.52
SC3 0.23 0.55 −0.28 0.32 0.35 0.13 0.29 0.37 0.91 0.47
TP1 0.09 0.37 −0.10 0.40 0.20 0.22 0.56 0.45 0.37 0.74
TP2 0.03 0.26 −0.02 0.35 0.23 0.12 0.46 0.40 0.15 0.56
TP3 0.27 0.42 −0.22 0.52 0.32 0.12 0.45 0.43 0.49 0.89
TP4 0.26 0.48 −0.32 0.47 0.34 0.09 0.32 0.41 0.52 0.84

Hypothesis Testing
Table 6 gives the hypothesis testing results for the relationship between the indepen-
dent and the dependent variable IU. The key findings show that ownership (OW), personal
innovativeness (PI), perceived usefulness (PU), and social influence (SC) have a significant
effect on IU, which is in line with the previous studies identified in the literature review.
The effects of the other variables are not significant.

Table 6. Hypothesis testing results for factors influencing intention to use (IU).

Hypothesis Relation Mean Standard Deviation T Statistics p-Values

H1 FL -> IU 0.007 0.061 0.119 0.453
H2 OW -> IU −0.225 0.133 1.694 0.045
H3 PEU -> IU −0.043 0.076 0.567 0.285
H4 PI -> IU 0.217 0.064 3.367 0
H5 PR -> IU 0.001 0.043 0.028 0.489
H6 PT -> IU 0.107 0.065 1.656 0.049
H7 PU -> IU 0.317 0.071 4.5 0
H8 SC -> IU 0.306 0.058 5.273 0
H9 TP -> IU 0.056 0.089 0.632 0.264
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 13 of 21

The results show that there are positive effects of PI on IU, which indicates that
innovative people are more open to playing around with cryptos in many ways, including
using them as a medium of exchange. Similarly, IU is also highly affected by social
influence (SC), which indicates that people are more inclined to use cryptos as a medium of
exchange if their peers and social circles recommend them. Therefore, we recommend that
crypto issuers focus on creating a strong community around their products, which drives
investments in these cryptos and triggers their intrinsic use.
Additionally, IU is not affected by factors such as financial literacy (FL), Perceived
Ease-of-Use (PEU), perceived risk (PR), and transparency (TP), as the relationships are
statistically non-significant. This means that these variables, while possibly applicable
in other situations, play little roles in shaping the intention to use cryptocurrencies in
North Carolina.
The effect sizes, F-square (f2 ) values, of various independent variables in terms of the
dependent variable intention to use (IU) are presented in Table 7. They help explain how
much each factor contributes to explaining the variation in IU. The higher the F-square, the
stronger the effect.

Table 7. The F-square (f2 ) values.

Construct f2 Construct f2
Financial Literacy 0 Perceived Risk 0
Ownership 0.012 Perceived Trust 0.015
Perceived Ease-of-Use 0.002 Perceived Usefulness 0.09
Personal Innovativeness 0.07 Social Influence 0.147
Transparency 0.002

Financial literacy (FL) has an F-square of 0 in this analysis, meaning that it does not
significantly impact IU. Also, perceived risk (PR) does not influence IU, as measured by an
F-square of 0. Combining the F-square values with the p-values, we can conclude that these
constructs not only have minimal effects on IU, but they are also statistically non-significant.
Therefore, we can ignore them (Table 6). The effect sizes of ownership (OW), F-square
(f2 ) values, and perceived trust (PT) are small, with values of 0.012 and 0.015, respectively,
but these are statistically significant at 5% confidence levels; hence, they are important in
determining IU.
Additionally, the effect sizes of personal innovativeness (PI) and perceived usefulness
are 0.07 and 0.09, respectively, indicating a moderate impact on IU, which is also significant
statistically. Among all the variables analyzed, social influence (SC) has the highest F-square
of 0.147, meaning that SC has the most potent effect on IU.
The R-square value of 0.518 in Table 8 indicates that the model’s independent variables
can explain 51.8% of the variance in the dependent variable, intention to use (IU). In other
words, the intention to use is presented by more than half of the variation in the predictors
in the model. The Q-Square value of 0.456, given in Table 8, explains the model’s strong
predictive relevance, as values greater than 0.35 are strong (Hair et al., 2019). Overall,
the model accounts for more than half of the variation in the intention to use, which is
considered a moderately strong result.

Table 8. Explanation of R-square, Adjusted R-square, and Q-Square for intention to use.

R-Square Adjusted R-Square Q-Square

0.518 0.498 0.456
 Table 8. Explanation of R-square, Adjusted R-square, and Q-Square for intention to use.

R-Square Adjusted R-Square Q-Square

J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 14 of 21
0.518 0.498 0.456

Figure
Figure2 2shows
shows the pathcoefficients
the path coefficients of of
thethe structural
structural equation
equation modelmodel
(SEM),(SEM), indicat-
indicating
ingthe
thestrength
strength and
and direction
direction of the
of the relationships
relationships between
between the latent
the latent variables.
variables. This
This is a is a
graphical
graphical representation of the
representation the analysis
analysisdiscussed
discussed above.
above.

Figure 2. 2.
Figure Structural
Structuralequation
equation model (SEM)ofoffactors
model (SEM) factors influencing
influencing intention
intention to use.
to use.

5. 5. Discussion
Discussions
This study’s findings elucidate the significant influence of perceived usefulness, per-
This study’s findings elucidate the significant influence of perceived usefulness, per-
sonal innovativeness, and social influence on users’ intention to use cryptocurrencies in
sonal innovativeness,
business transactions. and
These social influenceemerged
two variables on users’ intention
as pivotal to use
factors cryptocurrencies
in driving adoption, in
business transactions.
indicating These
that innovative two variables
individuals emerged the
who recognize as pivotal
practical factors in driving
advantages adoption,
of cryptos
indicating that innovative
are substantially more likelyindividuals
to embrace who them.recognize
This alignsthewith practical advantages
FakhrHosseini of cryptos
et al. (2024)
are substantially more likely to embrace them. This aligns with FakhrHosseini et al. (2024)
and Howard and Hair (2023).
The most
and Howard interesting
& Hair (2023).result is that IU is negatively related to ownership (OW) with a
significant
The most interesting resultindicating
negative coefficient, is that IUthat people who
is negatively own cryptocurrencies
related to ownership (OW) do notwith a
intend to use them for business transactions. This result challenges the intuitive assumption
significant negative coefficient, indicating that people who own cryptocurrencies do not
that individuals who already own cryptocurrencies would be more inclined to use them
intend to use them for business transactions. This result challenges the intuitive assump-
as a medium of exchange. This may indicate that the primary motivation for owning
tion that individuals who already own cryptocurrencies would be more inclined to use
cryptocurrencies among participants may be speculative investment and capital gains
them as athan
rather medium of exchange.
practical utility. TheThis may indicate
significant price that the primary
volatility and the motivation
potential forfor owning
high
cryptocurrencies among
returns might attract participants
users may be speculative
who treat cryptocurrencies investment
as assets and capital
to hold rather gains ra-
than spend.
ther than practical utility. The significant price volatility and the potential
This aligns with the broader trend in crypto ownership during market surges, such as for high returns
might
thoseattract
observed users whothetreat
during cryptocurrencies
COVID-19 pandemic, when as assets to hold rather
retail investors than into
were drawn spend.the This
market
aligns withthrough accessible
the broader platforms
trend like Robinhood
in crypto ownershipand Coinbase.
during market surges, such as those
Social influence was found to play a crucial
observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, when retail investors role in shaping users’
wereintentions
drawn into to use
the mar-
cryptos as a medium of exchange. It highlighted
ket through accessible platforms like Robinhood and Coinbase. the significance of peer experiences and
recommendations in influencing individual perceptions (Liesa-Orús et al., 2023), suggesting
that entities issuing cryptocurrencies should focus on creating environments that encourage
sharing positive experiences, as this can significantly enhance users’ intentions to engage
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 15 of 21

with the system (Wang et al., 2023). Our analysis indicates that users must first acknowledge
the system’s utility; otherwise, more than ownership alone will be required to compel them
to utilize the technology.
Although trust is recognized as a vital element in technology acceptance, our results
imply that users prioritize immediate functionality and benefits over trust in the system
(Balaskas et al., 2022). This indicates that organizations should focus on demonstrating the
system’s reliability and effectiveness, as trust may develop over time through positive user
experiences rather than being a primary motivator at the initial stage of adoption (Alazab
et al., 2021; Amnas et al., 2023).
Respondents in North Carolina are concerned with cryptos’ volatility and usability,
mirroring trends observed in studies conducted in similar regional markets. North Carolina
is away from the financial hubs of New York, Washington D.C., and California, and
therefore, a lesser engagement in emerging financial technologies is expected. Our findings
align with L. Mazambani (2024), who noted the importance of trust in cryptocurrency
adoption. However, our study uniquely highlights ownership as a potential deterrent to
adoption in the US market context.
Conversely, perceived risk emerged as a negative correlate of users’ intentions to
use cryptocurrencies in business transactions, indicating that higher perceived risk can
deter individuals from engaging with cryptos, especially when using them for business
transactions. Participants expressed concerns regarding data security, potential failures,
and the system’s reliability (Hui et al., 2023). However, it is noteworthy that the influence
of perceived risk appeared to diminish when users found the system beneficial. This
highlights a significant trade-off. As users perceive greater usefulness and ease-of-use,
their concerns about risks may decrease, allowing for a more favorable intention to use
cryptocurrencies in business transactions (Schomakers & Ziefle, 2023).

6. Conclusions
This study aimed to investigate the factors that influence the intention to use cryp-
tocurrencies in business and routine transactions among individuals and businesses in
North Carolina. As cryptocurrencies become increasingly popular worldwide, companies,
policymakers, and other stakeholders need to understand the main drivers and barriers
to using digital currencies in different regions if they are to mainstream digital currencies
into the traditional economy. This research aimed to investigate the factors that influence
people to use cryptocurrencies for routine transactions other than their traditional use as
an investment tool.
Some critical factors emerged as significant predictors of cryptocurrency adoption
using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). A strong driver of
perceived usefulness (PU) indicated that users are more likely to adopt cryptocurrencies
when they see them as useful for transactions. Social influence (SC) had the most significant
impact, indicating that social networks and peer recommendations are key to influencing
user behavior. This highlights the importance of the social credibility and acceptance of
cryptocurrencies in user communities.
Perceived trust (PT) did affect adoption, but its effect was less than that of perceived
usefulness and social influence. Positive user experiences may lead to trust development
over time rather than being a primary motivator at the initial adoption stage. Finally,
perceived innovativeness (PI) was positively associated with adoption, such that users
who perceive cryptocurrencies as an innovative financial technology are more likely to
adopt them. However, financial literacy (FL) and perceived risk (PR) did not significantly
influence the intention to use cryptocurrencies. A negative effect was found in ownership
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 16 of 21

(OW), meaning that people who own cryptocurrencies see them more as investment tools
than routine business transaction tools.

7. Implications and Limitations

To encourage wider adoption, stakeholders should work to make cryptocurrencies
seem useful, which means educating potential users about their practical benefits, like
reducing transaction costs and making finances more efficient. Furthermore, regulatory
oversight and technological improvements can help create trust and security in cryptocur-
rency platforms, which will help boost users’ confidence. Regulators should develop
regulatory frameworks to enhance trust. By leveraging the endorsement of cryptocurrency
through trusted individuals and influencers, adoption can be further accelerated by creating
positive attitudes towards cryptocurrencies.
This study helps to clarify why cryptocurrency adoption happens in North Carolina
and concludes that perceived usefulness, social influence, and trust are the most impor-
tant factors. Cryptocurrencies should not be considered investment assets but practical
tools for everyday transactions. Stakeholders can remove barriers, promote benefits, and
create an environment that will make cryptocurrencies a vital part of the financial system.
This research makes an important contribution to the growing literature on cryptocur-
rency adoption and lays the groundwork for future research in other regions and in other
economic contexts.
This study contributes to the literature by extending the TAM framework to cryptocur-
rency adoption, introducing variables like ownership and perceived risk that highlight
new behavioral dimensions. The findings imply that policymakers and businesses should
increase the trust and usability of cryptocurrencies and financial education to promote
adoption. It should be noted that this study’s geographic focus and sample size limit
the findings. It should also be noted that this study is exploratory in nature, and future
research should explore larger, more diverse populations and employ a larger sample size
to validate the results.

Funding: This project was supported by the North Carolina Collaboratory at The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill with funding appropriated by the North Carolina General Assembly, grant
number collab_378.

Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Fayetteville
State University (IRB #2024-1) on 10 January 2024.

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement: The data is confidential according to Fayetteville State University’s
IRB guidelines. It can be requested by signing the Non-disclosure Agreement and subject to the
IRB approval.

Acknowledgments: The North Carolina Collaboratory at the University of North Carolina Chapell
Hill funded this project under Collaboratory Project ID: collab_378. Funding was appropriated by
the North Carolina General Assembly. The author, therefore, gratefully acknowledge with thanks
the technical and financial support from the North Carolina Collaboratory, the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the North Carolina General Assembly.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 17 of 21

References
Ahsan, Z. B., & Gupta, A. (2024). Gamified cryptocurrency and rewards: Consumer behaviour during uncertain earnings. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 23(3), 1540–1555. [CrossRef]
Alaklabi, S., & Kang, K. (2022). The extended TRA model for the assessment of factors driving individuals’ behavioral intention to use
cryptocurrency. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 17, 45–63. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Alam, I. (2024). Information and communication technology cryptography [Master’s Thesis, University of Turku].
Alazab, M., Alhyari, S., Awajan, A., & Abdallah, A. B. (2021). Blockchain technology in supply chain management: An empirical study
of the factors affecting user adoption/acceptance. Cluster Computing, 24(1), 83–101. [CrossRef]
Allioui, H., & Mourdi, Y. (2023). Exploring the full potentials of IoT for better financial growth and stability: A comprehensive survey.
Sensors, 23(19), 8015. [CrossRef]
Alomari, A. S., & Abdullah, N. L. (2023). Factors influencing the behavioral intention-to-use cryptocurrency among Saudi Arabian
public university students: Moderating role of financial literacy. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1), 2178092.
Al-Omoush, K. S., Gomez-Olmedo, A. M., & Funes, A. G. (2024). Why do people choose to continue using cryptocurrencies?
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 200, 123151. [CrossRef]
Alsmadi, A. A., Shuhaiber, A., & Al-Omoush, K. S. (2023). Risky? So, why people are getting back to invest in cryptocurrencies? The
United Arab Emirates as a case. Kybernetes, 53(11), 4697–4722. [CrossRef]
Alzahrani, S., & Daim, T. U. (2019, August 25–29). Analysis of the cryptocurrency adoption decision: Literature review. 2019 Portland
International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), Portland, OR, USA.
Alzoubi, M. M. (2024). Investigating the synergy of Blockchain and AI: Enhancing security, efficiency, and transparency. Journal of
Cyber Security Technology, 1–29. [CrossRef]
Amnas, M. B., Selvam, M., Raja, M., Santhoshkumar, S., & Parayitam, S. (2023). Understanding the determinants of FinTech adoption:
Integrating UTAUT2 with trust theoretic model. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 16(12), 505. [CrossRef]
Arias-Oliva, M., Pelegrín-Borondo, J., & Matías-Clavero, G. (2019). Variables influencing cryptocurrency use: A technology acceptance
model in Spain. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 475. [CrossRef]
Arli, D., van Esch, P., Bakpayev, M., & Laurence, A. (2021). Do consumers really trust cryptocurrencies? Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, 39(1), 74–90.
Avcı, İ., Özmen, E., & Ozhan, M. (2023). Research on consumer opinions on the use of cryptocurrency in online shopping. Uluslararası
Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 19(2), 311–327.
Balaskas, S., Panagiotarou, A., & Rigou, M. (2022). The Influence of trustworthiness and technology acceptance factors on the usage of
e-government services during COVID-19: A case study of post COVID-19 Greece. Administrative Sciences, 12(4), 129. [CrossRef]
Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with
structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41(2), 745–783.
[CrossRef]
Chhillar, N., Arora, S., & Chawla, P. (2024). Measuring digital financial literacy: Scale development and validation. Thailand and The
World Economy, 42(1), 112–147.
Chohan, U. W. (2023). Public value and citizen-driven digital innovation: A cryptocurrency study. International Journal of Public
Administration, 46(12), 847–856. [CrossRef]
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
Dabbous, A., Merhej Sayegh, M., & Aoun Barakat, K. (2022). Understanding the adoption of cryptocurrencies for financial transactions
within a high-risk context. The Journal of Risk Finance, 23(4), 349–367. [CrossRef]
Danial, K. (2023). Cryptocurrency investing for dummies. John Wiley & Sons.
Dilanchiev, A., Umair, M., & Haroon, M. (2024). How causality impacts the renewable energy, carbon emissions, and economic growth
nexus in the South Caucasus Countries? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31, 33069–33085. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ecer, F., Murat, T., Dinçer, H., & Yüksel, S. (2024). A fuzzy BWM and MARCOS integrated framework with Heronian function for
evaluating cryptocurrency exchanges: A case study of Türkiye. Financial Innovation, 10(1), 31. [CrossRef]
El Hajj, M., & Farran, I. (2024). The cryptocurrencies in emerging markets: Enhancing financial inclusion and economic empowerment.
Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 17(10), 467. [CrossRef]
FakhrHosseini, S., Chan, K., Lee, C., Jeon, M., Son, H., Rudnik, J., & Coughlin, J. (2024). User adoption of intelligent environments:
A review of technology adoption models, challenges, and prospects. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(4),
986–998. [CrossRef]
García-Monleón, F., Erdmann, A., & Arilla, R. (2023). A value-based approach to the adoption of cryptocurrencies. Journal of Innovation
& Knowledge, 8(2), 100342.
Gil-Cordero, E., Cabrera-Sánchez, J. P., & Arrás-Cortés, M. J. (2020). Cryptocurrencies as a financial tool: Acceptance factors. Mathematics,
8(11), 1974. [CrossRef]
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 18 of 21

Granić, A. (2023). Technology acceptance and adoption in education. In Handbook of open, distance and digital education (pp. 183–197).
Springer.
Gupta, N., Mitra, P., & Banerjee, D. (2023). Cryptocurrencies and traditional assets: Decoding the analogy from emerging economies
with crypto usage. Investment Management & Financial Innovations, 20(1), 1.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd
ed.). SAGE Publications.
Handayani, I., Apriani, D., Mulyati, M., Yusuf, N. A., & Zahra, A. R. A. (2023). A survey on user experience of blockchain transactions:
Security and adaptability issues. Blockchain Frontier Technology, 3(1), 80–88. [CrossRef]
Hanl, A. (2018). Some insights into the development of cryptocurrencies. MAGKS.
Hasan, S. Z., Ayub, H., Ellahi, A., & Saleem, M. (2022). A moderated mediation model of factors influencing intention to adopt
cryptocurrency among university students. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2022(1), 9718920. [CrossRef]
Hasanuh, N., & Putra, R. (2020). Influence of financial literacy and financial attitude on individual investment decisions. In Advances in
business, management and entrepreneurship (pp. 424–428). CRC Press.
Hayashi, F., & Routh, A. (2024). Financial literacy, risk tolerance, and cryptocurrency ownership in the United States (Federal reserve bank of
Kansas City working paper (24-03)). Elsevier.
Hmimnat, C., & El Bakouchi, M. (2023). Blockchain, cryptocurrency, and the quest for financial stability in Morocco. International
Journal of Accounting, Finance, Auditing, Management and Economics, 4(6-1), 21–40.
Howard, M. C., & Hair, J. F., Jr. (2023). Integrating the expanded task-technology fit theory and the technology acceptance model: A
multi-wave empirical analysis. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 15(1), 83–110. [CrossRef]
Howell, A., Saber, T., & Bendechache, M. (2023). Measuring node decentralisation in blockchain peer to peer networks. Blockchain:
Research and Applications, 4(1), 100109. [CrossRef]
Huang, C.-K., Lee, N. C.-A., & Chen, W.-C. (2023). Dilemmatic dual-factor determinants of discontinuous intention in cryptocurrency
usage. Information Technology & People, 36(2), 564–594.
Hui, S. C., Kwok, M. Y., Kong, E. W., & Chiu, D. K. (2023). Information security and technical issues of cloud storage services: A
qualitative study on university students in Hong Kong. Library Hi Tech, 42(5), 1406–1425. [CrossRef]
Ibrahimy, M. M., Norta, A., & Normak, P. (2023). Blockchain-based governance models supporting corruption-transparency: A
systematic literature review. Blockchain: Research and Applications, 5(2), 100186. [CrossRef]
Islam, H., Rana, M., Saha, S., Khatun, T., Ritu, M. R., & Islam, M. R. (2023). Factors influencing the adoption of cryptocurrency in
Bangladesh: An investigation using the technology acceptance model (TAM). Technological Sustainability, 2(4), 423–443. [CrossRef]
Jariyapan, P., Mattayaphutron, S., Gillani, S. N., & Shafique, O. (2022). Factors influencing the behavioural Intention-to-Use cryptocur-
rency in emerging economies during the COVID-19 pandemic: Based on technology acceptance model 3, perceived risk, and
financial literacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 814087. [CrossRef]
Jegerson, D., Khan, M., & Mertzanis, C. (2024). Adoption of cryptocurrencies for remittances in the UAE: The mediation effect of
consumer innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 27(6), 1837–1863. [CrossRef]
Kayani, U., & Hasan, F. (2024). Unveiling cryptocurrency impact on financial markets and traditional banking systems: Lessons for
sustainable blockchain and interdisciplinary collaborations. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 17(2), 58. [CrossRef]
Kim, M. (2021). A psychological approach to Bitcoin usage behavior in the era of COVID-19: Focusing on the role of attitudes toward
money. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 62, 102606. [CrossRef]
Kovalchuk, O., Shevchuk, R., & Banakh, S. (2024). Cryptocurrency crime risks modeling: Environment, e-commerce, and cybersecurity
issue. IEEE Access, 12, 50673–50688. [CrossRef]
Koziuk, V. (2022). What do cross-country Bitcoin holdings tell us? Monetary and institutional discontent vs. financial development.
Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 19(1), 168–185. [CrossRef]
Kumari, A., & Kumar, P. (2023). Empowering Indian students through Android based financial literacy: A theoretical approach. Journal
of Informatics Education and Research, 3(2), 554–563.
Kumari, V., Bala, P. K., & Chakraborty, S. (2023). An empirical study of user adoption of cryptocurrency using blockchain technology:
Analysing role of success factors like technology awareness and financial literacy. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic
Commerce Research, 18(3), 1580–1600. [CrossRef]
Lee, D. K. C., Guo, L., & Wang, Y. (2018). Cryptocurrency: A new investment opportunity? Journal of Alternative Investments, 20(3), 16.
Levulytė, L., & Šapkauskienė, A. (2021). Cryptocurrency in context of fiat money functions. The Quarterly Review of Economics and
Finance, 82, 44–54. [CrossRef]
Li, C., & Li, Y. (2023). Factors influencing public risk perception of emerging technologies: A meta-analysis. Sustainability, 15(5), 3939.
[CrossRef]
Liesa-Orús, M., Latorre-Cosculluela, C., Sierra-Sánchez, V., & Vázquez-Toledo, S. (2023). Links between ease of use, perceived
usefulness and attitudes towards technology in older people in university: A structural equation modelling approach. Education
and Information Technologies, 28(3), 2419–2436. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 19 of 21

Lisdorf, A. (2023). Searching for Satoshi. In Still searching for satoshi: Unveiling the blockchain revolution (pp. 65–77). Springer.
Little, R., & Rubin, D. B. (2014). Incomplete data. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Luo, M., & Yu, S. (2024). Financial reporting for cryptocurrency. Review of Accounting Studies, 29(2), 1707–1740. [CrossRef]
Maheta, D., & Mehta, M. (2024). Crypto dynamics: Analyzing the price interplay between bitcoin and ethereum. Educational
Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(5), 13747–13754.
Maleh, Y., Zhang, J., & Hansali, A. (2024). Advances in emerging financial technology and digital money. CRC Press.
Mansoor, M., Abbasi, A. Z., Abbasi, G. A., Ahmad, S., & Hwang, Y. (2024). Exploring the determinants affecting the usage of
blockchain-based remittance services: An empirical study on the banking sector. Behaviour & Information Technology, 43(10),
2176–2194.
Marella, V., Upreti, B., Merikivi, J., & Tuunainen, V. K. (2020). Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: The case of
Bitcoin. Electronic Markets, 30(2), 259–271. [CrossRef]
Mazambani, L. (2024). Determinants of public trust in digital money: The case of central bank digital currency (CBDC). Available at
SSRN. [CrossRef]
Mendoza-Tello, J. C., Mora, H., Pujol-López, F. A., & Lytras, M. D. (2019). Disruptive innovation of cryptocurrencies in consumer
acceptance and trust. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 17, 195–222. [CrossRef]
Miraz, M. H., Hasan, M. T., Rekabder, M. S., & Akhter, R. (2022). Trust, transaction transparency, volatility, facilitating condition,
performance expectancy towards cryptocurrency adoption through intention-to-use. Journal of Management Information and
Decision Sciences, 25, 1–20.
Mishra, N., Srivastava, P., Mahato, S., & Shivani, S. (2024). Use and acceptance of crypto currencies in India: An evaluation of block
chain application in financial sector using PLS SEM and ANN approach. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
41(8), 2027–2054.
Molina, E. M. (2023). Money, fictitious capital, and cryptocurrencies: Their impact on the world economy. In Value, money, profit, and
capital today (pp. 231–245). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Nadeem, M. A., Liu, Z., Pitafi, A. H., Younis, A., & Xu, Y. (2021). Investigating the adoption factors of cryptocurrencies—A case of
bitcoin: Empirical evidence from China. SAGE Open, 11(1), 2158244021998704. [CrossRef]
Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin. Available online: https://bitcoin.org/
bitcoin.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2025).
Namahoot, K. S., & Rattanawiboonsom, V. (2022). Integration of TAM model of consumers’ intention to adopt cryptocurrency platform
in Thailand: The mediating role of attitude and perceived risk. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2022(1), 9642998.
[CrossRef]
Nurbarani, B. S., & Soepriyanto, G. (2022). Determinants of investment decision in cryptocurrency: Evidence from Indonesian investors.
Universal Journal of Accounting and Finance, 10(1), 254–266. [CrossRef]
Olabanji, S. O., Oladoyinbo, T. O., Asonze, C. U., Adigwe, C. S., Okunleye, O. J., & Olaniyi, O. O. (2024). Leveraging fintech compliance
to mitigate cryptocurrency volatility for secure us employee retirement benefits: Bitcoin ETF case study. Asian Journal of Economics,
Business and Accounting, 24(4), 147–167. [CrossRef]
Ögel, S., & Ögel, İ. Y. (2021). The interaction between perceived risk, attitude, and Intention-to-Use: An empirical study on bitcoin as a
crypto currency. In New challenges for future sustainability and wellbeing (pp. 211–241). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Paiva, C. E., Barroso, E. M., Carneseca, E. C., de Pádua Souza, C., Dos Santos, F. T., Mendoza López, R. V., & Ribeiro Paiva, S. B. (2014).
A critical analysis of test-retest reliability in instrument validation studies of cancer patients under palliative care: A systematic
review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 1–10. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Panda, S. K., Sathya, A., & Das, S. (2023). Bitcoin: Beginning of the cryptocurrency era. In Recent advances in blockchain technology:
Real-world applications (pp. 25–58). Springer.
Pham, J., Ferdouse, L., & Sultana, A. (2024, December 4–6). Navigating cryptocurrency security: Insights into bitcoin and ponzi scheme
vulnerabilities. 2024 IEEE/ACIS 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and
Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD), Taichung, Taiwan.
Pillai, R., Preet, R., Sivathanu, B., & Rana, N. P. (2024). Assessing factors influencing intentions to use cryptocurrency payments in the
hospitality sector. Information Technology & People. ahead-of-print.
Podder, B. (2023). Cryptocurrency and central bank digital currency: An insight from the regulatory perspective. International Journal of
Financial Studies, Economics and Management, 2(3), 25–35. [CrossRef]
Potla, R. T. (2023). AI in fraud detection: Leveraging real-time machine learning for financial security. Journal of Artificial Intelligence
Research and Applications, 3(2), 534–549.
Qalati, S. A., Vela, E. G., Li, W., Dakhan, S. A., Hong Thuy, T. T., & Merani, S. H. (2021). Effects of perceived service quality, website
quality, and reputation on purchase intention: The mediating and moderating roles of trust and perceived risk in online shopping.
Cogent Business & Management, 8(1), 1869363.
Rahardja, U. (2023). The economic impact of cryptocurrencies in indonesia. ADI Journal on Recent Innovation, 4(2), 194–200. [CrossRef]
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 20 of 21

Rahardja, U., Chen, S.-C., Lin, Y.-C., Tsai, T.-C., Aini, Q., Khan, A., Oganda, F. P., Dewi, E. R., Cho, Y.-C., & Hsu, C.-H. (2023).
Evaluating the mediating mechanism of perceived trust and risk toward cryptocurrency: An empirical research. SAGE Open,
13(4), 21582440231217854. [CrossRef]
Romero-Rodríguez, J.-M., Ramírez-Montoya, M.-S., Buenestado-Fernández, M., & Lara-Lara, F. (2023). Use of ChatGPT at university as
a tool for complex thinking: Students’ perceived usefulness. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 12(2), 323–339.
[CrossRef]
Rubanov, P., Girzheva, O., Ivashko, L., & Britchenko, I. (2022). Cryptocurrency: Value formation factors and investment risks. Journal of
Information Technology Management, 14, 179–200.
Sachitra, V., & Rajapaksha, S. (2023). Antecedents of the adoption of cryptocurrency investment in an emerging market: The role of
behavioural bias. Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting, 23(20), 61–77. [CrossRef]
Sa’diyah, C., Widagdo, B., & Fitriasari, F. (2024). Cryptocurrency investment: Evidence of financial literacy, experience, and risk
tolerance. Investment Management & Financial Innovations, 21(3), 148.
Sagheer, N., Khan, K. I., Fahd, S., Mahmood, S., Rashid, T., & Jamil, H. (2022). Factors affecting adaptability of cryptocurrency: An
application of technology acceptance model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 903473. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Saif Almuraqab, N. A. (2020). Predicting determinants of the intention-to-use digital currency in the UAE: An empirical study. The
Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 86(3), e12125. [CrossRef]
Sandua, D. (2023). Cryptocurrencies and the future of the world economy. David Sandua.
Schomakers, E.-M., & Ziefle, M. (2023). Privacy vs. security: Trade-offs in the acceptance of smart technologies for aging-in-place.
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(5), 1043–1058. [CrossRef]
Sestino, A., Tuček, D., & Bresciani, S. (2024). The “dark side” and negative consequences of cryptocurrencies usage for unethical
purposes as barriers to invest in Middle East and African (MEA) countries. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development.
ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
Siqueira, A. C. O., Honig, B., Mariano, S., & Moraes, J. (2020). A commons strategy for promoting entrepreneurship and social
capital: Implications for community currencies, cryptocurrencies, and value exchange. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(4), 711–726.
[CrossRef]
Soomro, N. A., & Ghumro, N. H. (2024). Bitcoin Sentiment Index and Asset Classes Connectedness: An International Evidence.
Available at SSRN 4817777. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4817777 (accessed on 17
January 2025).
Sridharan, U., Mansour, F., Ray, L., & Huning, T. (2023). Effect of risk attitude on cryptocurrency adoption for compensation and
spending. Journal of Financial Economic Policy, 15(4/5), 337–350. [CrossRef]
Steinmetz, F., Von Meduna, M., Ante, L., & Fiedler, I. (2021). Ownership, uses and perceptions of cryptocurrency: Results from a
population survey. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121073. [CrossRef]
Subramanian, Y. R. (2021). Social-media influence on the investment decisions among the young adults in India. Advancement in
Management and Technology (AMT), 2(1), 17–26.
Sukumaran, S., Siew Bee, T., & Wasiuzzaman, S. (2023). Investment in cryptocurrencies: A study of its adoption among Malaysian
investors. Journal of Decision Systems, 32(4), 732–760. [CrossRef]
Ter Ji-Xi, J., Salamzadeh, Y., & Teoh, A. P. (2021). Behavioral intention-to-use cryptocurrency in Malaysia: An empirical study. The
Bottom Line, 34(2), 170–197. [CrossRef]
ur Rehman, M. H., Salah, K., Damiani, E., & Svetinovic, D. (2019). Trust in blockchain cryptocurrency ecosystem. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 67(4), 1196–1212. [CrossRef]
van der Linden, T., & Shirazi, T. (2023). Markets in crypto-assets regulation: Does it provide legal certainty and increase adoption of
crypto-assets? Financial Innovation, 9(1), 22. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ventre, I., & Kolbe, D. (2020). The impact of perceived usefulness of online reviews, trust and perceived risk on online purchase
intention in emerging markets: A Mexican perspective. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 32(4), 287–299. [CrossRef]
Vincent, O., & Evans, O. (2019). Can cryptocurrency, mobile phones, and internet herald sustainable financial sector development in
emerging markets? Journal of Transnational Management, 24(3), 259–279. [CrossRef]
Wang, K.-Y., Ashraf, A. R., Thongpapanl, N. T., & Nguyen, O. (2023). Influence of social augmented reality app usage on customer
relationships and continuance intention: The role of shared social experience. Journal of Business Research, 166, 114092. [CrossRef]
Wolske, K. S., Gillingham, K. T., & Schultz, P. W. (2020). Peer influence on household energy behaviours. Nature Energy, 5(3), 202–212.
[CrossRef]
Wongsunopparat, S., & Nanjun, Z. (2023). Study of factors influencing consumer to adopt cryptocurrency. Business Management and
Strategy, 14(2), 1. [CrossRef]
Yadav, A. S., Singh, N., & Kushwaha, D. S. (2023). Evolution of Blockchain and consensus mechanisms & its real-world applications.
Multimedia Tools and Applications, 82(22), 34363–34408.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2025, 18, 58 21 of 21

Yassin, A. (2023). Usage of cryptocurrencies as a financial instrument. International Journal of Cryptocurrency Research, 3(2), 45–56.
[CrossRef]
Zhang, Y., Wang, D., Mu, J., & Yang, Z. (2019, July 26–31). Effects of Transparency of service design on user attitude toward ‘exchanging
information for service’ [Proceedings, Part I 21]. HCI International 2019-Posters: 21st International Conference, HCII 2019, Orlando,
FL, USA.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.