mathematics

Article
An Exploratory Approach to the Adoption Process of Bitcoin by
Business Executives
Pedro Palos-Sanchez 1 , Jose Ramon Saura 2, * and Raquel Ayestaran 3

1 Department of Financial Economics and Operations Management, University of Seville, 41001 Seville, Spain;
ppalos@us.es
2 Department of Business Economics, Rey Juan Carlos University, 28032 Madrid, Spain
3 Faculty of Legal and Business Sciences, Francisco de Vitoria University, 28223 Madrid, Spain;
r.ayestaran@ufv.es
* Correspondence: joseramon.saura@urjc.es

Abstract: The purpose of this research study is to analyze the exploratory study of the adoption
of Bitcoin cryptocurrency based on blockchain technology and its use as a means of payment in
companies. This research is exploratory in nature. As such, an adoption model was investigated
using the technology acceptance model (TAM) which was extended with new variables. The sample
was made up of business executives from companies and commercial establishments (n = 248). Partial
least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was chosen as the analysis and evaluation
technique for the model. The authors demonstrated that privacy has an important influence on
perceived utility, and that trust has a very significant influence on privacy and perceived ease of use,
thus indirectly affecting the intention to use cryptocurrencies.

Keywords: Bitcoin; business executives; technology adoption; privacy







Citation: Palos-Sanchez, P.; Saura,

J.R.; Ayestaran, R. An Exploratory 1. Introduction
Approach to the Adoption Process of Blockchain is a new digital technology which could change the way industries and
Bitcoin by Business Executives.
organizations around the world are organized and structured [1]. Blockchain has prompted
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355. https://
many companies and organizations, as well as political powers, to rethink the marketing
doi.org/10.3390/math9040355
strategies and tactics for their products and services [2,3]. Blockchain technology came
about with the creation of the cryptocurrency known as Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency
Academic Editor: Manuel Alberto
based on a peer-to-peer payment system [4]. Although, in recent years, some publications
M. Ferreira
have addressed Bitcoin and blockchain as one in the same technology, the fact is that Bitcoin
Received: 30 December 2020
Accepted: 8 February 2021
is merely one application of the emerging digital technology known as blockchain [3,5–7].
Published: 10 February 2021
Blockchain is a technology that links neurons, or blocks, by means of coded blockchains
saved in permanent records [8,9]. These permanent records are tamper-proof [10,11]. In
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
other words, the data in blockchains are stored in a disperse peer-to-peer network using
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
what could be called the consensus rule among users to validate each of the transactions
published maps and institutional affil- by the different elements in the network [11]. Therefore, one of the main benefits of a
iations. blockchain system is that certain costs, such as financial services, can be eliminated as there
is no longer a central authority required when performing and validating the transactions.
Therefore, the blockchain algorithm allows information to be registered on multiple servers
or computers at the same time. This is contrary to how information is stored today on
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
the standard Internet system [12]. Consequently, blockchain makes it possible to increase
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
the privacy and security of transactions, as well as their veracity, and avoid fraudulent
This article is an open access article
actions; however, would these characteristics enough for business executives to use in their
distributed under the terms and companies Bitcoin [6]?
conditions of the Creative Commons This is the main reason why certain industries, especially the financial sector, have
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// had to rethink their organizational structures [13,14]. Some of the features that make
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ blockchain a strong emerging technology are related to its security, reliability, transparency,
4.0/). and capacity to track every transaction made with it [15].

Mathematics 2021, 9, 355. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9040355 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics

Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 2 of 22

Bitcoin was proposed as a cryptocurrency in 2008 because of the above features in a

paper by the disappeared Satoshi Nakamoto [16], whose whereabouts are still unknown.
The proposal was accepted and, in early 2009, Bitcoin software, or Bitcoin core, was created.
It was basically generated in blocks, each of which is now referred to as a block of a
blockchain, thus leading to the emergence of blockchain technology [16].
From this simple beginning, several studies suggested that Bitcoin could have a
major impact on the technology used by society, restructuring it once again as a cryptocur-
rency [17,18]. Bitcoin works with blockchain technology and could, therefore, change how
wealth is made around the world. It could have a significant social impact which research
must take into account when validating its acceptability.
In this regard, it should be noted that Bitcoin has broken the barriers to reach a
value over 40,000 USD. Although it is already under this value in January 2021, this
cryptocurrency is still an attractive investment for investors. Figure 1 shows the Bitcoin
value since April 2020 (X-axis) and the average value in dollars (Y-axis) as well as its
evolution over time.

Figure 1. Bitcoin price value from April 2020 to February 2021. Source: Adapted from DailyFX [19].

Even so, Bitcoins are still a safe bet as an exchange currency in e-commerce and
business, not only because of their electronic nature and potential privacy, but because
blockchain technology is the basis of their production and use [3,9].
The acceptance of Bitcoin cryptocurrency by Spanish business executives has, there-
fore, become an interesting area of study. It is important because Bitcoin can change how
companies organize their marketing and business development strategies. Businesses could
soon be facing a great change due to the use of Bitcoin and the related blockchain tech-
nology. The users who must decide whether to trust this new tendency are the managers
of companies.
Therefore, this study fills a research gap for information about the acceptance of
Bitcoin in company business by business executives. To study this phenomenon, previous
related research was found in the literature [18,20] and, finally, a widely used theoretical
adoption model, TAM (technology acceptance model) [21], was used. Four external vari-
ables previously used for payment methods and e-banking technologies were added to
this model. These variables were perceived security, privacy, risks, and trust.
Therefore, under this context, in order to understand the adoption of Bitcoin by
business executives, the present research study stablishes the following objectives:
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 3 of 22

• To explore the adoption of Bitcoin from a business perspective.

• To understand the role of perceived security, privacy, risks, and trust in the adoption
process of Bitcoin.
• To set a reasoned discussion on future research focused on the adoption of Bitcoin in
the business ecosystem.
• To understand the adoption process of Bitcoin in companies from the perspective of
business executive decision-making.
This paper is divided into five sections. Section 1 presents the theoretical back-
ground, reviewing the main theoretical contributions found in the scientific literature about
blockchain, cryptocurrencies, and electronic payment methods. Next, the conceptual frame-
work and hypothesis development are presented, followed by the questionnaire design
and data collection section, in which the methodology used in this research is described.
Subsequently, the results are analyzed, culminating with a discussion of the results and,
lastly, the conclusions are presented.

2. Theoretical Background
In recent years, numerous studies analyzed Bitcoin and its influence on different
sectors [18,22,23]. It is important to note that these studies were mainly interested in the
economic impacts of a possible standardization of cryptocurrency, or on trading it for
profit, even when its endurance over time is uncertain [19]. Furthermore, various studies
investigated the acceptance of cryptocurrency and why users decided to use it or trade
with it [20,24].
Technology acceptance has been widely studied over the years and, in the case of the
acceptance of blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, research has
been carried out that aimed to understand the adoption type or the adoption process in
different industries, sectors, and companies, or directly by individual users [20,23]. Table 1
lists some papers that discussed the adoption of Bitcoin technology as a cryptocurrency.

Table 1. Research on acceptance of Bitcoin as a cryptocurrency.

Authors Research
Proposed a technology acceptance model to measure the influence of
Francisco and
cryptocurrencies, analyzing the case of Bitcoin and its acceptance in the
Swanson [25]
retail sector.
In this research, the authors developed the unified theory of acceptance and
Francisco and use of technology (UTAUT) model to measure the influence of the variables
Swanson [25] on the technology acceptance of Bitcoin and transparency in the
cryptocurrency sector.
In this paper, an adoption model was developed to find the Bitcoin
Jonker [26] acceptance process in retail and its potential long-term influence on
this industry.
In their research, they presented a model for measuring user acceptance of
Presthus and
Bitcoin as a digital currency, establishing the reasons and obstacles that led
O’Malley [23]
users to stop using Bitcoin as a payment method.
Folkinshteyn and Discussed the technology acceptance of Bitcoin as a cryptocurrency in their
Lennon [20] research, mentioning the technology on which it is based, blockchain.

The research by Li and Wang [24] aimed to give an economic value to the technologies
which cryptocurrencies use, paying particular attention to Bitcoin, deeming it to be one of
the most sensitive currencies to economic changes due to its high volatility.
In turn, Cheah et al. [27] also studied a cross-market model in their research to find
Bitcoin prices from the track record of economic changes experienced over the years,
concluding that a negative factor for Bitcoin investment is user confidence due to the
high prices.
Glaser et al. [28] also carried out research on Bitcoin as a cryptocurrency in order to find
a sensible price to use in predictive modeling of the Bitcoin market and large-scale trading.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 4 of 22

Lastly, the research by Hayes [22], identified the factors that determine the validity of
information on cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin. In this study, a cross-sectional model is
proposed to find the financial patterns that give Bitcoin prices, as well as differences in the
marginal production costs.

3. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses Development

Various perspectives and models have been used to study technology adoption. One of
the most widespread models in technology adoption for payment methods and e-banking
is TAM (technology acceptance model) [21], which numerous researchers have applied to
related technologies such as cloud computing [29] (Palos-Sanchez et al., 2017) and mobile
banking [30,31].
Subsequently, TAM has evolved into other models, such as TAM2 [32] and extended
TAM. In this research, the original TAM model [21] had additional factors added to it which
resulted in an extended TAM model. This was also done in previous studies on blockchain
and cryptocurrencies [23,33,34].
The TAM model establishes causal relationships among the variables of perceived
usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU), attitude toward using (ATU), and intention
to use (IU), including the influence of attitude to using (ATU) and behavioral intention
to use (BIU) via perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) [35–37].
However, several studies proposed extending the original TAM model (Davis, 1989) [21]
by adding external variables in order to explore the effects of external factors on attitude
toward using and behavioral intention to use technology [38,39].
This has been found to be useful in research when studying the acceptance of different
technologies in different contexts and has proven to be a reliable tool [40,41].
TAM is probably one of the most widely cited models in the field of technology
acceptance [42] and has received substantial empirical support over the years [43].
In this research, the trust variable, defined as the confidence that users have in Bitcoin
technology, was used to complete the model [21,44]. ATU reflects favorable or unfavorable
feelings toward the use of a given technology [45]. In turn, the PU variable is defined as
the degree to which individuals believe that using a particular system improves perfor-
mance [21]. PEOU, meanwhile, refers to the degree to which an individual believes that the
use of a particular system is effortless [46]. The privacy variable refers to the users’ privacy
when using Bitcoin technology [20]. Risk is defined as the perceived risks taken when
using Bitcoin technology [18]. Lastly, perceived security refers to the security problems
which users believe they could have when using this technology [47,48].
In the research by Folkinshteyn and Lennon [20], variables that affect the acceptance of
Bitcoin technology were added, using the trust variable to measure the influence of privacy
on this cryptocurrency, which gives the importance of their analysis. Diniz et al. [18],
likewise, proposed a technology adoption model for bank managers in Brazil, in order
to find the degree to which Bitcoin had been adopted. The research emphasized the
importance of trust in the cryptocurrency, as well as the privacy felt when using it. On the
basis of this literature, the following hypothesis was proposed:

Hypothesis (H1). Trust influences privacy in the Bitcoin adoption process by Spanish executives.

Diniz et al. [18], researched the influence of trust on perceived usefulness, demonstrat-
ing the influence that this variable has on Bitcoin adoption. Folkinshteyn and Lennon [20]
also used these variables to create a Bitcoin adoption model [49]. The following hypothesis
was proposed on the basis of this research:

Hypothesis (H2). Trust influences perceived usefulness (PU) in the Bitcoin adoption process by
Spanish executives.

Diniz et al. [18] also measured the influence of the trust variable on perceived use-
fulness and on perceived ease of use of Bitcoin technology. Dauda and Lee [50] and
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 5 of 22

Folkinshteyn and Lennon [20] also studied the relationship and influence of trust on per-
ceived ease of use in their research. After taking these studies into account and reviewing
the literature, the following hypothesis was proposed:

Hypothesis (H3). Trust influences perceived ease of use (PEOU) in the Bitcoin adoption process
by Spanish executives.

The research by Dauda and Lee [50] showed how the adoption of cryptocurrencies can
influence consumer behavior. The influence of perceived risk and the aversion to risk that
electronic commerce users and consumers have when accepting Bitcoin technology were
investigated. Trust was directly linked to risk for the use of Bitcoin [51]. These two variables
are thought to be linked, due to aversion to risk and trust when using this cryptocurrency.
Folkinshteyn and Lennon [20] also emphasized the importance of risk and trust in a study
of Bitcoin technology adoption. From this literature review, the following hypothesis was
formulated:

Hypothesis (H4). Risk influences trust in the Bitcoin adoption process by Spanish executives.

The research by Urquhart [52], studied the acceptance of the Bitcoin economy, analyz-
ing price-related information and showing that the risks are directly linked to the perceived
usefulness of Bitcoin as a cryptocurrency. Likewise, Junadi and Fenrianto [48] once again
proposed a technology adoption and use model, the unified theory of acceptance and
use of technology (UTAUT), to measure the influence of risks on perceived usefulness in
the process of adoption and use of Bitcoins, placing special emphasis on virtual payment
methods. On the basis of this research, the following hypothesis was proposed:

Hypothesis (H5). Risk influences perceived usefulness (PU) in the Bitcoin adoption process by
Spanish executives.

Thong et al. [53] and Folkinshteyn and Lennon [20] constructed technology acceptance
models in their research and made the link between risks and perceived ease of use (PEOU)
for Bitcoin users [54]. From the research such as that mentioned above, the following
hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis (H6). Risk influences perceived ease of use (PEOU) in the Bitcoin adoption process by
Spanish executives.

Folkinshteyn and Lennon [20], showed the influence of the privacy afforded to con-
sumers who use Bitcoin and its influence on perceived ease of use and, therefore, acceptance
of Bitcoin. In addition, Lee [55] noted that this is one of the main reasons why Bitcoin and
the technology related to it could be used around the world [56]. From the literature, the
following hypothesis was proposed:

Hypothesis (H7). Privacy influences perceived ease of use (PEOU) in the Bitcoin adoption process
by Spanish executives.

Lee [55] and Folkinshteyn and Lennon [20] measured the influence of the privacy
variable on the perceived usefulness of Bitcoin, taking into account that privacy determines
the effect of users’ concerns about their data and the perceived ease of use of cryptocurrency.
Perceived usefulness reflects whether users perceive Bitcoin as useful regardless of whether
they understand its main functionalities [18].

Hypothesis (H8). Privacy influences perceived usefulness (PU) in the Bitcoin adoption process by
Spanish executives.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 6 of 22

Folkinshteyn and Lennon [20] and Urquhart [52] discussed the influence of PEOU
on PU, given that the TAM directly links the perceived usefulness of a technology to the
perceived ease of use of that technology, which could influence its acceptance and use. On
the basis of the research indicated, the following hypothesis was proposed:

Hypothesis (H9). Perceived ease of use (PEOU) influences perceived usefulness (PU) in the
Bitcoin adoption process by Spanish executives.

Folkinshteyn and Lennon [20] and Diniz et al. [18] analyzed the influence of PEOU on
ATU for the adoption of Bitcoin technology, taking into account that perceived usefulness
could predetermine the attitude toward using this technology among consumers or man-
agers with decision-making power. After analyzing the literature presented, the following
hypothesis was proposed:

Hypothesis (H10). Perceived ease of use (PEOU) influences attitude toward usage (ATU) in the
Bitcoin adoption process by Spanish executives.

Folkinshteyn and Lennon [20] and Diniz et al. [18] indicated in their research that the
attitude toward using Bitcoin could influence the use of the cryptocurrency and, therefore,
factors such as privacy, trust, or understanding why it is useful could influence the attitude
toward using and the use of Bitcoin. From the research indicated, the following hypothesis
was proposed:

Hypothesis (H11). Attitude toward using (ATU) influences intention to use in the Bitcoin
adoption process by Spanish executives.

Blundell-Wignall [57] and Bradbury [58] studied trust and perceived security of Bitcoin
users. In a Bitcoin acceptance model, Junadi and Fenrianto [48] used the perceived security
construct to analyze obstacles that Bitcoin users encounter for acceptance, which determine
their attitude toward use, giving rise to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis (H12). Perceived security influences attitude toward using (ATU) in the Bitcoin
adoption process by Spanish executives.

As stated before, Junadi and Fenrianto [48] created a model to find Bitcoin and
cryptocurrency use relationships with perceived security and the way consumers use
Bitcoin. Using the research stated, the following hypothesis was proposed:

Hypothesis (H13). Perceived security influences behavioral intention to use in the Bitcoin adoption
process by Spanish executives.

Presthus and O’Malley [23], Folkinshteyn and Lennon [20], and Junadi and Fen-
rianto [48] studied the link between the perceived usefulness of Bitcoin as a cryptocurrency
and the way it is used by consumers in different sectors. It was found that the use of
Bitcoin as a cryptocurrency depends on the perceived usefulness that users have before
using it, among other factors. Using the consulted literature, the following hypothesis was
formulated:

Hypothesis (H14). Perceived usefulness (PU) influences behavioral intention to use (BIU) in the
Bitcoin adoption process by Spanish executives.

As indicated above, the papers by Blundell-Wignall [57], Junadi and Fenrianto [48],
Lee [55], and Folkinshteyn and Lennon [20] all showed the importance of analyzing the
perceived usefulness of Bitcoin, as well as analyzing the target audience for the technology.
The influence of the attitude toward using Bitcoin as an emerging technology was studied
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 7 of 22

along with other constructs. From the literature presented, the following hypothesis was
proposed:

Hypothesis (H15). Perceived usefulness (PU) influences attitude toward usage (ATU) in the
Bitcoin adoption process by Spanish executives.

The proposed research model is shown in Figure 2 below. The main dependent
variable is outlined in bold to identify the main construct that might help us understand
how Spanish executives make use of Bitcoin cryptocurrency in their companies.

Figure 2. Proposed model.

4. Methodology
4.1. Questionnaire Design
The research technique chosen to gather the data was the questionnaire, which is
a quantitative technique. It enabled us to understand the perceptions and attitudes of
professionals to blockchain technology and, more specifically, Bitcoin. The questionnaire
contained 23 questions about attitudes and behaviors, along with five classification ques-
tions, namely, gender, age, job, residence, and education level. The questionnaire was
structured in three categories. The sections dealt with questions about the TAM model [35]
and how it relates to blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies [23,33,34], questions
about the respondents’ behavior, and their perceptions and attitudes toward the adoption
and use of Bitcoin (see Appendix A).
Another section contained 11 questions broken down into PU (3), PEOU (4), ATU
(2), and BIU (2). The scales for the TAM model variables were measured using adapted
items [35]. The elimination of some items from the model was due to the fact that the
values obtained did not have a sufficient level of validity and were, therefore, discarded.
The second section consisted of a block of questions about some details of cryptocurrencies
and blockchain technology. These questions were grouped into risks (2), trust (4), privacy
(4), and perceived security (2). The behavioral items for the use of blockchain technology
and cryptocurrencies as a payment method were adapted from studies on privacy [59–61],
perceived security [48], and risks [20,23,60,61].
There were a total of 29 items in the research questionnaire. Every item, except the
demographic profile, was assessed using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly
disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 8 of 22

4.2. Data Collection

The target population was estimated from the data published by Coinmap.org [62]
about the number of establishments and businesses that allow Bitcoin transactions. The
central region of the Iberian Peninsula can be seen in Figure 3, and Madrid stands out
for the businesses that have used transactions with Bitcoin cryptocurrency. Having se-
lected the scope of the study, the population was estimated. This estimate was made
from the geographic scope and the number of companies that allow their clients to pay
for products or services with Bitcoin. This study covered the region of Madrid, which
includes the Spanish capital city and the surrounding towns and cities. Coinmap.org [62]
gave information about the geographic location (see Figure 4) of the establishments. The
questionnaires were collected from February to April 2018, using a non-probabilistic conve-
nience sampling technique.

Figure 3. Spanish map of businesses which accept Bitcoin. Source: Coinmap.org.

Figure 4. Madrid region map of businesses which accept Bitcoin. Source: Coinmap.org.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 9 of 22

Although some of the businesses and retailers could not be found, other companies
were detected during the field survey because they advertised their acceptance of Bitcoin
payment. Finally, the population was n = 264, from which a sample of (n = 248) validated
questionnaires was obtained (See Figure 4).
The demographic characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 2. A total of 248
questionnaires were collected at different shopping centers and office buildings in the
region of Madrid, all of which were valid. Google Forms was used to create the online
survey, which was filled out directly at the point of sale or in the company’s offices
(see Table 2).

Table 2. Demographic Information (n = 248).

Classification Variable Frequency %

Male 88 35%
Gender
Female 160 65%
18–30 years old 64 26%
31–45 years old 78 31%
Age 46–55 years old 58 23%
56–65 years old 41 17%
>65 years old 7 3%
Salaried worker 15 6%
Middle manager 148 59.7%
Job Senior manager 61 24.6%
Self-employed 22 8.9%
Retired 2 0.8%
City with more than 100,000 inhabitants 138 56%
Residence Town with between 20,000 and
75 30%
100,000 inhabitants
Town with between 5000 and
35 14%
20,000 inhabitants
Primary school 2 0.8%
Secondary school 10 4%
Education
Job training 8 3%
University 228 92.2%

SPSS 24 statistical software was used to calculate the frequency and statistics tables
for the sample.
Structural equation models (SEMs) with variance were used to analyze the data
and test hypotheses, as this allowed us to statistically analyze a series of interrelated
dependency relationships between variables. Calculations were made using analysis theory
and indicator variables, which were measured with directly observable variables [63]. Of
the different SEM techniques available, the partial least squares (PLS) regression technique
was chosen for this study. PLS trajectory modeling is a complete SEM method for factorial
and composite models, which measures the constructions, estimates the structural models,
and performs fit tests on the models [64].
The PLS-SEM method is a statistical analysis technique based on the structural equa-
tion model and was chosen for its use since it is especially recommended for exploratory
research, because latent constructions can be measured with indicators [65]. PLS-SEM was
chosen because one of the main objectives of the present study was to test whether our
model (see Figure 1) was predictive or not [66–68]. Furthermore, PLS is more appropriate if
the aim of the study is to predict and investigate relatively new phenomena [67]. SmartPLS
3 software was used to carry out the calculations and analysis in this study [69].
The application of PLS is often suggested when there are a limited number of ob-
servations [70]. This approach was applicable in our case, due to the small sample size
(n = 248). To establish the minimum sample size for PLS modeling, Hair and others [71]
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 10 of 22

recommended the use of Cohen tables [72]. The effect sizes reflect the statistical power
of the research model. The effect size (f2 ) evaluates the degree to which an exogenous
latent variable contributes to the R2 value of an endogenous latent variable. F2 values of
0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 indicate a small, medium, and large effect size [73]. Cohen’s tables [74]
showed that a medium effect size (f2 = 0.15) with a power of 95.18% required a minimum
of 107 questionnaires. Therefore, this research has adequate statistical power.
Another reason for choosing the PLS-SEM was that the topic under study is com-
paratively new and the methodology has not yet been consolidated. Furthermore, an ex-
ploratory method was adopted [68] for which this data analysis method is highly suggested.

5. Results
5.1. Measurement Test Model
The measurement model or internal model was tested by measuring the individual
reliability of each item, the internal consistency or reliability of each scale or construct, the
convergent validity, and the discriminant validity.
As can be seen in the last column of the table in Appendix A, the individual reliability
of the load (λ) of the item was calculated (see loading factor). The minimum acceptance
level was λ ≥ 0.707 [75], and items PU4 and PU5 were disregarded because they did not
reach this minimum value.
The measurement model test included internal reliability, convergent validity, and
discriminant validity. Internal reliability was found using the value of Cronbach’s alpha,
where a value of 0.70 indicates acceptable internal reliability [76]. Loaded indicators and
composite reliabilities were used to analyze causality [77].
As all the Cronbach’s alpha values were higher than 0.7; thus, all the constructs were
confirmed to show internal reliability [68,78,79]. Fornell and Larker [80] suggested using
the average variance extracted (AVE) to assess convergent validity. They recommended a
value of average variance extracted or AVE ≥ 0.50 as acceptable.
Table 3 shows the constructs, element loads, Cronbach’s alpha, and AVE. Cronbach’s
alpha values ranged from 0.915 to 0.816, which are higher than the recommended level of
0.70, thus rendering them indicators of strong internal reliability. The composite reliability
values were between 0.959 and 0.847 and the AVE ranged from 0.679 to 0.844, which are
higher than the recommended levels. Therefore, the conditions for convergent validity
were met.

Table 3. Measurement model. Cronbach’s alpha, rho_A, composite reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE).

ATU PS PEOU PU PR R T BIU

Attitude toward using (ATU) 0.897
Perceived security (PS) 0.423 0.919
Perceived ease of use (PEOU) 0.573 0.311 0.788
Perceived usefulness (PU) 0.566 0.250 0.698 0.872
Privacy (PR) 0.655 0.292 0.626 0.767 0.824
Risks (R) 0.212 0.462 0.300 0.235 0.192 0.857
Trust (T) 0.639 0.315 0.736 0.694 0.753 0.231 0.852
Behavioral intention to use (BIU) 0.597 0.297 0.786 0.713 0.646 0.162 0.797 0.960

The discriminant validity was calculated using the square root of the AVE (see Table 4).
The square root of the AVE of a construct must be greater than the correlation with another
construct for discriminant validity to be deemed satisfactory [80]. Several items were dis-
carded during the cross-loading test because they loaded more heavily on other constructs
than on their own (see Appendix A).
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 11 of 22

Table 4. Discriminant validity.

Cronbach’s Composite
Construct rho_A AVE
Alpha Reliability
Attitude toward using (ATU) 0.757 0.761 0.891 0.804
Perceived security (PS) 0.816 0.819 0.916 0.844
Perceived ease of use (PEOU) 0.796 0.805 0.867 0.621
Perceived usefulness (PU) 0.842 0.843 0.905 0.760
Privacy (PR) 0.842 0.844 0.894 0.679
Risks (R) 0.708 0.737 0.847 0.734
Trust (T) 0.873 0.885 0.914 0.726
Behavioral intention to use (BIU) 0.915 0.917 0.959 0.922

5.2. Structural Test Model

In the next phase, the proposed model was meticulously analyzed. The structural
model was formulated so as to find the supported relationships between the constructs in
this study model. In this model, the hypotheses and the relationships between the different
constructs were tested to find out whether the relationships created in the original model
were supported [67,73,81,82]. The variance is explained by the amount of variance shown
by the reflective indicators given by the constructs [83,84]. This is found by calculating the
values of R2 or the basic measurement of the quantity of variance for the construct that
is described by the proposed model. The bootstrap approach was applied to check the
hypotheses. The specified results (path coefficient (β and t statistics)) are synthesized in
Table 5 and Figure 4.

Table 5. Hypothesis results: path coefficients and statistical significance.

β (Path
Hypothesis t Statistic p-Value Support
Coefficient)
H1: Trust → Privacy 0.753 20.467 0.000 Yes ***
H2: Trust → PU 0.068 0.758 0.449 N.S.
H3: Trust → PEOU 0.585 6.748 0.000 Yes ***
H4: Risks → Trust 0.231 2.319 0.020 Yes *
H5: Risks → PU 0.025 0.368 0.713 N.S.
H6: Risks → PEOU 0.134 2.054 0.040 Yes *
H7: Privacy → PEOU 0.160 1.620 0.105 N.S.
H8: Privacy → PU 0.510 6.455 0.000 Yes ***
H9: PEOU → PU 0.322 3.180 0.001 Yes ***
H10: PEOU → ATU 0.489 6.332 0.000 Yes ***
H11: ATU → BIU 0.265 3.204 0.001 Yes ***
H12: Perceived Security → ATU 0.271 2.961 0.003 Yes ***
H13: Perceived Security → BIU 0.048 0.711 0.477 N.S.
H14: PU → BIU 0.551 7.001 0.000 Yes ***
H15: PU → ATU 0.318 3.174 0.002 Yes ***
Notes: For n = 5000 subsamples, based on Student’s t-distribution (499) of a queue: * p < 0.05 (t(0.05; 499) =
1.64791345); *** p < 0.001 (t(0.001;499) = 3.106644601); N.S.—not supported.

The standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) value [85,86] determines the

value of the observed correlation matrix and the implicit correlation matrix for the model,
so that the approximate fit indexes of the model can be found [64,87]. The SRMR value
indicates the average value of any deviation; a smaller SRMR denotes a finer adjustment.
In this study, SRMR = 0.078, which falls within the requirement for a suitable adjustment,
i.e., SRMR < 0.08 [85].
The values of R2 (see Table 6 and Figure 4) in the literature suggest that [88]
0.67 = “substantial”, 0.33 = “moderate”, and 0.19 = “weak” variability. The value calculated
for the main variable of the model, i.e., behavioral intention to use (BIU), was R2 = 56.5%.
This shows that the model is moderately applicable for Bitcoin adoption.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 12 of 22

Table 6. Results of R2 and Q2 .

Construct Q2 R2 (%)
Attitude toward using (ATU) 0.299 39.5
Perceived ease of use (PEOU) 0.320 57.0
Perceived usefulness (PU) 0.459 66.9
Privacy (PR) 0.351 56.7
Trust (T) 0.028 5.40
Behavioral intention to use (BIU) 0.466 56.5

Using a blindfolding procedure, part of the data for a certain construct were omitted
during parameter estimation, and then an attempt was made to estimate what had been
omitted using the other parameters [88]. Thus, the model’s predictive relevance was studied
using the Stone–Geisser (Q2 ) test [89,90], revealing that the model has predictive capacity.
As shown in Table 6, all endogenous constructions met Q2 > 0. Furthermore, Stone–
Geisser’s Q2 values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 suggest poor, middle, and severe predictive
relevance [91] and, consequently, the constructs had a low predictive relevance, since the
Q2 values were higher than 0.02 (trust). The other constructs had values of 0.35, except for
ATU (Q2 = 0.299). Thus, the proposed research model had high predictive power for the
explanation of BIU for the Bitcoin cryptocurrency using blockchain technology.

5.3. Mediaton Effect

Six simple mediation effects were found in the model (see Figure 4). Each of these
effects was analyzed, and the results can be seen in detail in Table 7. Several methods
exist for testing the indirect effects; however, bias-corrected bootstrap testing using per-
centile calculations was chosen as the most reliable test because power is of the utmost
importance [92].
The process can be seen with the mediating effect 1 in Figure 4. It shows that the
causal effect of the risk variable can be divided into an indirect effect on perceived ease of
use M (a × b) and a direct effect on trust (path c’), which is risk × perceived ease of use
(PEOU) with trust mediation. The confidence intervals (CI) can be seen in Table 7, where a
value of 0 means that the mediation is not considered significant. The result was significant,
and the total effect of risk on perceived ease of use = c, where c = c’ + path loading or β
risk × β PEOU. Risk was significant (β = 0.134, t = 2.054) with a confidence level of 95%.
The first step was to test the mediating hypothesis (distributed in six mediations) to
define the level of importance of the indirect effects (ai × bi). For mediations 2 and 6, c’
(trust × perceived usefulness; perceived security × behavioral intention to use) produced
nonsignificant values and were considered complete or total mediations. For the remaining
mediations (1, 3, 4, and 5), c’ was found to be significant and partial [93]. The partial
mediations were found to be the complementary type, where a × b and c’ are in the
identical direction (positive in this study), and the competitive type, where a × b and c’
have distinct directions (one positive and one negative, or vice versa). As final result, all the
effects of mediation, a × b and c’, were positive [93] (Roldan and Cepeda, 2017). Therefore,
the effects are complementary.
The indirect effect (a × b) is significant if its interval does not contain the value zero.
In this study, the effect was fulfilled in all mediations, except for the effect of mediation
5. Table 7 shows the most relevant values obtained for the sub-model of the structural
model in which the mediation hypotheses are found (see Figure 5). The result obtained for
mediation 1 is explained in detail, while the rest of the results are summarized in Table 7.
The table indicates that, for mediation 1, risk × perceived ease of use, (c’= 0.134 *) is
compatible. The values obtained show that also supported are the influence of risk × trust
(a = 0.231 *) and trust × perceived ease of use (b = 0.585 ***). This means that, for the
area of risks, the perceived ease of use decreased when trust was included (a × b = 0.136).
In addition, significant paths were found for a and b, which means that the significant
increase in the direct state (c’) due to regression coefficients (a and b) suggested a probable
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 13 of 22

indirect effect of perceived ease of use in the partial relation between both constructs with
trust as the mediating variable.
Nevertheless, the most important condition for the implicit effect is to find the impor-
tance of a × b = path for risk × trust with respect to the path of trust × perceived ease of
use [94]. Taking this into account, we obtained results for this indirect effect (a × b = 0.136;
see Table 7) with SmartPLS.
This indirect effect was significant, since the confidence interval (CI) did not contain 0,
which confirms the effect of mediation 1. All results were obtained on the condition that
both the direct effect c’ and the indirect effects, a × b and c’, follow the identical positive
direction [93].

Table 7. Mediating effects. CI—confidence interval; VAF—variance accounted for.

CI (2.5%) CI (97.5%) Mediating Effects

Mediation Effect 1 Path Coefficient (β)
Lower Upper (VAF)
a: Risks→ Trust 0.231 0.036 0.412 50.31%
b: Trust → Perceived Ease of Use 0.585 0.415 0.754
c: Risks → Perceived Ease of Use 0.134 0.003 0.255 * Partial
a × b: Indirect effects 0.136 0.022 0.255
Mediation Effect 2
a: Trust → Perceived Ease of Use 0.585 0.425 0.759 72.28%
b: Perceived Ease of Use → Perceived
0.321 0.125 0.515
Usefulness
c: Trust → Perceived Usefulness 0.072 −0.103 0.243 Not supported
a × b: Indirect effects 0.188 0.0729 0.322 Not supported
Mediation Effect 3
a: Perceived Ease of Use → Perceived
0.321 0.125 0.515 27.14%
Usefulness
b: Perceived Usefulness → Attitude toward
0.318 0.107 0.496
usage
c: Perceived Ease of Use → Attitude toward
0.274 0.072 0.497 ***
usage
a × b: Indirect effects 0.102 0.013 0.255 Partial
Mediation Effect 4
a: Perceived Usefulness → Attitude toward
0.318 0.107 0.496 13.09% →
usage
b: Attitude toward usage → Behavioral
0.261 0.102 0.434 Not supported
Intention to use
c: Perceived Usefulness → Behavioral
0.551 0.384 0.700 ***
Intention to use
a × b: Indirect effects 0.083 0.011 0.215 Not supported
Mediation Effect 5
a: Privacy → Perceived Ease of Use 0.160 −0.038 0.340 9.18% →
b: Perceived Ease of Use → Perceived
0.321 0.125 0.515 Not supported
Usefulness
c: Privacy → Perceived Usefulness 0.508 0.348 0.650 ***
a * b: Indirect effects 0.051 −0.005 0.175 Not supported
Mediation Effect 6
a: Perceived Security → Attitude toward
0.254 0.086 0.426 59.56%
usage
b: Attitude toward usage → Behavioral
0.261 0.102 0.434
Intention to use
c: Perceived Security → Behavioral Intention
0.045 −0.085 0.177 Not supported
to use
a * b: Indirect effects 0.066 0.009 0.185 Not supported
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 14 of 22

Figure 5. Mediation hypotheses. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001; N.S.—not supported.

In accordance with Hair et al. [71], decision-making cannot be based on the importance
of just one of the indicators. Consequently, criteria must be established after taking into
account the part that mediation has on the total effect of the independent variable on
the dependent variable (VAF = variation accounted for). The levels used in this study
were as follows: VAF > 80%, complete mediation; 20% ≤ VAF ≤ 80%, partial mediation;
VAF < 20%, no mediation [71].
The value obtained for the effect of mediation 1 was VAF = 0.503. This shows that
there was partial mediation of 50.31% [71]. The results for the remaining effects are
presented in the last column of Table 7, where it can be observed that there were partial
effects in mediations 1 and 3, which can be seen in the relationships of perceived ease of
use × perceived usefulness, perceived usefulness × attitude toward use, and perceived
ease of use × attitude toward use. The perceived usefulness variable mediated attitude
toward use by 27.14% (see Figure 6).
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 15 of 22

Figure 6. Mediation hypotheses.

Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 16 of 22

6. Discussion
The adoption of Bitcoin cryptocurrency using blockchain technology as a means of
payment in companies and shopping centers was studied in this paper. The key factors
for the constructs in the model were proposed and then tested. In order to do this, a TAM
(technology acceptance model) adoption model was extended with new variables to find
the influence of risks, trust, privacy, and perceived security.
The results for the first three hypotheses with trust found that hypothesis H1 had
the highest t-value of all the studied hypotheses (β = 0.753, t = 20.467). The hypotheses
for the external variables of the original TAM model were all supported with the same
degree of confidence (99.9%). Therefore, trust did not show a significant influence on
perceived usefulness (β = 0.068; t = 0.758), meaning that H2 was not supported. However,
trust positively influenced perceived ease of use (β = 0.585, t = 6.748), thus supporting
H3. Therefore, trust influenced the perception of privacy and ease of use with a high level
of significance. These are characteristics which business executives and entrepreneurs
in the commerce sector want. This shows that the expansion of cryptocurrency will be
conditioned by the trust generated by the applications that manage Bitcoin transactions.
The perception of privacy will increase only when users truly trust Bitcoin.
The other external variable, risk, was found to have significant influence (95%) on trust
(β = 0.231; t = 2.319), which means that H4 was supported. Risk did not positively influence
PU (β = 0.025; t = 0.368); thus, H5 was not supported. Risk did, however, positively
influence perceived usefulness (β = 0.134; t = 2.054). These two results allowed hypotheses
H4 and H6 to be supported with a confidence level of 95%. This shows that the risks are not
extremely important, given the statistical values. There does not seem to be any perception
of risk in terms of the usefulness of the cryptocurrency, but the risks involved due to the
confidence that cryptocurrency can generate in the market are taken into account. The risks
due to the ease of use of the applications that manage cryptocurrency transactions are also
considered by managers and businessmen.
The privacy variable showed different behavior in H7 and H8. On the one hand, H7
was not supported because the relationship between privacy and PEOU did not reach the
minimum necessary statistical significance (β = 0.160; t = 1.620). On the other hand, H8
was supported, given that privacy did indeed influence PU (β = 0.510; t = 6.455) with a
confidence level of 99.9%, reaching the third-level path coefficient in the model, after H1
(trust × privacy) (β = 0.753; t = 20.467) and H3 (trust × PEOU) (β = 0.585; t = 6.748).
Regarding the TAM model hypothesis, Table 5 shows that PEOU was positively
associated with PU (β = 0.322, t = 3.180) and with ATU (β = 0.489, t = 6.332); therefore, H9
and H10 were compatible with the proposed model.
The results of the single linear regression from ATU to Bitcoin and BIU confirmed that
the attitude toward using was positively associated with behavioral intention to use for
Bitcoin (β = 0.265; t = 3.204). This means that H11 was supported.
The TAM model constructs that influenced behavioral intention to use, such as per-
ceived usefulness (PU) (β = 0.551; t = 7.001), all had a significant influence on the intention
to use. Therefore, H14 was supported for the proposed model with a confidence level
of 99.9%.
Likewise, another of the relationships in the TAM model, “perceived usefulness
positively influences attitude toward using”, H15, was confirmed and was compatible with
the proposed model (β = 0.318; t = 3.174) with a high level of confidence (99.9%).
The values obtained also indicated that our research model can explain 67.3% of the
variance in the behavioral intention to use variable for Bitcoin (R2 for behavioral intention
to use (BIU) = 56.5%). This explanatory capacity indicated that the model is sufficiently
capable of explaining acceptance by executives and entrepreneurs in the commerce sector
in Spain. Therefore, the result of the extension of TAM in our research is now able to
explain the acceptance of Bitcoin and the evolution of cryptography in Spain.
It may follow a similar path to other information systems in Spain, such as the imple-
mentation and use of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERPs) in companies [95–104], applica-
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 17 of 22

tions for electronic commerce [105], file scanning systems [106], bank management using the
Internet [107], consumer electronics applications [108], or e-learning platforms [109–112].
The acceptance of all these information systems has been explained with extended TAM.
The model also has a predictive capacity (Q2 > 0 for the endogenous constructs), indicating
that the factors in this model may be crucial in the evolution of Bitcoin and similar future
cryptocurrencies in Spain.
Another external variable for the proposed TAM model was perceived security. This
construct was related to ATU (β = 0.271; t = 2.961) and H12 was, thus, supported with 99.9%
significance. In addition, it was also related to behavioral intention to use, but the relation-
ship between the two was not supported (β = 0.048; t = 0.711). This result is important
because it shows that perceived security influenced attitude toward use but did not directly
influence behavioral intention to use. Therefore, in the future, it will be important when
designing communication campaigns that improve the attitude of business executives and
entrepreneurs to the economic security of Bitcoin cryptocurrency transactions.

7. Conclusions
This manuscript studied the effect of this new form of digital money on the intention
to use it by the managers of the companies and shops in the study. Knowledge about
the factors that condition Bitcoin use is important for the expansion of cryptocurrencies.
The most important thing is to get companies to accept Bitcoin as a means of payment
because this will condition its expansion. The conclusions obtained in this study will help
developers and designers build decentralized systems and applications for peer-to-peer
transactions and implement sustainable business models using this cryptocurrency. It will
also help with the implementation of communication campaigns for Bitcoin because it
found the factors that condition Bitcoin acceptance by company executives in Spain.
The use of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology is still limited. The data found
show that, in one of the most prosperous regions of Spain and of Europe, where gross
domestic product (GDP) rates are high, acceptance of cryptocurrency as a payment method
is still low. This research indicates that trust and privacy are crucial when it comes to
explaining acceptance of the cryptocurrency by companies. On the one hand, PU is affected
by privacy and PEOU is affected by trust and by risks to a lesser degree. This result will
be very important in future communication campaigns, as it indicates that, while privacy
is the main variable that improves PU, trust for the ease of use of Bitcoin transactions
applications is equally important. However, trust exerted a notable influence on privacy
and business executives and entrepreneurs identified privacy as an important factor for
cryptocurrency use.
Trust was also found to be a moderating variable in the risks × perceived ease of use
relationship, which means that trust affects the perception of the risks of using Bitcoin from
the exclusive point of view of ease of use of cryptocurrency transactions.
The risks of the use of cryptocurrency represent, to a lesser degree than the aforemen-
tioned factors, a positive factor that improves trust, thus influencing PEOU and, indirectly,
ATU and PU. Given that the moderate predictive power of the final model has been shown,
the lack of regulations for cryptocurrency use seems to be a clear driving factor. In other
words, users feel it is worth taking the risk when compared to being controlled by countries
and governments. This conclusion is a far stretch from the basic ethical standards for
citizens; however, perhaps strong fiscal pressure, a lack of awareness about the usefulness
of paying taxes, corruption by the authorities, or other factors could explain these findings.
One of the most interesting conclusions is the high trust given to Bitcoin. This means
that the use of cryptocurrencies will change a lot in coming years because governments will
have to regulate their use. However, this is no easy challenge, considering the cryptographic
foundations of blockchain technology. Perceived security helps improve the attitude that
companies have toward blockchain technology and this proven fact will promote a positive
view of Bitcoin use in other sectors of Spanish society, so that they will not just be seen as
tools for speculation.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 18 of 22

One of the findings showed that companies prefer to be paid with Bitcoin rather
than with other payment methods that involve intermediaries. This could mean that
cryptocurrencies might make credit cards and bank documents disappear as payment
methods. Thus, one of the most important conclusions of this study is the need for
companies, especially businesses and shops, to be prepared to receive payment in Bitcoin,
and for financial institutions to also be ready to offer their customers services which
include cryptocurrency [20,49,58] (Blundell-Wignall, 2014; Junadi and Fenrianto, 2015;
Folkinshteyn and Lennon, 2016).
This study was limited because it took into account companies with significant in-
come. Furthermore, business executives and entrepreneurs from the commerce sector were
surveyed; hence, the study was strongly influenced by this sector. Future studies could
cover different economic sectors, which are not as economically developed.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.P.-S. and J.R.S.; methodology, P.P.-S.; software, P.P.-S.;
validation, J.R.S., and P.P.-S.; formal analysis, P.P.-S. and J.R.S.; resources, R.A.; writing—original draft
preparation, P.P.-S. and J.R.S.; writing—review and editing, P.P.-S. and J.R.S.; visualization, P.P.-S. and
J.R.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Survey questions and factor loading.

Construct Name Item Code Survey Questions Factor Loading

ATU1 I like the idea of using Bitcoin 0.882
Attitude [21,113–115]
ATU2 I think using Bitcoin is highly advisable 0.911
BIU1 I use Bitcoin because it benefits the organization where I work 0.958
Behavioral intention to
I will recommend using Bitcoin to by clients, friends,
use [21,113] BIU2 0.962
and acquaintances
PEOU1 My interaction with Bitcoin is clear and understandable 0.832
PEOU2 Interacting with Bitcoin does not require a lot of mental effort 0.778
Perceived ease of use
PEOU3 I find buying or selling Bitcoin easy 0.816
[21,31,113]
I can buy Bitcoins with euros or other currencies and vice versa,
PEOU4 0.720
just like any currency
I think it is very useful that it does not belong to a
PU1 0.870
single country
PU2 Using Bitcoin is faster 0.852
Perceived usefulness
The fact that Bitcoin can be used worldwide in the same way
[21,31,113] PU3 0.892
is useful
PU4 Paying with Bitcoin is tax-free *
PU5 Using Bitcoin is cheaper *
Transactions take place directly from person to person, and I
P1 0.844
think it is good that there are no intermediaries
It is not necessary to reveal your identity when doing business
P2 0.812
and you preserve your privacy
Privacy [59–61]
Decentralization and the fact that no country controls it
P3 0.862
guarantee that my investment is private
The money belongs entirely to you, meaning it cannot be seized
P4 0.777
by anyone, nor can accounts be frozen
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 19 of 22

Table A1. Cont.

Construct Name Item Code Survey Questions Factor Loading

T1 I feel safe using Bitcoin 0.895
T2 The decentralization of Bitcoin makes it a safe currency 0.911
Trust [48] Forgery and duplication are impossible thanks to a
T3 0.785
sophisticated cryptographic system
T4 Transactions are irreversible 0.812
R1 The regulation of Bitcoin is certain 0.850
Risks
R2 It is feasible as the currency of the future 0.863
PS1 Money is safe in transactions with the Bitcoin cryptogram 0.925
Perceived Security The digital format capacity is sufficient for high volume
PS2 0.913
transfers
* Items that did not pass the discriminant validity test.

References
1. Gil-Cordero, E.; Cabrera-Sánchez, J.P.; Arrás-Cortés, M.J. Cryptocurrencies as a Financial Tool: Acceptance Factors. Mathematics
2020, 8, 1974. [CrossRef]
2. Liébana-Cabanillas, F.; Sánchez-Fernández, J.; Munoz-Leiva, F. Antecedents of the adoption of the new mobile payment systems:
The moderating effect of age. Comp. Human Behav. 2014, 35, 464–478. [CrossRef]
3. Yaya, O.S.; Ogbonna, E.A.; Mudida, R. Market Efficiency and Volatility Persistence of Cryptocurrency during Pre-and Post-Crash
Periods of Bitcoin: Evidence based on Fractional Integration. Int. J. Finance Econ. 2019. [CrossRef]
4. Urquhart, A.M. What Causes the Attention of Bitcoin? SSRN Electr. J. 2018. [CrossRef]
5. Trautman, L.J. Virtual Currencies; Bitcoin & What Now after Liberty Reserve, Silk Road, and Mt. Gox? Richmond J. Law Technol.
2014, 20, 1–108.
6. Gangwal, S.; Longin, F. Extreme movements in Bitcoin prices: A study based on extreme value theory. Work. Paper Ser. 2018,
8, 1–17.
7. Corbet, S.; Lucey, B.; Yarovaya, L. Datestamping the Bitcoin and Ethereum bubbles. Finance Res. Lett. 2018, 26, 81–88. [CrossRef]
8. Burchert, C.; Decker, C.; Wattenhofer, R. Scalable funding of Bitcoin micropayment channel networks. Royal Soc. Open Sci. 2018,
5, 180089. [CrossRef]
9. Eyal, I.; Sirer, E.G. Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable. Commun. ACM 2018, 61, 95–102. [CrossRef]
10. Simser, J. Bitcoin and modern alchemy: In code we trust. J. Financ. Crime 2015, 22, 156–169. [CrossRef]
11. Saberi, S.; Kouhizadeh, M.; Sarkis, J.; Shen, L. Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management.
Int. J. Product. Res. 2018, 1–19. [CrossRef]
12. Saura, J.R.; Palos-Sanchez, P.; Velicia-Martin, F. What Drives Volunteers to Accept a Digital Platform That Supports NGO Projects?
Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 429. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Albuquerque, J.P.; Diniz, E.H.; Cernev, A.K. Mobile payments: A scoping study of the literature and issues for future research.
Inform. Dev. 2014. [CrossRef]
14. Kamble, S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Arha, H. Understanding the Blockchain technology adoption in supply chains-Indian context. Int. J.
Prod. Res. 2018, 1–25. [CrossRef]
15. Chen, Y. Blockchain tokens and the potential democratization of entrepreneurship and innovation. Bus. Horiz. 2018. [CrossRef]
16. Satoshi, N. Bitcoin: A Peer-To-Peer Electronic Cash System. 2008. Available online: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (accessed on
25 January 2021).
17. Roca, J.C.; Chiu, C.-M.; Martínez, F.J. Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the Technology Acceptance
Model. Int. J. Human-Comp. Stud. 2006, 64, 683–696. [CrossRef]
18. Diniz, E.H.; Cernev, A.K.; Nascimento, E. Mobile social money: An exploratory study of the views of managers of community
banks. Rev. Administr. 2016, 51, 299–309. [CrossRef]
19. DailyFX. Bitcoin Price (BTC/USD): BTC Live Chart, News & Analysis. 2021. Available online: https://www.dailyfx.com/bitcoin
(accessed on 22 January 2021).
20. Folkinshteyn, D.; Lennon, M. Braving Bitcoin: A technology acceptance model (TAM) analysis. J. Inform. Technol. Case Applicat.
Res. 2016, 18, 220–249. [CrossRef]
21. Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 1989, 13,
319–340. [CrossRef]
22. Hayes, A. Cryptocurrency Value Formation: An Empirical Analysis Leading to a Cost of Production Model for Valuing Bitcoin.
SSRN Electr. J. 2015. [CrossRef]
23. Presthus, W.; O’Malley, N.O. Motivations and Barriers for End-User Adoption of Bitcoin as Digital Currency. Proc. Comp. Sci.
2017, 121, 89–97. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 20 of 22

24. Li, X.; Wang, C.A. The technology and economic determinants of cryptocurrency exchange rates: The case of Bitcoin. Decis.
Support. Syst. 2017, 95, 49–60. [CrossRef]
25. Francisco, K.; Swanson, D. The Supply Chain Has No Clothes: Technology Adoption of Blockchain for Supply Chain Transparency.
Logistics 2018, 2, 2. [CrossRef]
26. Jonker, N. What Drives Bitcoin Adoption by Retailers. SSRN Electr. J. 2018. [CrossRef]
27. Cheah, E.; Mishra, T.; Parhi, M.; Zhang, Z. Long Memory Interdependency and Inefficiency in Bitcoin Markets. Econ. Lett. 2018,
167, 18–25. [CrossRef]
28. Glaser, F.; Zimmermann, K.; Haferkorn, M.; Weber, M.; Siering, M. Bitcoin asset or currency? Revealing users hidden intentions.
In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv, Israel, 9–11 June 2014.
29. Palos-Sanchez, P.R.; Arenas-Marquez, F.J.; Aguayo-Camacho, M. Cloud Computing (SaaS) Adoption as a Strategic Technology:
Results of an Empirical Study. Mobile Inform. Syst. 2017, 1–20. [CrossRef]
30. Sharma, S.K. Integrating cognitive antecedents into TAM to explain mobile banking behavioral intention: A SEM-neural network
modeling. Inform. Syst. Front. 2017, 1–13. [CrossRef]
31. Gumussoy, C.A.; Kaya, A.; Ozlu, E. Determinants of mobile banking use: An extended TAM with perceived risk, mobility access,
compatibility, perceived self-efficacy and subjective Norms. In Industrial Engineering in the Industry 4.0 Era; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2018; pp. 225–238.
32. Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci.
2000, 46, 186–204. [CrossRef]
33. Baur, A.W.; Bühler, J.; Bick, M.; Bonorden, C.S. Cryptocurrencies as a Disruption? Empirical Findings on User Adoption
and Future Potential of Bitcoin and Co. In Proceedings of the Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society, Delft, The
Netherlands, 13–15 October 2015; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 63–80.
34. Abramova, S.; Böhme, R. Perceived Benefit and Risk as Multidimensional Determinants of Bitcoin Use: A Quantitative Exploratory
Study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Dublin, Ireland, 11–14 December 2016; pp. 1–20.
[CrossRef]
35. Davis, F.D. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results; Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986.
36. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Towarda unified view. MIS
Quart. 2003, 27, 425–478. [CrossRef]
37. Venkatesh, V.; Ramesh, V. Web and wireless site usability: Understanding differences and modeling use. MIS Quart. 2006, 30,
181–206. [CrossRef]
38. Fathema, N.; Shannon, D.; Ross, M. Expanding the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to examine faculty use of Learning
Management Systems (LMS). J. Online Learn. Teach. 2015, 11, 210–233.
39. Fathema, N.; Ross, M.; Witte, M. Student acceptance of university web portals: A quantitative study. Int. J. Web Portals 2014, 6,
42–58. [CrossRef]
40. Marangunić, N.; Granić, A. Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Univ. Access Inform. Soc. 2014,
14, 81–95. [CrossRef]
41. Turner, M.; Kitchenham, B.; Brereton, P.; Charters, S.; Budgen, D. Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A
systematic literature review. Inform. Softw. Technol. 2010, 52, 463–479. [CrossRef]
42. Wu, P.F. User Acceptance of Emergency Alert Technology: A Case Study. In Proceedings of the 6th International ISCRAM
Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 10–13 May 2009.
43. Taherdoost, H. A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and theories. Proc. Manuf. 2018, 22, 960–967. [CrossRef]
44. Palos-Sanchez, P.; Saura, J.R.; Martin-Velicia, F. A study of the effects of Programmatic Advertising on users’ Concerns about
Privacy overtime. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 96, 61–72. [CrossRef]
45. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G. Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology
acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quart. 2000, 24, 115–139. [CrossRef]
46. Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.Y.; Xu, X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quart. 2012, 36, 157–178. [CrossRef]
47. Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models.
Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [CrossRef]
48. Junadi, S.; Fenrianto, J. A Model of Factors Influencing Consumers Intention to Use E-payment System in Indonesia. Proc. Comp.
Sci. 2015, 59, 214–220. [CrossRef]
49. Pavlou, P.A. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. Int.
J. Electron. Comm. 2003, 7, 101–134.
50. Dauda, S.Y.; Lee, J. Technology adoption: A conjoint analysis of consumers? preference on future online banking services. Inform.
Syst. 2015, 53, 1–15. [CrossRef]
51. Moore, T.; Christin, N. Beware the middleman: Empirical analysis of bitcoin-exchange risk. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security 2013, Okinawa, Japan, 1–5 April 2013.
52. Urquhart, A. Price clustering in Bitcoin. Econ. Lett. 2017, 159, 145–148. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 21 of 22

53. Thong, J.Y.; Venkatesh, V.; Xu, X.; Hong, S.-J.; Tam, K.Y. Consumer acceptance of personal information and communication
technology services. MIS Quart. 2011, 58, 613–625. [CrossRef]
54. Vijayasarathy, L.R. Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: The case for an augmented technology acceptance
model. Inform. Manag. 2004, 41, 747–762. [CrossRef]
55. Lee, L. New Kids on the Blockchain: How Bitcoin’s technology could reinvent the stock market. Hastings Bus. Law J. 2015, 12,
81–132. [CrossRef]
56. Kaplanov, N. Nerdy money: Bitcoin, the private digital currency, and the case against its regulation. Loy Consum. L Rev. 2012,
25, 111. [CrossRef]
57. Blundell-Wignall, A. The Bitcoin question: Currency versus trust-less transfer technology. OECD Work. Papers Finance Insur.
Private Pens. 2014, 1. [CrossRef]
58. Bradbury, D. The problem with Bitcoin. Comp. Fraud Secur. 2013, 2013, 5–8. [CrossRef]
59. Malhotra, N.K.; Kim, S.S.; Agarwal, J. Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal
model. Inform. Syst. Res. 2004, 15, 336–355. [CrossRef]
60. Saura, J.R. Using Data Sciences in Digital Marketing: Framework, Methods, and Performance Metrics. J. Innovat. Knowl. 2020, 1.
[CrossRef]
61. Reyes-Menendez, A.; Saura, J.R.; Stephen, B.T. Exploring Key Indicators of Social Identity in the #MeToo Era: Using Discourse
Analysis in UGC. Int. J. Inform. Manag. 2020, 54, 102129. [CrossRef]
62. Coinmap.org. Available online: http://coinmap.org/#/map/40.29838133/-2.97454834/9 (accessed on 23 October 2017).
63. Sarstedt, M.; Joseph, F.; Hair, C.M.; Ringle, K.O.T.; Gudergan, S.P. Estimation Issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the Bias Lies! J.
Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 3998–4010. [CrossRef]
64. Henseler, J.; Hubona, G.; Ray, P.A. PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data Syst.
2016, 116, 2–20. [CrossRef]
65. Son, J.Y.; Benbasat, I. Organizational buyers’ adoption and use of B2B electronic marketplaces: Efficiency-and legitimacy-oriented
perspectives. J. Manag. Inform. Syst. 2007, 24, 55–99. [CrossRef]
66. Fornell, C.; Cha, J. Partial Least Squares. Adv. Methods Mark. Res. 1994, 407, 52–78.
67. Chin, W.W.; Newsted, P.R. Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. Stat. Strat. Small
Sample Res. 1999, 1, 307–341.
68. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [CrossRef]
69. Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.B.M. SmartPLS 3; SmartPLS GmbH: Boenningstedt, Germany, 2015.
70. Reinartz, W.; Haenlein, M.; Henseler, J. An Empirical Comparison of the Efficacy of Covariance-Based and Variance-Based SEM.
Int. J. Res. Mark. 2009, 26, 332–344. [CrossRef]
71. Hair, F.J., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.G.; Kuppelwieser, V. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An
emerging tool in business research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2014, 26, 106–121. [CrossRef]
72. Muller, K.; Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Technometrics 1989, 31, 499. [CrossRef]
73. 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]
74. Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 155–519. [CrossRef]
75. Carmines, G.E.; Zeller, R.A. Reliability and Validity Assessment; Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 2008.
76. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle
River, NJ, USA, 2006; Volume 6.
77. Werts, C.E.; Linn, R.L.; Jöreskog, K.G. Intraclass reliability estimates: Testing structural assumptions. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1974,
34, 25–33. [CrossRef]
78. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [CrossRef]
79. Nunnally, J. Psychometric Methods; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978.
80. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res.
1981, 39–50. [CrossRef]
81. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In Advances in
International Marketing; Sinkovics, R.R., Ghauri, P.N., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bradford, UK, 2009; pp. 277–319.
[CrossRef]
82. Henseler, J. Why generalized structured component analysis is not universally preferable to structural equation modeling. J. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 402–413. [CrossRef]
83. Chin, W. How to write up and report PLS analyses. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications;
Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2010.
84. Barclay, D.; Higgins, C.; Thompson, R. The Partial Least Squares (PLS) A roach to Causal Modelling: Personal Computer Adoption
and Use as an Illustration. Technol. Stud. 1995, 2, 285–309.
85. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification.
Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424. [CrossRef]
86. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Struct. Eq. Model. Multidiscipl. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2021, 9, 355 22 of 22

87. Henseler, J. Bridging Design and Behavioral Research With Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling. J. Advertis. 2017, 46,
178–192. [CrossRef]
88. Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods Bus. Res. 1998, 295, 295–336.
89. Stone, M. Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J. Royal Stat. Soc. 1974. [CrossRef]
90. Geisser, S. A Predictive Approach to the Random Effects Model. Biometrika 1974, 61, 101–107. [CrossRef]
91. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988.
92. Hayes, A.F.; Scharkow, M. The Relative Trustworthiness of Inferential Tests of the Indirect Effect in Statistical Mediation Analysis.
Psychol. Sci. 2013, 24, 1918–1927. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
93. Carrión, G.C.; Nitzl, C.; Roldán, J.L. Mediation Analyses in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling: Guidelines and
Empirical Examples. Part. Least Sq. Path Model. 2017, 173–195. [CrossRef]
94. Hernández-Perlines, F.; Moreno-García, J.; Yañez-Araque, B. The Mediating Role of Competitive Strategy in International
Entrepreneurial Orientation. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 5383–5389. [CrossRef]
95. Lang, A.; Bradley, J.; Lee, S. The Motivation Activation Measure (MAM): How Well Does MAM Predict Individual Differences in
Physiological Indicators of Appetitive and Aversive Activation? Comm. Methods Meas. 2007, 1, 113–136. [CrossRef]
96. Bueno, S.; Salmeron, J.L. TAM-Based Success Modeling in ERP. Interact. Comp. 2008, 20, 515–523. [CrossRef]
97. Calisir, F.; Gumussoy, C.A.; Bayram, A. Predicting the Behavioral Intention to Use Enterprise Resource Planning Systems. Manag.
Res. News 2009, 32, 597–613. [CrossRef]
98. Kwahk, K.Y.; Lee, J. The Role of Readiness for Change in ERP Implementation: Theoretical Bases and Empirical Validation.
Inform. Manag. 2008, 45, 474–481. [CrossRef]
99. Lee, S.; Park, G.; Yoon, B.; Park, J. Open Innovation in SMEs—An Intermediated Network Model. Res. Policy 2010, 39, 290–300.
[CrossRef]
100. Shivers-Blackwell, S.; Atira, L.; Charles, C. Ready, Set, Go: Examining Student Readiness to Use ERP Technology. J. Manag. Dev.
2006, 25, 795–805. [CrossRef]
101. Sternad, S.; Bobek, S. Impacts of TAM-Based External Factors on ERP Acceptance. Proc. Technol. 2013, 9, 33–42. [CrossRef]
102. Sun, D.-L.; Chen, Z.; Ma, N.; Zhang, X.; Fu, X.; Zhang, D. Decision-Making and Prepotent Response Inhibition Functions in
Excessive Internet Users. CNS Spectrums 2009, 14, 75–81. [CrossRef]
103. Uzoka, F.-M.; Alice, E.; Shemi, P.; Seleka, G. Behavioral Influences on E-Commerce Adoption in a Developing Country Context.
Electr. J. Inform. Syst. Dev. Countries 2007, 31, 1–15. [CrossRef]
104. Youngberg, E.; Olsen, D.; Hauser, K. Determinants of Professionally Autonomous End User Acceptance in an Enterprise Resource
Planning System Environment. Int. J. Inform. Manag. 2009, 29, 138–144. [CrossRef]
105. Agrebi, S.; Jallais, J. Explain the Intention to Use Smartphones for Mobile Shopping. J. Retail. Cons. Serv. 2015, 22, 16–23.
[CrossRef]
106. Saura, J.R.; Rodriguez Herráez, B.; Reyes-Menendez, A. Comparing a traditional approach for financial Brand Communication
Analysis with a Big Data Analytics technique. IEEE Access 2019, 7. [CrossRef]
107. Yoon, S.H.L.; Steege, M.B. Development of a Quantitative Model of the Impact of Customers’ Personality and Perceptions on
Internet Banking Use. Comp. Human Behav. 2013, 29, 1133–1141. [CrossRef]
108. Palos-Sánchez, P.; Saura, J.R.; Álvarez-García, J. Innovation and creativity in the mobile applications industry: A case study of
mobile health applications (e-Health Apps). In Cultural and Creative Industries; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 121–135.
109. Rocío Sánchez, A.; Hueros, A.M.D. Plataformas Virtuales de Aprendizaje: Análisis Desde Su Adaptación a Estilos de Aprendizaje.
Rev. Venez. Gerenc. 2019. [CrossRef]
110. Ronnie, C.; Vogel, D. Predicting User Acceptance of Collaborative Technologies: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance
Model for e-Learning. Comp. Educ. 2013, 63, 160–175. [CrossRef]
111. Young, L.D.; Mark; Lehto, R. User Acceptance of YouTube for Procedural Learning: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance
Model. Comp. Educ. 2013, 61, 193–208. [CrossRef]
112. Shengcai, L.; Hu, Y.; Zhu, X.; Stan, L.Z. Person Re-Identification by Local Maximal Occurrence Representation and Metric
Learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Boston, MA, USA, 7–12
June 2015. [CrossRef]
113. Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int. J.
Man-Mach. Stud. 1993, 38, 475–487. [CrossRef]
114. Agarwal, R.; Prasad, J. Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decis. Sci. 1999,
30, 361–391. [CrossRef]
115. Heijden, H. Factors influencing the usage of websites: The case of a generic portal in The Netherlands. Inform. Manag. 2003, 40,
541–549. [CrossRef]