The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 26 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin
Open accessAbstract
Contemporary cryptocurrencies lack legal, monetary, and institutional backing that traditional financial services employ. Instead, cryptocurrencies provide trust through technology. Despite the plethora of research in both trust and cryptocurrencies, the underlying attributes of the technologies that drive trust in cryptocurrencies are not well understood. To uncover these attributes, we analyze the corpus of 1.97 million discussion posts related to Bitcoin, the oldest and most widely used cryptocurrency. Based on earlier research, we identified functionality, reliability, and helpfulness as the focal constructs with which to evaluate users’ trust in technology. In our analysis, we discovered 11 different attributes related to three technology constructs that are significant in creating and maintaining users’ trust in Bitcoin. The findings are discussed in detail in the article.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Analyzes 1.97 million Bitcointalk discussion posts using doc2vec to identify technology attributes that create trust in Bitcoin. It finds 11 attributes across functionality, reliability, and helpfulness, with transfers, immutability, and openness semantically closest to trust.
Key findings
- The analysis identified 11 trust-related attributes: functionality (transfer, decentralization, immutability, openness), reliability (stability, regulation, security, knowledge), and helpfulness (investment, profits, alternative currency).
- Trust was semantically closest to transfers, immutability, and openness; immutability and openness are described as unique blockchain attributes that create accountability and transparency.
- Example similarity scores reported include transfer [0.64], decentralization [0.65], immutability [0.54], openness [0.54], stability [0.63], regulation [0.63], knowledge [0.61], investment [0.66], profits [0.59], and alternative currency [0.58].
- Users often viewed Bitcoin as an investment or alternative currency, while volatility, security of wallets/exchanges, regulation, and knowledge were linked to reliability.
Methods
- Data: scraped Bitcointalk.org general discussions covering legal, press release, meetups, and important announcements; corpus of close to 1.97 million posts written between March 1, 2012, and September 21, 2018.
- Text modeling: used doc2vec (Le and Mikolov 2014) via Python Gensim; trained three variants and selected paragraph vector with distributed bag of words (PV-DBOW) with document and word vectors trained together. Parameters: vector size 300, context window 10, minimum word frequency 5, epochs 50.
- Analysis: extracted top 50 posts per keyword representing functionality, reliability, and helpfulness; read and analyzed 850 posts to identify attributes; computed pairwise cosine similarities and visualized a semantic proximity network.
Limitations
- Stated: the forum includes both actual Bitcoin users and non-users, so identified trust attributes are not exclusively based on users with real experience; the authors also lack information on members’ technical skills or understanding, so findings reflect varying interest, experience, and technical knowledge.
- Evident from the text: reliance on a single online forum and semantic similarity from discussion posts, rather than survey or behavioral measures, limits generalizability and causal claims about trust.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
24 Not checked yet · 21 No basis given · 12 Own result · 10 Own interpretation · 9 Own method
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many users felt that transferring Bitcoins is much easier and quicker than transferring fiat money.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings suggest that coin transfers, immutability, openness, and decentralization are the functional attributes of Bitcoin, responsible for creating trust among the users.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The technology trust model with constructs functionality, reliability, and helpfulness is applicable to trust in cryptocurrencies.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our analysis, we discovered 11 different attributes related to three technology constructs that are significant in creating and maintaining users' trust in Bitcoin.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“We read through and analyzed these 850 posts and found eleven attributes relating to the three constructs functionality, reliability, and helpfulness.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The BitcoinTalk forum discussions are representative of the broader Bitcoin community's trust-related discourse.
- Rests on an assumption: The keywords derived from the literature adequately represent the constructs functionality, reliability, and helpfulness in the cryptocurrency context.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with users expressing concerns about volatility in its value.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results showed that paragraph vector with a distributed bag of words with documents and words trained together performed better in comparison to other models, making it our preferred choice.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Text modelling
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“many users agreed that it was a great investment tool to earn profits in the short term.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The figure shows that the use of word "Trust", in the context of Bitcoin discussion, is semantically closer to attributes like transfer, immutable, and openness.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion and conclusion · plain
“Among these 11 attributes, trust is semantically close to transfers, immutability, and openness, of which immutability and openness are the unique attributes of the c r y p t o c u r r e n c i e s u s i n g b l o c k c h a i n t e c h n o l o g y.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The doc2vec paragraph vector model produces semantic representations that meaningfully capture trust-related attributes in forum posts.
- Rests on an assumption: Semantic similarity between word vectors corresponds to conceptual proximity relevant to trust.
- Also stated in: § Discussion and conclusion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They believed that the stability in the value of Bitcoin would make it more reliable.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We identified 11 attributes that impact the trust in cryptocurrencies.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Discussion and conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The doc2vec paragraph vector model produces semantic representations that meaningfully capture trust-related attributes in forum posts.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Bitcoin turned out to be an alternative currency for people living in countries with volatile fiat currency.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 18
- Probably not a substantial claim. 40
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of reliability, we found that attributes such as stability, regulation, security, and knowledge of Bitcoin would make it a reliable technology.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The decentralized structure, openness, and immutability are the unique attributes of the blockchain technology and are major attributes contributing to trust creation among Bitcoin users.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The other attributes that are semantically close to trust are ledger immutability and openness -the former securing safe and fair transactions and the latter making the transaction information accessible to the public.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Discussion and conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The doc2vec paragraph vector model produces semantic representations that meaningfully capture trust-related attributes in forum posts.
- Rests on an assumption: Semantic similarity between word vectors corresponds to conceptual proximity relevant to trust.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, the network graph also shows some interesting grouping of attributes like technical aspects of the blockchain (openness, immutability, and security), financial (alternative currency, profitability, investment, transfer, and regulation), and information systems and other important requisite (knowledge, regulation, decentralization).”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The doc2vec paragraph vector model produces semantic representations that meaningfully capture trust-related attributes in forum posts.
- Rests on an assumption: Semantic similarity between word vectors corresponds to conceptual proximity relevant to trust.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“many users believed that regulations would make Bitcoin more reliable and, thus, would convince many others to use it.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They understood the situation better and were able to make a better investment decision to gain bigger profits.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, discussion data do not condition the study or experiment that is being conducted; rather, they are naturally generated by the users.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Data collection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Trust is a dynamic concept that develops over time (Luna-Reyes et al. 2004).”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Trust in technology
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Luna-Reyes et al. 2004
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We trained our models with 50 iterations, well above the practice of 10 iterations.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Text modelling
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Immutability in Bitcoin means the transaction histories recorded on Bitcoin blockchain cannot be manipulated, deleted, or revised (Low and Teo 2017).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion and conclusion · plain
“Immutability means that the transaction history provided on Bitcoin ledger cannot be manipulated, revised, or deleted by anyone.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Low and Teo 2017 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § Discussion and conclusion · plain
In the paper
“First, they have no central authority, and, hence, they are claimed to be immune to government interference and manipulation.This makes them a viable alternative, especially in countries with volatile currencies and unstable economies (Scott 2016).”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Scott 2016 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After training models, we manually evaluated the word and document similarity in randomly selected 20 words.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Text modelling
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While benevolence, integrity, and ability are the trust constructs related to humans, these characters would translate into helpfulness, reliability, and functionality when it comes to trusting the attributes of the technology.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Trust in technology
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The use of cryptographic techniques increases the users' trust in cryptocurrencies, whereas traditional financial services benefit from institutional trust.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Second, cryptocurrencies are typically pseudonymous, meaning that users are identified by their public key address (a 32-bit string with a combination of characters and numbers) rather than their name and social security.Consequently, this makes cryptocurrencies an easy tool for money laundering, tax evasion, and illegal trade in drugs and weapons (Brezo and Bringas 2012).”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brezo and Bringas 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“First, they are not institutionally or legislatively backed; while this cuts down transaction costs, it also makes cryptocurrencies unpredictable, volatile, and risky (Brezo and Bringas 2012).”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brezo and Bringas 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given that the post could be of varying length, we considered the context window size of 10 to be a reasonable choice.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Text modelling
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the attributes linked to these trust constructs are context-dependent, which is because the uncertainty that technology creates for users depends on these user's goals.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Trust in technology
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, if technology resembles the qualities of humans, then people trust technology.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Trust in technology
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Among various online discussion forums, "Bitcointalk.org" is one of the oldest and most popular online forums, and it has a large user base.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Data collection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, compared to other data sources mentioned in Table 3, online discussion platforms serve as a good alternative to source data, as discussions, interactions, opinions, and the flow of information can be accessed on an unprecedented scale.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Data collection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This allows us to infer the technological attributes related to trust in Bitcoin from the users' own words and statements, which were used to address their concerns or share information within the Bitcoin community.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Data collection
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cryptocurrencies rely on three technological elements: blockchain, cryptocurrency wallets, and exchange platforms.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Underlying technology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Bitcoin is often criticized for its volatility (Bouoiyour and Selmi 2006)”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bouoiyour and Selmi 2006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While trust in technology excludes moral volition, as technology has typically left moral conduct and decision-making to its users, this seems to hold especially true when technologies, such as blockchain or other automated technologies like autonomous vehicles, eliminate the necessity of having a human intervention in the process.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Trust in technology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The current literature on trust beliefs in technology employs two different sets of trust constructs.The first set consists of human-like trust constructs, such as benevolence, integrity, and ability.The second set of constructs are systemlike constructs, such as helpfulness, reliability, and functionality (Lankton et al. 2014).”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Trust in technology
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lankton et al. 2014
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Mcknight et al. (2011) divide the trust in technology construct into three concepts: a) propensity to trust general technology, b) institution-based trust in technology, c) trust in a specific technology.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Trust in technology
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mcknight et al. 2011
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Based on earlier research, we identified functionality, reliability, and helpfulness as the focal constructs with which to evaluate users' trust in technology.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“We then adopt a theoretical framework, which links trust in technology to three constructs: functionality, helpfulness, and reliability (Lankton et al. 2014).”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lankton et al. 2014
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
In the paper
“In terms of empirical evidence, we focus on Bitcoin, as it is the most popular and most widely used cryptocurrency (Lindman et al. 2017).”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lindman et al. 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this context, discussion forums have played a crucial role in the growth of Bitcoin, as users engage in the discussion and interaction to share knowledge and information.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Data collection
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since these vectors are learned from data exclusive to Bitcoin discussions using several context windows with the given words, we deemed it as a suitable method to extract relevant posts.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Text modelling
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“McKnight et al. (2011), for example, note that besides building trust in other actors (e.g., sellers and buyers) and agents (e.g., operators and intermediaries), users tend to also trust (or not to trust) technology.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Trust in technology
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McKnight et al. 2011
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Moreover, the use of technologies creating the cryptocurrency transactions must come with low risk and uncertainty, just like any other financial transactions (Li et al. 2008).”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Li et al. 2008
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We acknowledge that the membership of the forum includes both the actual Bitcoin users as well as non-users.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Discussion and conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Secondly, we do not have information on the forum members' technical skills or understanding about the blockchain technology.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Discussion and conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, we demonstrated the usefulness and functionality of large-scale data from the Bitcoin community combined with state-of-the-art textual analysis as a research methodology in studying the attributes that generate trust in technology.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Discussion and conclusion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The doc2vec paragraph vector model produces semantic representations that meaningfully capture trust-related attributes in forum posts.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, we believe that our results can be generalized beyond cryptocurrencies to other blockchain-based applications.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Discussion and conclusion
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The technology trust model with constructs functionality, reliability, and helpfulness is applicable to trust in cryptocurrencies.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accordingly, our findings reflect the views and opinions of people with different levels of interest and experiences with cryptocurrencies in general and Bitcoin in specific; and with different levels of technical skills and knowledge.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Discussion and conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“During the first half of 2018, cryptocurrencies worth 1.1 billion dollars were lost in cyber-attacks (Rooney 2018).”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rooney 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since cryptocurrencies could become an alternative method for international money transfers, many commercial banks are looking into launching their own cryptocurrencies.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Discussion and conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These are attributes afforded by technologies, such as blockchain that can create trust among the participants of business transactions by offering high degree of transparecy and accountability through an open and immutable ledger.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Discussion and conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“According to the legal experts (Kaplanov 2012), Bitcoin would flourish under legal regulation.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kaplanov 2012
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When technology provides high enough level of transparency and accountability, it eliminates the necessity of a trusted central authority to govern the system.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Discussion and conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Openness creates transparency, while immutability creates accountability.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Discussion and conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, could make international transfers much easier, with lower transaction fees than those charged by traditional commercial banks (Bamert et al. 2013).”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Discussion and conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bamert et al. 2013
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Transparency is considered as the key element in trust creation (Grimmelikhuijsen et al. 2012).”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Discussion and conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Grimmelikhuijsen et al. 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The acceptance of Bitcoin as a payment system is yet to evolve completely (Pollock 2018).”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pollock 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The degree of transparency and accountability offered by Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies is unparalleled to that of any traditional financial institution.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Discussion and conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, the trust attributes of technology that we identified from the textual analysis were not exclusively based on the opinions of actual users with real experience with Bitcoin.”
§ Understanding the creation of trust in cryptocurrencies: the case of Bitcoin > Discussion and conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
Trust is crucial to financial transactions and payments.
“Trust is crucial to financial transactions and payments.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Bitcoin and all other cryptocurrencies are yet to obtain legal status as an investment option in many countries.
“Third, Bitcoin and all other cryptocurrencies are yet to obtain legal status as an investment option in many countries.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The value of cryptocurrencies is extremely volatile.
“Finally, the value of cryptocurrencies is extremely volatile for a wide variety of reasons, including cyber-attacks on cryptocurrency wallets (i.e., software that stores private and public keys needed to send and receive cryptocurrency), and exchanges (i.e., online intermediaries that help buy, sell, or exchange cryptocurrencies for other currencies).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The BitcoinTalk forum discussions are representative of the broader Bitcoin community's trust-related discourse.
“We base our analysis on the Bitcoin-related discussion posts collected from BitcoinTalk forum for two important reasons.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The keywords derived from the literature adequately represent the constructs functionality, reliability, and helpfulness in the cryptocurrency context.
“To search for the constructs, we listed the keywords representing functionality, reliability, and helpfulness in the context of blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies, from the literature.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Bitcoin is the oldest and the most widely used cryptocurrency in the market.
“we decided to focus on Bitcoin, because it is the oldest and the most widely used cryptocurrency in the market.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The technology trust model with constructs functionality, reliability, and helpfulness is applicable to trust in cryptocurrencies.
“we employed the technology trust model proposed by Lankton et al. (2014) and focused on three distinct trust constructs: functionality, reliability, and helpfulness.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The doc2vec paragraph vector model produces semantic representations that meaningfully capture trust-related attributes in forum posts.
“The analysis drew on a paragraph vector model termed doc2vec (Le and Mikolov 2014), which produces a semantical representation of words and posts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Semantic similarity between word vectors corresponds to conceptual proximity relevant to trust.
“we can use these vectors to compute semantic similarities.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Although cost-and time-saving opportunities have triggered a widespread implementation of AI-based systems and services in electronic markets, trust persists to play a pivotal role in any buyer-seller relationship (Bauer et al. 2019;Marella et al. 2020).”
From Trustworthy artificial intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as Marella et al. 2020
Citations
Cites
Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1301.3781 · Cited by 26,568
Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality
Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1310.4546 · Cited by 24,533
Distributed Representations of Sentences and DocumentsPreprint
Le, Q. V., & Mikolov, T. (2014) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1405.4053 · Cited by 7,905
Affect and Cognition Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations
McAllister, D. J. (1995) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256727 · Cited by 7,346
An Overview of Blockchain Technology: Architecture, Consensus, and Future Trends
Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H., Chen, X., & Wang, H. (2017) · 2017 IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress) · doi:10.1109/bigdatacongress.2017.85 · Cited by 4,515
Software Framework for Topic Modelling with Large Corpora
Rek, R. R. U., & Sojka, P. (2010) · doi:10.13140/2.1.2393.1847 · Cited by 3,789
Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research
Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. (1996) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781452243610 · Cited by 3,005
Building Effective Online Marketplaces with Institution-Based Trust
Pavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2004) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1040.0015 · Cited by 2,516
Consumer Reactions to Electronic Shopping on the World Wide Web
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Todd, P. (1996) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10864415.1996.11518283 · Cited by 1,635
Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259290 · Cited by 1,296
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Berke, A. (2017). How safe are Blockchains? It Depends. Harvard Business School Press.
- Davidson, J., & Naveed, M. (2013). The Digital Coin Revolution-Crypto Currency-How to Make Money Online. (E. B. Series, Ed.) (1st ed.). JD-Bix Publishing.
- Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Teigland, R. (2017). Trust in digital environments: from the sharing economy to decentralized autonomous organizations. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (2017), 5812–5816.
- Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Ingetrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management, 20(3), 709–734.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–102 of 102
From Influence to Gatekeeping: How Social Media Influencers Shape Bitcoin Adoption IntentionPreprint
Ge, Y., & Wang, H. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7451463
Geebren, A. (2026) · Financial Innovation · doi:10.1186/s40854-026-00926-9
Metadata
- Authors
- Marella, V., Upreti, B., Merikivi, J., & Tuunainen, V. K.
- Affiliations
- Aalto University (FI)
- Grenoble Ecole de Management (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Marella, Venkata
- Venue
- Electronic Markets
- Published
- 2020-01-09
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 259-271
- ISSN
- 1019-6781 (ISSN-L)
- 1422-8890
- OpenAlex
- W2999582630
- Semantic Scholar
- 29f6635a84ef3863b0ea9d5b4687a607ba90e13f
- Cited by
- 96
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 11.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Electronic Markets (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Aaltodoc (Aalto University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Aalto University
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Keywords
- trust in technology, cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, user trust, technology attributes, functionality, reliability, helpfulness
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
