pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.10631 · v1 · pith:QHYTPNG6new · submitted 2026-06-09 · 💰 econ.GN · cs.CR· q-fin.EC

From Transactions to Records: Reconceptualizing Blockchain Systems through a Lifecycle Lens

Tom Barbereau , Ruggero Montalto , Christian Beyer This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 11:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💰 econ.GN cs.CRq-fin.EC
keywords blockchainrecords managementlifecycledistributed ledgercrypto-assetsBitcoinnon-fungible tokenscrypto-crime
0
0 comments X

The pith

Blockchain systems function as record management systems with a seven-stage data lifecycle.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper maps blockchain transactions to records, crypto-asset units to information assets, and blockchains to aggregations in order to apply standard records-management principles. This produces a seven-stage lifecycle that covers creation, publicity, retention, and disposal of the data. A reader would care because the view moves analysis beyond visible transactions to the full span of data handling, which directly affects how privacy tools and off-chain elements limit visibility in investigations.

Core claim

Setting off by specifying the parallels—that is transactions as records, crypto-asset units as information assets, and blockchains as aggregations—we introduce a seven-stage lifecycle for blockchain data. We apply the framework to Bitcoin, a fungible token, and a non-fungible token. On this basis, we argue that blockchain systems are not merely transactional infrastructures but record management systems with distinctive characteristics.

What carries the argument

The seven-stage lifecycle for blockchain data obtained by applying ISO 15489-1:2016 records management principles to the mapped blockchain elements.

If this is right

  • Existing research can be positioned according to the lifecycle stage it addresses.
  • Legal, regulatory, technological, and operational challenges can be decomposed and addressed stage by stage.
  • Governance, analytics, and regulation can shift toward lifecycle-aware designs.
  • On-chain/off-chain boundaries and privacy-enhancing technologies reduce lifecycle visibility and complicate crypto-crime research.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same mapping could be tested on permissioned ledgers or layer-2 systems to check whether the seven stages remain stable.
  • Regulators could use the stages to design disclosure rules that target creation and disposal phases separately from trading.
  • Data-protection authorities might examine whether the retention and disposal stages align with existing deletion rights.
  • Forensic tools could be built to reconstruct the full lifecycle even when privacy layers hide intermediate stages.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the parallels between transactions as records, crypto-asset units as information assets, and blockchains as aggregations allow the direct application of ISO 15489-1:2016 to create a valid seven-stage lifecycle.

What would settle it

A concrete case in which blockchain data processes cannot be placed into the seven stages without forcing the categories or where the stages add no new explanatory power to observed crypto-crime patterns.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.10631 by Christian Beyer, Ruggero Montalto, Tom Barbereau.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Seven-stage document lifecycle 1. Specification. First, blockchain elements are analytically re-specified through a records management lens (as specified in ISO 15489-1:2016 [26]): transactions are treated as “records”, crypto-assets as “information assets”, and blockchains as “aggregations” that collectively maintain system state. This re-specification establishes conceptual equivalence between establishe… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Current blockchain research and analytics tend to prioritize observable on-chain transactions, obscuring the processes through which cryptocurrencies are created, publicised, retained, and disposed of. In response, this paper considers distributed ledger technologies from records management principles in ISO 15489-1:2016. Setting off by specifying the parallels -- that is transactions as "records", crypto-asset units as "information assets", and blockchains as "aggregations" -- we introduce a seven-stage lifecycle for blockchain data. We apply the framework to Bitcoin, a fungible token, and a non-fungible token. On this basis, we argue that blockchain systems are not merely transactional infrastructures but record management systems with distinctive characteristics. We discuss how the on-chain/off-chain boundary and privacy-enhancing technologies can complicate lifecycle visibility, with particular relevance for crypto-crime research and investigation. As a meta-level framework, the lifecycle perspective enables positioning existing research, decomposing legal, regulatory, technological, and operational challenges by stage, and informing lifecycle-aware approaches to blockchain governance, analytics, and regulation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper argues that blockchain systems should be reconceptualized as record management systems rather than purely transactional infrastructures. It establishes parallels (transactions as records, crypto-asset units as information assets, blockchains as aggregations) to apply ISO 15489-1:2016 principles, deriving a seven-stage lifecycle for blockchain data. The framework is then applied to Bitcoin, a fungible token, and an NFT; the authors conclude that this lens enables better positioning of existing research, decomposition of challenges by stage, and lifecycle-aware governance, analytics, and regulation, while noting complications from on-chain/off-chain boundaries and privacy-enhancing technologies.

Significance. If the mapping and lifecycle are shown to be valid, the contribution would be a meta-framework that integrates records-management concepts into blockchain studies, offering a structured way to analyze creation, retention, and disposal processes that current transaction-focused research overlooks. This could have particular value for regulatory and investigative work on crypto-crime by making lifecycle stages explicit.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and framework introduction (seven-stage lifecycle derivation)] The central claim that the stated parallels permit a direct application of ISO 15489-1:2016 to produce a valid seven-stage lifecycle is load-bearing, yet the abstract and framework introduction provide no explicit derivation or justification for how the standard's appraisal, retention scheduling, and disposal controls map onto an immutable, append-only ledger. The skeptic concern is therefore material: the standard presupposes organizational authority to execute disposal or transfer, which conflicts with blockchain technical invariants; if the derived stages require redefinition or exception for on-chain data, the lifecycle functions as an analogy rather than an application of the standard's warrant.
  2. [Applications to Bitcoin, fungible token, and NFT] Application sections to Bitcoin, fungible tokens, and NFTs are presented as validation, but without reported evidence that the seven stages are operationalized with concrete criteria or data (e.g., how 'disposal' is instantiated or observed), it is unclear whether the framework generates falsifiable predictions or merely re-labels existing processes.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the lifecycle 'enables positioning existing research' but does not cite or classify any specific prior studies by stage; adding even a brief illustrative table would strengthen the meta-framework claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and detailed report. The comments highlight important issues regarding the explicitness of the ISO 15489-1:2016 mapping and the evidentiary status of the applications. We address each major comment below and indicate where revisions will strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and framework introduction (seven-stage lifecycle derivation)] The central claim that the stated parallels permit a direct application of ISO 15489-1:2016 to produce a valid seven-stage lifecycle is load-bearing, yet the abstract and framework introduction provide no explicit derivation or justification for how the standard's appraisal, retention scheduling, and disposal controls map onto an immutable, append-only ledger. The skeptic concern is therefore material: the standard presupposes organizational authority to execute disposal or transfer, which conflicts with blockchain technical invariants; if the derived stages require redefinition or exception for on-chain data, the lifecycle functions as an analogy rather than an application of the standard's warrant.

    Authors: We accept that the abstract and opening sections would benefit from a more explicit, step-by-step derivation of the seven stages. The manuscript specifies the three core parallels (transactions as records, crypto-asset units as information assets, blockchains as aggregations) and then adapts the ISO 15489-1:2016 controls; however, we agree that the mapping of appraisal, retention scheduling, and especially disposal requires clearer justification in light of immutability. In revision we will insert a dedicated subsection that (a) enumerates each relevant ISO control, (b) states the blockchain-specific interpretation (e.g., disposal as token burn, loss of private-key access, or regulatory-mandated off-chain deletion rather than ledger erasure), and (c) flags the points at which organizational authority is absent and the standard is therefore applied by analogy with explicit exceptions. This will make the warrant for the lifecycle transparent rather than implicit. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Applications to Bitcoin, fungible token, and NFT] Application sections to Bitcoin, fungible tokens, and NFTs are presented as validation, but without reported evidence that the seven stages are operationalized with concrete criteria or data (e.g., how 'disposal' is instantiated or observed), it is unclear whether the framework generates falsifiable predictions or merely re-labels existing processes.

    Authors: The three application sections are presented as illustrative case studies intended to demonstrate how the lifecycle stages can be used to decompose existing on-chain phenomena, not as empirical validation or hypothesis testing. No quantitative operationalization or falsifiable predictions were claimed. We acknowledge that readers seeking concrete criteria (e.g., measurable indicators for each stage) may find the current treatment insufficient for that purpose. Because the paper's primary contribution is the conceptual meta-framework rather than an operational measurement instrument, we do not intend to add empirical data or falsifiability tests in revision; however, we will add a short paragraph clarifying the illustrative intent and noting that future work could develop stage-specific metrics. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: framework applies external ISO standard via stated parallels

full rationale

The paper's derivation consists of specifying three parallels (transactions as records, crypto-asset units as information assets, blockchains as aggregations) and then applying the seven-stage lifecycle from the external ISO 15489-1:2016 standard. No equations, fitted parameters, self-citations, or uniqueness theorems are invoked to generate the stages; the lifecycle is presented as a direct mapping from the standard. The central claim therefore remains independent of its own inputs and does not reduce by construction. This is the most common honest finding for conceptual application papers.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on the applicability of an external records management standard to blockchain elements and on the utility of a newly defined lifecycle construct.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption ISO 15489-1:2016 records management principles can be mapped to blockchain data via the stated parallels
    The paper sets off by specifying these parallels as the starting point for the framework.
invented entities (1)
  • Seven-stage lifecycle for blockchain data no independent evidence
    purpose: To model the processes of creation, publicity, retention, and disposal of cryptocurrencies
    Newly introduced construct without reference to prior existence or independent validation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5723 in / 1291 out tokens · 43812 ms · 2026-06-27T11:07:07.925890+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Blockchain and crypto forensics: Investigating crypto frauds.International Journal of Network Management, 34(2):e2255, March 2024

    Udit Agarwal, Vinay Rishiwal, Sudeep Tanwar, and Mano Yadav. Blockchain and crypto forensics: Investigating crypto frauds.International Journal of Network Management, 34(2):e2255, March 2024. ISSN 1055-7148. doi: 10.1002/nem.2255

    work page doi:10.1002/nem.2255 2024

  2. [2]

    Gel, and Murat Kantarcioglu

    Cuneyt Gurcan Akcora, Yulia R. Gel, and Murat Kantarcioglu. Blockchain networks: Data structures of Bitcoin, Monero, Zcash, Ethereum, Ripple, and Iota.WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 12(1):e1436, January 2022. ISSN 1942-4787. doi: 10.1002/widm.1436

    work page doi:10.1002/widm.1436 2022

  3. [3]

    Beyond financial regulation of crypto-asset wallet software: In search of secondary liability.Computer Law & Security Review, 49:105829, July 2023

    Tom Barbereau and Balázs Bodó. Beyond financial regulation of crypto-asset wallet software: In search of secondary liability.Computer Law & Security Review, 49:105829, July 2023. ISSN 2212-473X. doi: 10.1016/ j.clsr.2023.105829

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Beyond a fistful of tumblers: Toward a taxonomy of ethereum-based mixers

    Tom Barbereau, Egor Ermolaev, Martin Brennecke, Eduard Hartwich, and Johannes Sedlmeir. Beyond a fistful of tumblers: Toward a taxonomy of ethereum-based mixers. InProceedings of the 44th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Hyderabad, India, 2023. URLhttps://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2023/cy ber_security/cyber_security/13

    2023

  5. [5]

    Goldstein, and Melissa Mead

    Izak Benbasat, David K. Goldstein, and Melissa Mead. The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems.Management Information Systems Quarterly, 11(3):369–386, September 1987. ISSN 0276-7783. doi: 10.2307/248684

    work page doi:10.2307/248684 1987

  6. [6]

    Trust in context: The impact of regulation on blockchain and DeFi

    Balazs Bodo and Primavera de Filippi. Trust in context: The impact of regulation on blockchain and DeFi. Regulation & Governance, 19(3):740–760, July 2025. ISSN 1748-5983. doi: 10.1111/rego.12637

    work page doi:10.1111/rego.12637 2025

  7. [7]

    Decentralised law enforcement: A case study of Ethereum’s proof of stake mechanism for moderation practices.Journal of Law, Market & Innovation, 4(2):304–326, July 2025

    Stefanie Boss and Balázs Bodó. Decentralised law enforcement: A case study of Ethereum’s proof of stake mechanism for moderation practices.Journal of Law, Market & Innovation, 4(2):304–326, July 2025. ISSN 2785-7867. doi: 10.13135/2785-7867/12272

    work page doi:10.13135/2785-7867/12272 2025

  8. [8]

    Cryptoart: ethical challenges of the NFT revolution.Humanities and Social Sciences Communi- cations, 11(370):370, March 2024

    Patrici Calvo. Cryptoart: ethical challenges of the NFT revolution.Humanities and Social Sciences Communi- cations, 11(370):370, March 2024. ISSN 2662-9992. doi: 10.1057/s41599-024-02872-2

    work page doi:10.1057/s41599-024-02872-2 2024

  9. [9]

    E53 Publishing, 2014

    Phil Champagne.The Book of Sastoshi. E53 Publishing, 2014. ISBN 978-0-9960613-0-8. URLhttps: //libertyme-library.s3.amazonaws.com/_Other+Books/Phil+Champagne/BookOfSatoshi.pdf

    2014

  10. [10]

    A survey on ethereum systems security: Vulnerabilities, attacks, and defenses.ACM Computing Surveys, 53(3), June 2020

    Huashan Chen, Marcus Pendleton, Laurent Njilla, and Shouhuai Xu. A survey on ethereum systems security: Vulnerabilities, attacks, and defenses.ACM Computing Surveys, 53(3), June 2020. ISSN 0360-0300. doi: 10.1145/3391195. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3391195

    work page doi:10.1145/3391195 2020

  11. [11]

    Successfully completing case study research: combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism.Information Systems Journal, 8(4):273–289, October 1998

    Peta Darke, Graeme Shanks, and Marianne Broadbent. Successfully completing case study research: combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism.Information Systems Journal, 8(4):273–289, October 1998. ISSN 1350-1917. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2575.1998.00040.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-2575.1998.00040.x 1998

  12. [12]

    Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018

    Primavera De Filippi and Aaron Wright.Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of Code. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018. ISBN 978-0-67497642-9. URLhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv28 67sp

    2018

  13. [13]

    The alegality of blockchain technology.Policy and Society, 41(3):358–372, September 2022

    Primavera De Filippi, Morshed Mannan, and Wessel Reijers. The alegality of blockchain technology.Policy and Society, 41(3):358–372, September 2022. ISSN 1449-4035. doi: 10.1093/polsoc/puac006

    work page doi:10.1093/polsoc/puac006 2022

  14. [14]

    Dearden and Samantha E

    Thomas E. Dearden and Samantha E. Tucker. Follow the Money: Analyzing Darknet Activity Using Cryp- tocurrency and the Bitcoin Blockchain.Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 39(2):257–275, March 2023. ISSN 1043-9862. doi: 10.1177/10439862231157521

    work page doi:10.1177/10439862231157521 2023

  15. [15]

    Legal Money Laundering: How A German Bank Is Cleaning Tainted Bitcoin And Other Dirty Cryptos.F orbes, March 2024

    Michael del Castillo. Legal Money Laundering: How A German Bank Is Cleaning Tainted Bitcoin And Other Dirty Cryptos.F orbes, March 2024. URLhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2023 /03/16/legal-money-laundering-how-a-german-bank-is-cleaning-tainted-bitcoin-and-oth er-dirty-cryptos

    2024

  16. [16]

    CoinJoin in the Wild

    Dominic Deuber and Dominique Schröder. CoinJoin in the Wild. InComputer Security – ESORICS 2021, pages 461–480. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, October 2021. ISBN 978-3-030-88428-4. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-884 28-4_23

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-884 2021

  17. [17]

    Argumentation schemes for blockchain deanonymisation.FinTech, 3(2):236–248, 2024

    Dominic Deuber, Jan Gruber, Merlin Humml, Viktoria Ronge, and Nicole Scheler. Argumentation schemes for blockchain deanonymisation.FinTech, 3(2):236–248, 2024. ISSN 2674-1032. doi: 10.3390/fintech3020014. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2674-1032/3/2/14

    work page doi:10.3390/fintech3020014 2024

  18. [18]

    The current state of cryptocurrency forensics.F orensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 46:301576, 2023

    Sahil Dudani, Ibrahim Baggili, David Raymond, and Randolph Marchany. The current state of cryptocurrency forensics.F orensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 46:301576, 2023. ISSN 2666-2817. doi: 13 FROMTRANSACTIONS TORECORDS- JUNE10, 2026 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsidi.2023.301576. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S2666...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fsidi.2023.301576 2023

  19. [19]

    The DAO,

    Quinn DuPont.Experiments in algorithmic governance: A history and ethnography of “The DAO,” a failed decentralized autonomous organization, pages 157–177. Routledge, New York, NY , USA, November 2017. doi: 10.4324/9781315211909-8

    work page doi:10.4324/9781315211909-8 2017

  20. [20]

    Burley, Jennifer A

    John Faundeen, Thomas E. Burley, Jennifer A. Carlino, David L. Govoni, Heather S. Henkel, Sally L. Holl, Vivian B. Hutchison, Elizabeth Martín, Ellyn T. Montgomery, Cassandra Ladino, Steven Tessler, and Lisa S. Zolly. The United States Geological Survey Science Data Lifecycle Model.USGS Numbered Series Open-File Report, 2014. ISSN 2331-1258. doi: 10.3133/...

    work page doi:10.3133/ofr20131265 2014

  21. [21]

    Feinstein and Kevin Werbach

    Brian D. Feinstein and Kevin Werbach. The Impact of Cryptocurrency Regulation on Trading Markets.Journal of Financial Regulation, 7(1):48–99, May 2021. ISSN 2053-4841. doi: 10.1093/jfr/fjab003

    work page doi:10.1093/jfr/fjab003 2021

  22. [22]

    Fitzpatrick and Stephen McKeon

    Scott M. Fitzpatrick and Stephen McKeon. Banking on Stone Money: Ancient Antecedents to Bitcoin.Economic Anthropology, 7(1):7–21, January 2020. ISSN 2330-4847. doi: 10.1002/sea2.12154

    work page doi:10.1002/sea2.12154 2020

  23. [23]

    Safeguarding the evidential value of forensic cryptocurrency investigations.F orensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 33:200902, June 2020

    Michael Fröwis, Thilo Gottschalk, Bernhard Haslhofer, Christian Rückert, and Paulina Pesch. Safeguarding the evidential value of forensic cryptocurrency investigations.F orensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 33:200902, June 2020. ISSN 2666-2817. doi: 10.1016/j.fsidi.2019.200902

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fsidi.2019.200902 2020

  24. [24]

    Probably something: a multi-layer taxonomy of non-fungible tokens.Internet Research, 34(1):216–238, February 2024

    Eduard Hartwich, Philipp Ollig, Gilbert Fridgen, and Alexander Rieger. Probably something: a multi-layer taxonomy of non-fungible tokens.Internet Research, 34(1):216–238, February 2024. ISSN 1066-2243. doi: 10.1108/INTR-08-2022-0666

    work page doi:10.1108/intr-08-2022-0666 2024

  25. [25]

    Biomedical data lifecycle

    Harvard Medical School. Biomedical data lifecycle. Technical report, Harvard Medical School LMA Research Data Management Working Group, 2025. URLhttps://datamanagement.hms.harvard.edu/plan-des ign/biomedical-data-lifecycle

    2025

  26. [26]

    Information and documentation - records management - part 1: Concepts and principles

    ISO. Information and documentation - records management - part 1: Concepts and principles. Technical Report ISO 15489-1:2016, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH, 2016

    2016

  27. [27]

    Designing conceptual articles: four approaches.AMS Review, 10(1):18–26, June 2020

    Elina Jaakkola. Designing conceptual articles: four approaches.AMS Review, 10(1):18–26, June 2020. ISSN 1869-8182. doi: 10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0 2020

  28. [28]

    Lelantus Spark: Secure and Flexible Private Transactions

    Aram Jivanyan and Aaron Feickert. Lelantus Spark: Secure and Flexible Private Transactions. InFinancial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 409–447. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, July 2023. ISBN 978-3-031- 32415-4. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-32415-4_28

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-32415-4_28 2023

  29. [29]

    Traveller Identification Programme (ICAO TRIP)

    Shefali Juneja. Traveller Identification Programme (ICAO TRIP). InThe Elgar Companion to the Law and Practice of the International Civil Aviation Organization, pages 427–442. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, England, UK, June 2025. ISBN 978-1-03531598-7. doi: 10.4337/9781035315987.00036

    work page doi:10.4337/9781035315987.00036 2025

  30. [30]

    Non-fungible tokens, tokenization, and ownership.Com- puter Law & Security Review, 54:105996, September 2024

    Janne Kaisto, Teemu Juutilainen, and Joona Kauranen. Non-fungible tokens, tokenization, and ownership.Com- puter Law & Security Review, 54:105996, September 2024. ISSN 2212-473X. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105996

    work page doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105996 2024

  31. [31]

    The logic of archival authenticity: ISO 15489 and the varieties of forgeries in archives

    Julia Kastenhofer. The logic of archival authenticity: ISO 15489 and the varieties of forgeries in archives. Archives and Manuscripts, September 2015. doi: 10.1080/01576895.2015.1074085

    work page doi:10.1080/01576895.2015.1074085 2015

  32. [32]

    Bitcoin Burn Addresses: Unveiling the Permanent Losses and Their Underlying Causes.ArXiv e-prints, March 2025

    Mohamed El Khatib and Arnaud Legout. Bitcoin Burn Addresses: Unveiling the Permanent Losses and Their Underlying Causes.ArXiv e-prints, March 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14057

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.14057 2025

  33. [33]

    Scalar field vacuum expectation value in- duced by gravitational wave background

    Wiebe Koerhuis, Tahar Kechadi, and Nhien-An Le-Khac. Forensic analysis of privacy-oriented cryptocurrencies. F orensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 33:200891, June 2020. ISSN 2666-2817. doi: 10.1016/j. fsidi.2019.200891

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2020

  34. [34]

    Trusting records: is Blockchain technology the answer?Records Management Jour- nal, 26(2):110–139, July 2016

    Victoria Louise Lemieux. Trusting records: is Blockchain technology the answer?Records Management Jour- nal, 26(2):110–139, July 2016. ISSN 0956-5698. doi: 10.1108/RMJ-12-2015-0042

    work page doi:10.1108/rmj-12-2015-0042 2016

  35. [35]

    Not your keys, not your coins: Unpriced credit risk in cryptocurrency.Texas Law Review, 101: 877, 2022

    Adam J Levitin. Not your keys, not your coins: Unpriced credit risk in cryptocurrency.Texas Law Review, 101: 877, 2022

    2022

  36. [36]

    On Identity, Transaction, and Smart Contract Privacy on Permissioned and Permissionless Blockchain: A Comprehensive Survey.ACM Computing Surveys, 56(12):1–35, July 2024

    Wei Liang, Yaqin Liu, Ce Yang, Songyou Xie, Kuanching Li, and Willy Susilo. On Identity, Transaction, and Smart Contract Privacy on Permissioned and Permissionless Blockchain: A Comprehensive Survey.ACM Computing Surveys, 56(12):1–35, July 2024. ISSN 0360-0300. doi: 10.1145/3676164

    work page doi:10.1145/3676164 2024

  37. [37]

    Building blocks of sharding blockchain systems: Concepts, approaches, and open problems

    Yizhong Liu, Jianwei Liu, Marcos Antonio Vaz Salles, Zongyang Zhang, Tong Li, Bin Hu, Fritz Henglein, and Rongxing Lu. Building blocks of sharding blockchain systems: Concepts, approaches, and open problems. Computer Science Review, 46:100513, November 2022. ISSN 1574-0137. doi: 10.1016/j.cosrev.2022.100513

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2022.100513 2022

  38. [38]

    com/science/article/pii/S0261560622001802,doi:10.1016/j.jimonfin.2022.102777

    Richard K. Lyons and Ganesh Viswanath-Natraj. What keeps stablecoins stable?Journal of International Money and Finance, 131:102777, March 2023. ISSN 0261-5606. doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2022.102777. 14 FROMTRANSACTIONS TORECORDS- JUNE10, 2026

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jimonfin.2022.102777 2023

  39. [39]

    Brock, 2022

    Sinead McElhone, Sherri Hannel, and Noah James.The Data Lifecycle, chapter 4. Brock, 2022. URLhttps: //ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/drivingchangeinthehealthsectoranintegratedapproach

    2022

  40. [40]

    Riding the hogwarts express: An empirical analysis of litecoin’s mweb adoption and usage patterns

    Ruggero Montalto, Tom Barbereau, and Bart Marinissen. Riding the hogwarts express: An empirical analysis of litecoin’s mweb adoption and usage patterns. In5th International Cryptoasset Analytics Workshop, 2026. URL https://caaw.io/2026/papers/CAAW26_paper_4.pdf

    2026

  41. [41]

    The Case for Conceptual Research in Information Systems

    Manuel Mora, Ovsei Gelman, David Paradice, and Francisco Cervantes. The Case for Conceptual Research in Information Systems. InProceedings of the 2008 Conference on Information Resources Management, 2008. URLhttps://aisel.aisnet.org/confirm2008/52

    2008

  42. [42]

    Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system, 2008

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

    2008

  43. [43]

    Ring Signature Confidential Transactions for Monero.Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2015

    Shen Noether. Ring Signature Confidential Transactions for Monero.Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2015. URL https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1098

    2015

  44. [44]

    Blog: Full-Chain Membership Proofs Development, March 2026

    Luke Parker. Blog: Full-Chain Membership Proofs Development, March 2026. URLhttps://www.getmoner o.org/2024/04/27/fcmps.html. [Online; accessed 26. Mar. 2026]

    2026

  45. [45]

    Using blockchain analysis from investigation to trial.DOJ Journal of Federal Law & Practice, 69:59, 2021

    C Alden Pelker, Christopher B Brown, and Richard M Tucker. Using blockchain analysis from investigation to trial.DOJ Journal of Federal Law & Practice, 69:59, 2021. URLhttps://www.justice.gov/usao/page/ file/1403671/dl?inline

    arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    Data Life Cycle Management in Big Data Analytics.Procedia Computer Science, 173:364–371, January 2020

    Kumar Rahul and Rohitash Kumar Banyal. Data Life Cycle Management in Big Data Analytics.Procedia Computer Science, 173:364–371, January 2020. ISSN 1877-0509. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2020.06.042

    work page doi:10.1016/j.procs.2020.06.042 2020

  47. [47]

    A Formal Analysis of the Mimblewimble Cryptocurrency Protocol with a Security Approach.CLEI Electronic Journal, 27(3):4:1–4:28, August 2024

    Adrian Silveira, Gustavo Betarte, and Carlos Luna. A Formal Analysis of the Mimblewimble Cryptocurrency Protocol with a Security Approach.CLEI Electronic Journal, 27(3):4:1–4:28, August 2024. ISSN 0717-5000. doi: 10.19153/cleiej.27.3.4

    work page doi:10.19153/cleiej.27.3.4 2024

  48. [48]

    Law versus technology: Blockchain, GDPR, and tough tradeoffs

    Unal Tatar, Yasir Gokce, and Brian Nussbaum. Law versus technology: Blockchain, GDPR, and tough tradeoffs. Computer Law & Security Review, 38:105454, September 2020. ISSN 2212-473X. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2020.10 5454

    work page doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2020.10 2020

  49. [49]

    Data reuse in the data lifecycle

    University of Wisconsin Data Governance Program. Data reuse in the data lifecycle. Technical report, University of Wisconsin, 2022. URLhttps://data.wisc.edu/data-literacy/lifecycle/

    2022

  50. [50]

    Cross-Border Evidence Gathering in Criminal Crypto Investigations: A Case Study of the Netherlands.Tilburg Law Review, 30(2), November 2025

    Tessa van Roomen. Cross-Border Evidence Gathering in Criminal Crypto Investigations: A Case Study of the Netherlands.Tilburg Law Review, 30(2), November 2025. ISSN 2211-2545. doi: 10.5334/tilr.423

    work page doi:10.5334/tilr.423 2025

  51. [51]

    Jan V om Brocke, Alexander Simons, Kai Riemer, Bjoern Niehaves, Ralf Plattfaut, and Anne Cleven. Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Challenges and Recommendations of Literature Search in Information Systems Research.Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(1):9, 2015. doi: 10.17705/1CAIS.0 3709

    work page doi:10.17705/1cais.0 2015

  52. [52]

    Research and Development of Blockchain Recordkeeping at the National Archives of Korea.Computers, 10(8):90, July 2021

    Hosung Wang and Dongmin Yang. Research and Development of Blockchain Recordkeeping at the National Archives of Korea.Computers, 10(8):90, July 2021. ISSN 2073-431X. doi: 10.3390/computers10080090

    work page doi:10.3390/computers10080090 2021

  53. [53]

    Money laundering is a $2tn problem and crypto’s role is bigger than you think, Congress hears.DL News, February 2024

    Joanna Wright and Sebastian Sinclair. Money laundering is a $2tn problem and crypto’s role is bigger than you think, Congress hears.DL News, February 2024. URLhttps://www.dlnews.com/articles/regulation /crypto-crime-worse-than-reported-expert-tells-lawmakers

    2024

  54. [54]

    Ownership in the 21st century: property law of digital assets.Information & Communications Technology Law, 34, May 2025

    Jakub Wyczik. Ownership in the 21st century: property law of digital assets.Information & Communications Technology Law, 34, May 2025. doi: 10.1080/13600834.2024.2408917

    work page doi:10.1080/13600834.2024.2408917 2025

  55. [55]

    A Survey of Blockchain Consensus Protocols.ACM Computing Surveys, 55(13s):1–35, July 2023

    Jie Xu, Cong Wang, and Xiaohua Jia. A Survey of Blockchain Consensus Protocols.ACM Computing Surveys, 55(13s):1–35, July 2023. ISSN 0360-0300. doi: 10.1145/3579845

    work page doi:10.1145/3579845 2023

  56. [56]

    Firo 51% attack post mortem and vote on attackers’ funds, January 2021

    Reuben Yap. Firo 51% attack post mortem and vote on attackers’ funds, January 2021. URLhttps://forum. firo.org/t/firo-51-attack-post-mortem-and-vote-on-attackers-funds/1084. [Online; accessed

    2021

  57. [57]

    SAGE, 2013

    Robert K Yin.Case Study Research: Design and Methods, volume 5. SAGE, 2013. ISBN 978-1-4522-4256-9

    2013

  58. [58]

    Security and Privacy on Blockchain.ACM Computing Surveys, 52(3):1–34, July 2019

    Rui Zhang, Rui Xue, and Ling Liu. Security and Privacy on Blockchain.ACM Computing Surveys, 52(3):1–34, July 2019. ISSN 0360-0300. doi: 10.1145/3316481

    work page doi:10.1145/3316481 2019

  59. [59]

    Kryptowährung: Justiz versteigert Bitcoin deutlich über Kurswert, October 2021

    Konstantin Zimmermann. Kryptowährung: Justiz versteigert Bitcoin deutlich über Kurswert, October 2021. URLhttps://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2021-10/kryptowaehrung-bitcoin-justizministerium -nrw-auktion. [Online; accessed 3. Mar. 2026]. 15

    2021