Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 68 references

Centralized Trust in Decentralized Systems: Unveiling Hidden Contradictions in Blockchain and Cryptocurrency

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Users seek centralized trust anchors in supposedly trustless crypto

desk verdict A readable and honest qualitative study, but the central finding is already in its own citations and the causal claim about 'mental need' overreaches the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06661 v1 pith:VQDAI4VG submitted 2025-05-10 cs.HC cs.CR

Faisal Haque Bappy , EunJeong Cheon , Tariqul Islam This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.CR
keywords blockchaincryptocurrencyparadoxdecentralizationtrustcentralizedanchorsself-custodymixed-methodsstudy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Blockchain promises trustless, decentralized finance, but this study argues that users in practice rebuild centralized trust: they prefer established exchanges, prominent community figures, and recognized development teams because they want a person or institution to hold accountable when something goes wrong. The evidence is a mixed-methods study of 13 stakeholders and more than 3,000 Reddit comments from major cryptocurrency communities. The authors call the gap between stated decentralization ideals and actual centralized behavior the centralization-decentralization paradox, and trace it to users' mental need for accountability and reluctance to carry the full burden of self-custody. The practical stakes are direct: if decentralization alone does not generate trust, then hybrid systems that add accountability layers to decentralized infrastructure may match how users actually behave.

What carries the argument

The central object is the centralization-decentralization paradox: the gap between users' ideological commitment to decentralization and their practical gravitation toward centralized services. The argument is carried by triangulating two data sources: 13 semi-structured interviews with traders, investors, Web3 enthusiasts, developers, researchers, and industry experts, and content analysis of over 3,000 Reddit comments collected from January 2020 to March 2024 across r/bitcoin, r/cryptocurrency, r/ethereum, and r/altcoin. The coding scheme's six thematic categories (trust in decentralization, security practices, platform choice, ideological commitment, learning and onboarding, and trust signals) supply the mechanism by which the paradox is documented, with trust signals such as reputation systems, audits, branding, and social proof showing how centralized anchors enter supposedly trustless environments.

What would settle it

Offer users a self-custody platform with the same speed, support, and insurance-like protections as a centralized exchange, in a jurisdiction without mandatory KYC, and observe whether they still choose custodial services. If they do, the mental-need reading holds; if they switch, the preference is an artifact of external constraints rather than a trust paradox.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that blockchain's core promise of a trustless system without intermediaries is contradicted by the observed way trust actually forms. Users actively create centralized trust anchors: exchanges they believe will protect funds, community figures whose advice they follow, and development teams whose reputation vouches for a protocol. Section 6.2 states that despite blockchain's promise of trustless systems, users consistently expressed preference for centralized platforms with clear accountability structures. The paper interprets this as a psychological contradiction rather than a technical failure: decentralization is viewed by many users not as the solution to trust problems but as an additional risk, because it places the entire burden of security on the individual.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that what people say in interviews and Reddit comments reveals their internal trust preferences; if exchange reliance instead reflects regulatory compulsion, deposit insurance, habit, or interface convenience, the central contradiction loses its psychological explanation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, decentralization alone is not a trust strategy; decentralized systems need visible recourse, support, and accountability to retain users who would otherwise migrate to exchanges.
  • Newer and less technical users' stronger preference for centralized intermediaries implies that naive decentralization may widen, not narrow, access gaps; onboarding support becomes a fairness issue.
  • The absence of transparent evaluation metrics means users substitute brand reputation for due diligence; standardized metrics could redirect trust from personalities to data.
  • The dependence on centralized anchors exposes the ecosystem to single points of failure, as the FTX collapse demonstrates.
  • Hybrid or tiered accountability models, with decentralized governance for technical users, compliance layers for institutions, and recourse channels for retail users, follow directly from the differing accountability expectations the paper documents.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the claimed mental need for accountability is not the only explanation for exchange preference: KYC rules, deposit insurance, and customer support are external structural facts, and a study comparing users in different regulatory regimes could determine how much of the paradox is psychology and how much is regulation.
  • Beyond the paper, if transparent evaluation metrics existed and were trusted, some users might delegate to auditable information instead of brand names; a natural test is whether introducing third-party audit summaries shifts platform choice in a randomized interface.
  • Beyond the paper, the interview sample is small and the Reddit data over-represents active, English-speaking participants, so the finding that newer users prefer centralization may be stronger or weaker among silent adopters who are not captured by forum discourse.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a mixed-methods study of trust in cryptocurrency systems, combining 13 semi-structured interviews with blockchain stakeholders and a content analysis of over 3,000 keyword-filtered Reddit comments. Its central claim is that, despite blockchain's 'trustless' promise, users actively seek out and create centralized trust anchors—established exchanges, prominent community figures, and recognized development teams. The paper additionally argues that this reliance arises from users' mental need for accountability and their reluctance to shoulder self-custody, and that newer and less technical users show stronger preferences for centralized intermediaries. On this basis it proposes hybrid accountability models and more transparent evaluation metrics as design implications.

Significance. If the central observation is sustained, the paper is a useful empirical contribution to the HCI/blockchain literature: it documents a centralization-decentralization paradox in user behavior and connects it to prior work on trust formation, copy-trading, and custody choices. The interview protocol, coding table in Appendix B, and direct quotes are valuable resources for future studies. The paper is also candid about several limitations in Section 4.4. However, two headline claims outrun the evidence: the causal attribution of exchange reliance to a 'mental need for accountability' is underdetermined, and the asserted difference between newer/less technical users and other groups is not demonstrated by any reported subgroup analysis. The keyword-selected Reddit corpus further limits the generality of the 'community perspective' claim. These issues are load-bearing because the design implications in Sections 7.2 and 8 depend on them.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.2 and Abstract] The paper attributes users' reliance on centralized platforms to 'users' mental need for accountability' and 'reluctance to shoulder the full responsibility of self-custody.' The interview and Reddit quotes are equally consistent with external drivers that the paper itself documents in Section 2, including KYC/AML regulation, deposit insurance, fiat on/off ramps, and usability gaps. Quotes such as 'someone to call if something goes wrong' (P5, Section 7.2) express a desire for recourse, but recourse can be a rational response to legal and operational constraints rather than evidence of an internal mental need. Because the hybrid trust models in Sections 7.2 and 8 are motivated by the mental-need reading, this underdetermination is load-bearing. The paper should either reframe the causal claim as one possible interpretation or add evidence—behavioral, survey-based, or an analysis of spontaneous versus prompted reasons in the interview transcripts—that separates internal preference from external compulsion.
  2. [Abstract and Section 5] The Abstract claims that 'newer and less technical users show stronger preferences for centralized intermediaries.' The paper does not report a subgroup analysis by experience or technical literacy for the interviews, and the Reddit data contain no demographic or experience information. Section 5.2 illustrates the point with anecdotal quotes, but no systematic comparison is provided. This headline claim should be removed, explicitly softened to a direction for future work, or supported with a quantitative or rigorously coded qualitative breakdown.
  3. [Section 4.2] The keyword-based filtering of Reddit comments, using terms such as 'trust in crypto,' 'centralized exchanges,' and 'self-custody,' selects for comments that already contain the study's themes. The subsequent finding that these themes appear prominently in the corpus is therefore partly circular and does not establish that they are prominent in general cryptocurrency discourse. The paper should temper the claim that the sample represents 'broader community perspectives,' and ideally supplement the keyword-filtered corpus with an unfiltered or randomly sampled baseline.
  4. [Sections 4.3 and 5] The Reddit content analysis is described as 'systematic,' but the paper does not provide the coding scheme, codebook, or inter-rater reliability measures used for the 3,000 comments. Without knowing how comments were assigned to themes, it is difficult to rule out selective quotation. The paper should specify the annotation procedure, report the number of comments supporting each theme, and state whether any reliability checks were performed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sections 5.2 and 6.2] The quote 'Even though blockchain is decentralized, I still feel like centralized exchanges are more trustworthy...' is attributed to P3 in Section 5.2 but to P4 in Section 6.2; please correct the attribution.
  2. [Reference [2]] The reference contains a typo: 'Digital Currency Iniative' should be 'Digital Currency Initiative.'
  3. [Section 4.2] The text says 'over 3,000 comments,' but the assigned identifiers R1–R3000 imply exactly 3,000; please align the wording with the actual count.
  4. [Section 4.4] The limitations paragraph does not mention that the keyword-filtered selection in Section 4.2 restricts the Reddit findings to threads preselected for centralization-related terms; adding this would make the limitations more complete.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Qualitative study is largely self-contained; only mild circularity in the Reddit triangulation, whose keyword filter is derived from interview themes.

  1. other [Section 4.2 (Reddit Content Analysis) and Section 4.3 (Data Analysis)]
    "We refined our dataset through a keyword-based filtering process, identifying terms based on recurring themes observed in our interviews and documented in prior literature. Specifically, we focused on phrases such as 'trust in crypto,' 'decentralization risks,' 'centralized exchanges,' 'self-custody,' and 'security concerns.' ... We triangulated findings between our interview data and Reddit content analysis to ensure the robustness of our conclusions."

    The Reddit half of the study is constructed from the interview half: the keyword list is derived from themes observed in the interviews, so comments containing 'trust in crypto' and 'centralized exchanges' are guaranteed to express the centralization/trust vocabulary the paper then reports. The 'triangulation' between interview and Reddit is therefore not an independent check of the centralization/self-custody themes; agreement is partly induced by the inclusion filter. The 13 interviews still stand as independent evidence for the qualitative claim, so the circularity is partial and affects only the claimed Reddit corroboration.

full rationale

The paper contains no equations, fitted parameters, or formal predictions, so the classic derivation-circularity patterns do not apply. The central claim that users prefer centralized trust anchors is grounded in semi-structured interviews (Section 5.2), which are independent of the Reddit keyword filter. The causal reading that this arises from a 'mental need for accountability' is underdetermined—external regulation, KYC, deposit insurance, and usability are plausible alternatives—but underdetermination is a validity/correctness issue, not circularity. The only concrete circularity is the Reddit selection/triangulation described in Sections 4.2–4.3, where keywords derived from interview themes pre-populate the corpus with the constructs later reported; this weakens the Reddit corroboration but does not destroy the independent interview evidence, hence the low score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numeric free parameters are fitted; the study is qualitative. The main assumptions are the validity of self-reported trust, representativeness of the keyword-selected Reddit sample, and thematic saturation at 13 interviews.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Self-reported interview data and Reddit comments are treated as direct evidence of actual trust behavior.
    Section 4.3 and the findings infer behavior from statements; Section 4.4 concedes self-reported data may differ from actual behavior.
  • ad hoc to paper Keyword-filtered Reddit comments constitute a representative sample of community discourse about trust.
    Section 4.2 selects comments containing phrases like 'trust in crypto' and 'centralized exchanges', which pre-loads the themes under study.
  • domain assumption Thematic saturation at n=13 indicates the full range of relevant user experiences was captured.
    Section 4.1 claims saturation after 13 interviews, but no saturation protocol or negative case analysis is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Centralized Trust in Decentralized Systems: Unveiling Hidden Contradictions in Blockchain and Cryptocurrency." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VQDAI4VG

@misc{pith2026250506661,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Centralized Trust in Decentralized Systems: Unveiling Hidden Contradictions in Blockchain and Cryptocurrency},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VQDAI4VG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06661}
}
read the original abstract

Blockchain technology promises to democratize finance and promote social equity through decentralization, but questions remain about whether current implementations advance or hinder these goals. Through a mixed-methods study combining semi-structured interviews with 13 diverse blockchain stakeholders and analysis of over 3,000 cryptocurrency discussions on Reddit, we examine how trust manifests in cryptocurrency ecosystems despite their decentralized architecture. Our findings uncover that users actively seek out and create centralized trust anchors, such as established exchanges, prominent community figures, and recognized development teams, contradicting blockchain's fundamental promise of trustless interactions. We identify how this contradiction arises from users' mental need for accountability and their reluctance to shoulder the full responsibility of self-custody. The study also reveals how these centralized trust patterns disproportionately impact different user groups, with newer and less technical users showing stronger preferences for centralized intermediaries. This work contributes to our understanding of the inherent tensions between theoretical decentralization and practical implementation in cryptocurrency systems, highlighting the persistent role of centralized trust in supposedly trustless environments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    Sarah Butler and Miguel Rodriguez. 2018. Centralization in Cryptocurrency Exchanges: A Critical Analysis. Journal of Cryptocurrency Studies 5, 2 (2018), 45–62

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    Svetlana Abramova, Rainer Böhme, Helmut Elsinger, Helmut Stix, and Martin Summer. 2023. What can central bank digital currency designers learn from asking potential users?. In Nineteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2023). 151–170

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    Robleh Ali and Neha Narula. 2020. Redesigning digital money: What can we learn from a decade of cryptocurrencies. Digital Currency Iniative (DCI). MIT Media Lab (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Antonopoulos

    Andreas M. Antonopoulos. 2017. Mastering Bitcoin: Programming the Open Blockchain (2nd ed.). O’Reilly Media, Inc

    work page 2017

  5. [4]

    O’Reilly Media, Inc

    Andreas M Antonopoulos and David A Harding. 2023. Mastering bitcoin . " O’Reilly Media, Inc. "

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Raphael Auer, Giulio Cornelli, and Jon Frost. 2023. Rise of the central bank digital currencies. International Journal of Central Banking 19, 4 (2023), 185–214

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Richard Gendal Brown, James Carlyle, Ian Grigg, and Mike Hearn. 2016. Corda: an introduction. R3 CEV, August 1, 15 (2016), 14

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Wei Lee Yuan Chen. 2024. Towards More Secure Interactions: Understanding User Experience and Behaviour in the NFT Domain. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–10

    work page 2024

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Chun-Wei Chiang, Eber Betanzos, and Saiph Savage. 2018. Exploring blockchain for trustful collaborations between immigrants and governments. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–6

    2018

  2. [10]

    Usman W. Chohan. 2017. Decentralized Governance in Cryptocurrency Platforms. Critical Blockchain Research Initiative Working Papers (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Usman W Chohan. 2019. Are cryptocurrencies truly trustless? Cryptofinance and mechanisms of exchange: the Making of virtual currency (2019), 77–89

    2019

  4. [12]

    CoinDesk. 2022. 8 Days in November: What Led to FTX’s Sudden Col- lapse. https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022/11/09/8-days-in-november-what- led-to-ftxs-sudden-collapse

    2022

  5. [13]

    Thomas Conlon, Shaen Corbet, and Yang Hu. 2023. The collapse of the FTX exchange: The end of cryptocurrency’s age of innocence. The British Accounting Review (2023), 101277

    2023

  6. [14]

    Primavera De Filippi and Aaron Wright. 2018. Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain: Disruption, Regulation, and Governance. Harvard Business Review 96, 4 (2018), 112–119

    2018

  7. [15]

    Deloitte. 2021. 2021 Global Blockchain Survey: A new age of digital assets. Technical Report. Deloitte Insights. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/ articles/US144337_Blockchain-survey/DI_Blockchain-survey.pdf Accessed: 2025- 05-08

    2021

  8. [16]

    Irma Dupuis, Lisa Toohey, Sidsel Grimstad, Berit Follong, and Tamara Bucher

  9. [17]

    Chris Elsden, Arthi Manohar, Jo Briggs, Mike Harding, Chris Speed, and John Vines. 2018. Making sense of blockchain applications: A typology for HCI. In Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–14

    2018

  10. [18]

    Agata Ferreira. 2021. Regulating smart contracts: Legal revolution or simply evolution? Telecommunications Policy 45, 2 (2021), 102081

    2021

  11. [19]

    Karlsen, and T¯alis J

    Sean Foley, Jonathan R. Karlsen, and T¯alis J. Putnin, š. 2019. Sex, Drugs, and Bitcoin: How Much Illegal Activity Is Financed through Cryptocurrencies? Review of Financial Studies 32, 5 (2019), 1798–1853

    2019

  12. [20]

    World Economic Forum. 2024. Blockchain: in from the cold and set to disrupt the world of finance 2024. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/01/blockchain- change-world-finance-stablecoins-internet/

    2024

  13. [21]

    Xianyi Gao, Gradeigh D Clark, and Janne Lindqvist. 2016. Of two minds, multiple addresses, and one ledger: characterizing opinions, knowledge, and perceptions of Bitcoin across users and non-users. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems...

    2016

  14. [22]

    Maurice Herlihy and Mark Moir. 2016. Enhancing accountability and trust in distributed ledgers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.07490 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Yuming Huang, Jing Tang, Qianhao Cong, Andrew Lim, and Jianliang Xu. 2021. Do the rich get richer? fairness analysis for blockchain incentives. In Proceedings of the 2021 international conference on management of data . 790–803

    2021

  16. [24]

    IBM. [n. d.]. What Is Hyperledger Fabric? https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/ hyperledger. Accessed: 2025-01-22

    2025

  17. [25]

    Karim Jabbar and Pernille Bjørn. 2019. Blockchain assemblages: Whiteboxing technology and transforming infrastructural imaginaries. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–13

    2019

  18. [26]

    Anurag Jain, Shoeb Siddiqui, and Sujit Gujar. 2021. We might walk together, but I run faster: Network Fairness and Scalability in Blockchains. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems . 1539–1541

    2021

  19. [27]

    Niclas Kannengießer, Sebastian Lins, Tobias Dehling, and Ali Sunyaev. 2020. Trade-offs between distributed ledger technology characteristics. ACM Comput- ing Surveys (CSUR) 53, 2 (2020), 1–37

    2020

  20. [28]

    Ghassan Karame. 2016. On the security and scalability of bitcoin’s blockchain. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security. 1861–1862

    2016

  21. [29]

    Daisuke Kawai, Kyle Soska, Bryan Routledge, Ariel Zetlin-Jones, and Nicolas Christin. 2024. Stranger Danger? Investor Behavior and Incentives on Cryptocur- rency Copy-Trading Platforms. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–20

    2024

  22. [30]

    Irni Eliana Khairuddin and Corina Sas. 2019. An Exploration of Bitcoin mining practices: Miners’ trust challenges and motivations. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–13

    2019

  23. [31]

    The Most Trustworthy Coin

    Megan Knittel, Shelby Pitts, and Rick Wash. 2019. " The Most Trustworthy Coin" How Ideological Tensions Drive Trust in Bitcoin. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–23

    2019

  24. [32]

    True Bitcoiners

    Megan L Knittel and Rick Wash. 2019. How" True Bitcoiners" work on reddit to maintain bitcoin. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–6

    2019

  25. [33]

    David Krause. 2025. Algorithmic Stablecoins: Mechanisms, Risks, and Lessons from the Fall of TerraUSD. Risks, and Lessons from the Fall of TerraUSD (January 11, 2025) (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Kristian Kristiansen. 2007. The rules of the game: decentralised complexity and power structures. Socialising Complexity. Structure Interaction and Power in Archaeological Discourse (2007), 60–75

    2007

  27. [35]

    Bartosz Kusmierz and Roman Overko. 2022. How centralized is decentralized? Comparison of wealth distribution in coins and tokens. In2022 IEEE International Centralized Trust in Decentralized Systems FAccT ’25, June 23–26, 2025, Athens, Greece Conference on Omni-layer Intellige...

    2022

  28. [36]

    European Union law. 2022. REGULATION (EU) 2022/858 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 2022. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/ 2022/858/oj

    2022

  29. [37]

    Suwan Cheng Long, Ying Xie, Zhengyuan Zhou, Brian M Lucey, and Andrew Urquhart. 2024. From Whales to Waves: The Role of Social Media Sentiment in Shaping Cryptocurrency Markets. Ying and Zhou, Zhengyuan and Lucey, Brian M. and Urquhart, Andrew, From Whales to Waves: The Role o...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Caitlin Lustig. 2019. Intersecting imaginaries: visions of decentralized au- tonomous systems. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–27

    2019

  31. [39]

    Nash Lyke, Benjamin M Gorman, and Garreth W Tigwell. 2023. Exploring the Accessibility of Crypto Technologies. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–10

    2023

  32. [40]

    Alexandra Mai, Katharina Pfeffer, Matthias Gusenbauer, Edgar Weippl, and Katha- rina Krombholz. 2020. User mental models of cryptocurrency systems-a grounded theory approach. In Sixteenth symposium on usable privacy and security (SOUPS 2020). 341–358

    2020

  33. [41]

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

    2008

  34. [42]

    Rob Nelson. 2024. Can Bitcoin bridge the financial divide for marginalized populations? https://www.thestreet.com/crypto/policy/can-bitcoin-bridge-the- financial-divide-for-marginalized-populations Accessed: 2025-01-22

    2024

  35. [43]

    2018.Blockchain: Distributed Ledger Technology and its Implications

    Alex Preukschat and Daniel Reed. 2018.Blockchain: Distributed Ledger Technology and its Implications. Manning Publications

    2018

  36. [44]

    Kyleen W Prewett, Gregory L Prescott, and Kirk Phillips. 2020. Blockchain adoption is inevitable—Barriers and risks remain. Journal of Corporate accounting & finance 31, 2 (2020), 21–28

    2020

  37. [45]

    Matteo Romiti, Aljosha Judmayer, Alexei Zamyatin, and Bernhard Haslhofer

  38. [46]

    Jorge Saldivar, Elena Martínez-Vicente, David Rozas, Maria-Cruz Valiente, and Samer Hassan. 2023. Blockchain (not) for everyone: Design challenges of blockchain-based applications. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Confer- ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–8

    2023

  39. [47]

    Corina Sas and Irni Eliana Khairuddin. 2017. Design for trust: An exploration of the challenges and opportunities of bitcoin users. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 6499–6510

    2017

  40. [48]

    Jason Scharfman. 2023. The Cryptocurrency and Digital Asset Fraud Casebook . Springer

    2023

  41. [49]

    Linda Schilling and Harald Uhlig. 2019. Decentralized Finance: Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of Financial Technology 5, 1 (2019), 23–45

    2019

  42. [50]

    Stefan Schmid and Dmitry Shestakov. 2024. Blockchain Governance and Liquid Democracy–Quantifying Decentralization in Gitcoin and Internet Computer. In Proceedings of the 2024 Workshop on Advanced Tools, Programming Languages, and PLatforms for Implementing and Evaluating algor...

    2024

  43. [51]

    Janice Jianing Si, Tanusree Sharma, and Kanye Ye Wang. 2024. Understanding User-Perceived Security Risks and Mitigation Strategies in the Web3 Ecosystem. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–22

    2024

  44. [52]

    Archana Sristy. 2021. Blockchain in the food supply chain - What does the future look like? https://tech.walmart.com/content/walmart-global-tech/en_us/blog/ post/blockchain-in-the-food-supply-chain.html Walmart Global Tech Blog

    2021

  45. [53]

    Melanie Swan. 2015. Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy . O’Reilly Media, Inc

    2015

  46. [54]

    2016.Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World

    Don Tapscott and Alex Tapscott. 2016.Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World . Portfolio

    2016

  47. [55]

    Bridget Tyma, Rina Dhillon, Prabhu Sivabalan, and Bernhard Wieder. 2022. Un- derstanding accountability in blockchain systems. Accounting, Auditing & Ac- countability Journal 35, 7 (2022), 1625–1655

    2022

  48. [56]

    UN Innovation Network. 2024. Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Tech- nologies. https://www.uninnovation.network/innovation-areas/blockchain- distributed-ledger-technologies Accessed: 2024-01-21

    2024

  49. [57]

    Generation M

    Stephanie Vie. 2008. Digital divide 2.0:“Generation M” and online social network- ing sites in the composition classroom. Computers and Composition 25, 1 (2008), 9–23

    2008

  50. [58]

    Artemij Voskobojnikov, Volker Skwarek, Atefeh Mashatan, Shin’Ichiro Matsuo, Chris Rowell, and Tim Weingärtner. 2021. Balancing Security: A Moving Tar- get. Building Decentralized Trust: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Design of Blockchains and Distributed Ledgers (2021), 63–94

    2021

  51. [59]

    Artemij Voskobojnikov, Oliver Wiese, Masoud Mehrabi Koushki, Volker Roth, and Konstantin Beznosov. 2021. The u in crypto stands for usable: An empirical study of user experience with mobile cryptocurrency wallets. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in C...

    2021

  52. [60]

    Web3devs. 2024. Cryptocurrency Market Analysis for 2024: Key Trends and Insights. https://web3devs.com/blog/cryptocurrency-market-analysis-2024/ Accessed: 2025-01-22

    2024

  53. [61]

    Kevin Werbach. 2018. The Blockchain and the New Architecture of Trust. MIT Technology Review 121, 3 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    Centralized or Decentralized?

    Yunpeng Xiao, Bufan Deng, Siqi Chen, Kyrie Zhixuan Zhou, Ray LC, Luyao Zhang, and Xin Tong. 2024. " Centralized or Decentralized?": Concerns and Value Judgments of Stakeholders in the Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) Market. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CS...

    2024

  55. [63]

    Don’t put all your eggs in one basket

    Yaman Yu, Tanusree Sharma, Sauvik Das, and Yang Wang. 2024. " Don’t put all your eggs in one basket": How Cryptocurrency Users Choose and Secure Their Wallets. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    2024

  56. [64]

    Wenxiang Zhang, Saeed Siyal, Samina Riaz, Riaz Ahmad, Mohd Faiz Hilmi, and Zhi Li. 2023. Data security, customer trust and intention for adoption of Fintech services: an empirical analysis from commercial bank users in Pakistan. Sage Open 13, 3 (2023), 21582440231181388

    2023

  57. [65]

    Zibin Zheng, Shaoan Xie, Hong-Ning Dai, Xiangping Chen, and Huainian Wang

  58. [2018]

    I still keep most of my assets on Coinbase—hardware wallets scare me

    An Overview of Blockchain Technology: Architecture, Consensus, and Future Trends. IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) (2018), 557–564. A INTERVIEW PROTOCOL AND RECRUITMENT STRATEGY A.1 Interview Format Each interview followed a semi-structured format, enabling...

    2018

  59. [2019]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.05999 (2019)

    A deep dive into bitcoin mining pools: An empirical analysis of mining shares. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.05999 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  60. [2021]

    In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain)

    Blockchain: the paradox of consumer trust in a trustless system-a systematic review. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain) . IEEE, 505–512

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.