Authors: Jesse Zheng, Researcher in Financial Technology at Singapore University of Social Sciences, Certified Financial Technology Professional (CFtP)

Willie Shi, Visiting Lecturer at Singapore University of Social Sciences, Certified Financial Technology Professional (CFtP)

Yue Wang, Senior Lecturer at Singapore University of Social Sciences, Director of Doctor of Business Administration Program

Li Guoquan, Professor at Singapore University of Social Sciences, Chairman of the Global Financial Technology Institute

Abstract

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the transformative impact of cryptocurrencies on financing strategies, with a particular focus on the evolution from Initial Coin Offerings (ICO) to airdrops and other methods. We explore the significance of tokens, elucidate the advantages of ICOs over traditional financing methods such as Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) and crowdfunding. Additionally, we critically evaluate the effectiveness of airdrops as a mechanism for project initiation and development. To optimize ecosystem returns, we propose a set of airdrop design mechanisms. Furthermore, we introduce the latest financing strategies and identify meaningful directions for future research. By providing valuable insights and references, our article offers a comprehensive guide for researchers and practitioners exploring new cryptocurrency financing strategies.

1. Introduction

Cryptocurrencies, created using cryptographic technology and stored as data in virtual space, have thoroughly transformed the financial industry in recent years (Geuer & L, 2023). These decentralized digital assets operate independently of central banks, providing a new payment system based on blockchain technology (Jiménez et al., 2021). Cryptocurrencies, especially Bitcoin, have significantly altered the way transactions, investments, and wealth storage are managed (Stein & S, 2020). They offer significant advantages in terms of transaction transparency, reduced fees, and cross-border transfer speed, marking a paradigm shift in the financial world (Enajero & S, 2021). Understanding their long-term impact is crucial. One significant impact of cryptocurrencies is their ability to facilitate successful project fundraising, bringing benefits and change to society (Li et al., 2019).

This article serves as a comprehensive guide, rethinking the strategies for utilizing cryptocurrency financing in the modern financial environment, outlining the evolution of financing and future development directions. The second part explains the core value of tokens. The third part introduces Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) and their development, including opportunities and risks, and compares them with other traditional fundraising methods. The fourth part introduces the current popular financing initiation method, the airdrop mechanism. The fifth part proposes effective standards for future protocol financing using cryptocurrencies. The sixth part showcases the latest ways in which native cryptocurrency projects use cryptocurrencies to initiate projects, such as Inscriptions BRC-20 and the Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Network (DePIN).

2. The Significance of Tokens

With the advent of the digital age, the adoption of digital financial instruments has become widespread (Johnson et al., 2021). However, many people around the world still struggle to access traditional banking services, limiting their growth opportunities (Yao et al., 2021). Digital currencies deployed on consortium or private chains are limited to specific domains. Cryptocurrencies deployed on public chains provide an innovative solution to these issues. They facilitate the free flow of wealth without relying on trusted third parties (Li et al., 2020). This decentralization helps establish a more inclusive financial system not controlled by centralized entities. Cryptocurrencies can provide crucial financial support to individuals and businesses in regions with limited access to traditional financial services (Corbet et al., 2018). The decentralization of cryptocurrencies is an important step towards a more inclusive and free financial system.

Furthermore, cryptocurrencies serve as an important coordination mechanism (Enajero et al., 2021). With the increasing influence of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), more people will purchase governance tokens representing ownership of the organization, thereby driving up the token's price (Light, 2019). This value increase not only provides financial benefits to token holders but also strengthens the connections between organization stakeholders (Jagtiani et al., 2021). This will attract more contributors and drive organizational development.

3. Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs)

3.1 Introduction to ICOs

ICO, also known as token sale, is a new financing mechanism that allows projects to raise funds by issuing digital tokens on the blockchain. This is achieved by exchanging newly created tokens with high liquidity cryptocurrencies, enabling blockchain startups to execute their experiments in a community-driven manner. It is an innovative way to obtain funds through token exchange and indirect fiat currency. Investors are not purchasing equity but exchanging their cryptocurrencies for tokens created by the software (Lee & Low, 2018).

In the evolving ICO landscape, tokens serve multiple purposes beyond representing equity. Some tokens act as vouchers, granting holders the right to access specific services or products the project intends to offer, effectively serving as a presale mechanism. The whitepaper, a comprehensive document detailing the project's objectives, team, technical specifications, and token distribution strategy, is at the core of the ICO process. During the ICO period, significant capital growth is often driven by speculative fervor rather than the project's intrinsic value (Li et al., 2021). This has led to the valuation of some nascent projects based solely on conceptual whitepapers reaching millions of dollars, reminiscent of the dot-com bubble era. This speculative environment inevitably leads to market corrections, posing risks for investors, especially those entering overvalued markets (Li et al., 2020).

While ICOs offer a promising financing avenue in the digital age, they also bring inherent risks and challenges (Şarkaya et al., 2019). Unfortunately, the allure of rapid capital accumulation in the ICO space has attracted malicious actors. Investors are often driven by the fear of missing out (FOMO) and may sometimes forgo rigorous due diligence, making them susceptible to carefully orchestrated scams (Shehu et al., 2023). Replicated whitepapers, forged project websites, and "exit scams" where funds are raised and then disappear highlight the necessity of project evaluation. Involvement in the ICO space requires an understanding of its regulatory ambiguity, as different countries have adopted varying approaches (Oliveira et al., 2021). While jurisdictions like Switzerland have taken a more lenient stance, other countries such as China have implemented strict prohibitions. This diversity of regulation, coupled with evolving regulatory perspectives, requires project initiators and investors to be familiar with the rules. Additionally, the value proposition of these tokens depends on a single demand period, which may limit their fundraising potential compared to traditional multi-round equity financing mechanisms (Sousa et al., 2021). A comprehensive understanding of its dynamics, coupled with appropriate regulatory frameworks, is crucial for safeguarding investor interests and fully realizing its potential.

3.2 Key Milestones of ICOs

The concept of ICOs originated with the emergence of Mastercoin. Its popularity surged after the launch of the Ethereum network in 2015. Table 1 shows the key milestones of ICOs (Zheng et al., 2020).

Milestone

Time

Description

Bitcoin

2009

Bitcoin was introduced as the first decentralized cryptocurrency. While Bitcoin was not raised through an ICO, its success paved the way for the establishment of other cryptocurrencies.

Mastercoin

2013

Mastercoin conducted what is widely considered the first ICO event. It successfully raised approximately $5 million in Bitcoin (Umar, 2013).

Ethereum

2014

Ethereum conducted its ICO, raising approximately $18 million. Ethereum's success sparked an ICO frenzy, providing a platform for other projects to rapidly create and issue tokens.

The DAO Incident

2016

A Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) based on Ethereum raised approximately $150 million. Unfortunately, due to a vulnerability in the smart contract, the DAO was attacked, resulting in significant fund losses. This event drew widespread attention to the security issues of ICOs.

Regulatory Intervention

2017

With the surge in ICO activities and associated fraudulent behavior, many countries began regulating ICOs. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued statements indicating that certain ICOs may be considered securities offerings and must comply with relevant regulations.

Peak and Decline of ICOs

2017-2018

ICO experienced its golden age, raising billions of dollars. However, with market saturation and increasing regulatory pressure, many ICO projects failed, resulting in significant losses for investors (Winkel, 2013).

The Rise of IEO

2019

To address some of the issues with ICOs, Initial Exchange Offerings (IEOs) emerged as a new method of fundraising. Unlike ICOs, IEOs are hosted by cryptocurrency exchanges, providing higher trust and security (Harrigan et al., 2018).

Table 1: Key Milestones in the Development of ICOs

In the development of ICOs, many projects such as Tezos, EOS, and Filecoin successfully raised substantial funds. However, many projects failed for various reasons, providing valuable lessons for investors and regulatory authorities (Lee et al., 2018).

3.3 Comparison with Initial Public Offerings (IPOs)

In the stock market, an IPO is when a company lists its shares on a stock exchange for the first time, with the aim of raising capital by exchanging ownership of the company (Lee et al., 2021).

ICOs and IPOs represent radically different paradigms in the field of capital financing, each with unique advantages and challenges. ICOs, based on blockchain technology, offer a fast and decentralized financing mechanism, allowing projects to access capital in significantly shorter timeframes compared to the traditional IPO process. This rapid nature of ICOs does not involve complex regulatory entanglements and intermediaries, democratizing investment opportunities, breaking down geographical barriers, and welcoming a diverse investor base. In contrast, IPOs offer a more structured but lengthy financing path through their rigorous auditing, regulatory compliance, and collaboration with established financial institutions. The dichotomy between ICOs and IPOs encapsulates the trade-off between speed and decentralization versus strict regulation and stability, with the choice depending on investors' risk tolerance, objectives, and familiarity with the evolving cryptocurrency landscape.

Shareholders in an IPO have the right to vote on company affairs or receive dividends. The purpose of an IPO is to raise funds by exchanging ownership of the company. However, ICO participants typically do not share in profits. Their potential returns are usually tied to the appreciation or utility of the tokens within the project's ecosystem.

IPOs are typically limited to institutional investors or investors with significant capital in the early stages. ICOs democratize this process, allowing anyone with internet access and some cryptocurrency to participate. Table 2 summarizes the comparison between ICOs and IPOs.

Parameter

ICO

IPO

Inception

Mastercoin in 2013

Dutch East India Company in 1602

Accessibility

Open to anyone globally

Regulated, usually restricted

Regulation

Lightly or unregulated

Strictly regulated, requiring disclosure

Investment Type

Tokens with utility or governance functions, but not company shares

Company shares

Stage

Early, even just an idea

Mature, meeting specific requirements regarding profits and revenue

Duration

Several weeks to months

Months to years

Due Diligence

Usually limited

Extensive

Table 2: Comparison between ICOs and IPOs

3.4 Further Developments: IDO and IEO

While ICOs were groundbreaking, they faced challenges in terms of regulation and investor protection. This led to the emergence of Initial DEX Offerings (IDO) and Initial Exchange Offerings (IEO), which provide similar fundraising opportunities but with fewer regulatory restrictions, higher decentralization, and more thorough due diligence.

In 2017, regulatory agencies in several countries began scrutinizing ICOs more closely. In particular, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) indicated that certain ICOs may be considered securities offerings and must comply with relevant regulations. Additionally, countries like China and South Korea directly banned ICO activities. The increase in ICO activities also led to an increase in fraudulent schemes and scams. Many projects disappeared after raising significant funds, causing significant losses for investors. The popularity of ICOs waned over time.

Unlike ICOs, IEOs are hosted by cryptocurrency exchanges. This provides investors with higher trust and security, as exchanges conduct initial reviews and screenings of projects. Additionally, tokens are typically listed on exchanges immediately after the IEO, ensuring liquidity for investors. Binance Exchange introduced Binance Launchpad, aiming to provide a more structured and secure platform for projects to raise funds. Endorsement from reputable exchanges adds more credibility to projects. The success of Binance Launchpad prompted other major exchanges to launch their own IEO platforms. This shift marks a transition from the decentralized ICO model to a more centralized and potentially more secure IEO model. With support from well-known exchanges, investors have more confidence in participating in IEOs, knowing that projects have undergone some scrutiny.

In contrast, IDO involves token sales on decentralized exchanges (DEXs), providing higher decentralization than IEO. This allows project teams to raise funds more quickly and flexibly in the IDO model. This approach combines the decentralized spirit of ICOs with the structured approach of IEOs. Conducting token sales through IDO means projects can bypass the typically stringent listing standards of centralized exchanges. Additionally, DEXs provide immediate liquidity for project tokens. While ICOs innovated the fundraising field, the security of smart contracts cannot be overlooked. The market's evolution towards IEOs and IDOs reflects the industry's adaptability and ongoing efforts to strike a balance between innovation and security. As the cryptocurrency field matures, regulatory authorities worldwide are striving to keep pace. The shift from ICOs to IEOs and IDOs can be seen as a response to this ever-changing regulatory environment, providing more protection for investors while fostering innovation.

4. Airdrops

The concept of airdrops can be traced back to the early days of cryptocurrencies, when developers would distribute tokens to specific token holders or wallets that met certain criteria. The term "airdrop" was coined because it is similar to dropping something from the air without any effort from the recipient. The first notable airdrop occurred in 2011, when Litecoin was distributed for free to Bitcoin holders.

Airdrops are a marketing strategy used in the cryptocurrency space to distribute tokens for free or at minimal cost to a large number of wallet addresses. Various protocols adopt this method to achieve fair distribution of their tokens, build decentralized communities, and sometimes incentivize user interaction with the protocol. A classic example is the story between UniSwap and SushiSwap. SushiSwap, as a fork of Uniswap, created the SUSHI token, offering additional rewards to liquidity providers. The platform attracted liquidity providers from Uniswap to SushiSwap and rewarded them with SUSHI tokens. This strategy was highly successful, leading to a significant shift of liquidity from Uniswap to SushiSwap. To maintain market position, Uniswap launched its governance token UNI in response to SushiSwap's strategy. UNI tokens were distributed to liquidity providers and users who had previously traded on the platform. This event was a significant milestone in the history of decentralized finance (DeFi) and airdrops, demonstrating how protocols attract and reward users through strategic airdrops.

The core advantage of airdrops lies in their cost-effectiveness in quickly and sustainably realizing the idea. In the early stages of Web3+ projects, users spend time and resources participating in protocol testing without any compensation. Protocols improve their products based on user feedback and then seek funding. Investors identify promising protocols through due diligence. Once these protocols secure funding, they reward early users through airdrops of tokens. These early users can actively participate in DAO governance or exchange the tokens for other cryptocurrencies. Users who receive tokens are more likely to use the services, provide feedback, and support the protocol. Entrepreneurs and investors committed to driving the development of the internet support these blockchain-based solutions, coordinating all stakeholders at minimal cost. Web3+ breaks free from the constraints of relying on Web 2.0 giants to drive change and competes directly with Web 2.0 companies (Zheng and Lee, 2023).

Airdrops are crucial in generating excitement and publicity, attracting new users to the platform. When airdrops are distributed, the media and community members actively promote, publicize, and research the protocol, giving it significant exposure. Developers cultivate loyalty and stimulate ongoing community participation by incentivizing and rewarding early supporters. This approach enhances the visibility of the project, attracts a broader user base, and ensures decentralized distribution of tokens, reducing the risk of concentration in the hands of a few.

However, airdrops also have drawbacks. Users holding a large number of airdropped tokens may manipulate the market or sell them at a low price. Users may create multiple wallets to receive more airdrops, diluting the expected returns from the airdrop. Additionally, resources used for airdrops could be used for other development or marketing activities. Airdrops may be challenging in an uncertain regulatory environment. If classified as securities, they may need to comply with strict regulatory requirements. Therefore, projects must understand the current regulatory environment and ensure compliance to avoid legal disputes. The amount of distribution can also be a double-edged sword. If airdrop rewards are insufficient, it may cause dissatisfaction among community members. On the other hand, excessive distribution may dilute the value of the tokens, negatively impacting their price and weakening investor enthusiasm. If many recipients decide to sell their tokens simultaneously, this instability can exacerbate. These drawbacks were evident in the recent airdrop distributions of zkSync and LayerZero. To address this, projects can implement carefully planned airdrops, establish clear guidelines and lock-up periods to curb sudden value dilution. The structure and release of airdrops can significantly influence participant behavior. Improperly designed airdrops may prompt holders to have a short-term mindset, potentially jeopardizing the overall goals of the project. Ensuring that airdrop incentives resonate with the long-term vision of the project is crucial for fostering sustained growth and development.

Industry builders can refer to the design standards in Table 3 when creating token economics, while investors can refer to these standards when deciding whether to hold tokens long-term.

Airdrop Design Standards

Design Standard

Explanation

Importance

Design Points

Clear Objectives

Define the objectives of the airdrop, allocate rewards, incentives, marketing, and community building appropriately.

High

Measurable Objectives

Coordinate airdrop strategy

Clear community interaction objectives

Multiple Parameters

Consider multiple parameters such as the percentage of initial circulating tokens, deposit amounts, interaction frequency, and usage time, among others.

High

Weighted scoring system to ensure balanced interaction and long-term token value

Regular Reviews

Fair Distribution

Ensure fair and transparent distribution, with clear and reasonable eligibility rules at the time of release.

Very High

User tiering strategy

Smart contract distribution

Compliance

Understand and comply with relevant regulations to avoid legal issues.

Very High

Legal consultation from professionals

Ensure all processes are compliant

Mitigate Sybil Attacks

Implement appropriate standards to reduce the potential harm of users creating multiple wallets to receive a large number of airdrops.

High

Use on-chain analysis to detect suspicious patterns. Implement a reputation system. Set minimum qualification thresholds.

Post-Airdrop Strategy

Develop a sustainable plan to retain existing users and attract new users through appropriate token incentives. The benefits of these incentives should outweigh the inflation cost to token holders.

High

Design long-term staking plans. Empower token holders with governance rights. Create a roadmap for ongoing development.

Technical Robustness

Ensure that the technical infrastructure can handle airdrops without causing any disruption to the platform. A smooth claiming process can enhance user confidence in the protocol.

Medium

Thoroughly test under stress. Use scalable blockchain solutions. Develop contingency plans.

Community Interaction

Foster interactive participation and gather user feedback

Medium

Host AMA sessions. Create community voting for decision-making. Reward constructive feedback and contributions.

Token Incentives

Coordinate airdrops to ensure long-term economic value

High

Consider the vesting period for airdropped tokens. Align with the token issuance schedule. Consider potential market impact.

5. Other Fundraising Mechanisms Using Cryptocurrency

Inscription BRC-20 and Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Network (DePIN) are two innovative fundraising mechanisms.

Bitcoin is often seen as a store of value, while Ethereum is seen as an innovative ecosystem for creating decentralized applications. However, with the growing interest in creating the Bitcoin ecosystem, driven by core members of the Bitcoin community such as Casey (2023), the Ordinals protocol was proposed.

A satoshi is the smallest unit of Bitcoin, equivalent to one hundred millionth of a Bitcoin. The Ordinals protocol assigns a unique ordinal to each satoshi based on the order of its mining. This ordinal remains unchanged for each satoshi in any transfer, giving each satoshi a unique non-fungible nature. Inscription is a core part of the Ordinals protocol, allowing unique information to be inscribed on individual satoshis. Some consider satoshis with inscriptions to be unique digital artifacts. Ordinals give satoshis a non-fungible nature, while inscriptions add unique information to these satoshis, similar to drawing on a blank piece of paper. By combining these two features, a new NFT standard is created for the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Inspired by ERC-20 tokens and the Ordinals protocol, Twitter user @domodata created a new fungible token standard, BRC-20. It uses JSON data for inscriptions of ordinals to deploy token contracts and for the minting and transfer processes of tokens. BRC-20 tokens are deployed on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Once a certain BRC-20 token is deployed, tokens with the same name will no longer be deployed. Although @domodata classified BRC-20 as a social experiment, it has been widely adopted with the promotion by community members and support from centralized exchanges and Bitcoin miners.

Venture capitalists acquire a large number of tokens at extremely low prices during the private sale period. They leverage their reputation to support the protocol and present compelling narratives to attract retail investors. However, these retail investors unfortunately become liquidity providers when venture capitalists sell their tokens. Retail investors are tired of this unfair mechanism. The emergence of BRC-20 provides an opportunity for fair distribution. There are no private sales targeted at venture capitalists or angel investors. Everyone has an equal opportunity to acquire tokens through minting. During the minting activity, investors pay gas fees to mint tokens. There are no restrictions on how many tokens each investor can mint. This mechanism distributes tokens fairly and in a decentralized manner. Token holders are incentivized to organically promote and support the protocol. When using the BRC-20 standard, there is strong consensus among community members as they have an equal opportunity to participate in minting. If venture capitalists want BRC-20 tokens, they must participate in minting or purchase on the secondary market. It is worth noting that many successful BRC-20 tokens have a strong community atmosphere, with some even incorporating meme culture. Meme coins play an important role in the cryptocurrency ecosystem. The current price of BRC-20 tokens is mainly supported by consensus and meme culture within the cryptocurrency community. Intrinsic value refers to the present value of cash flows generated during the lifecycle of a product or business; therefore, most BRC-20 tokens have no intrinsic value. However, the psychological value of BRC-20 tokens is determined by the subjective emotions of the holders, similar to the emotional value of other collectibles or pets. As BRC-20 is a fungible token standard, it has better liquidity than NFTs. On the other hand, some BRC-20 tokens have specific utility, such as being used as gas fees or tickets for token launch platforms.

After the success of BRC-20, many other token standards have emerged on the Bitcoin system and other blockchains. For example, ARC-20, Rune, BRC-420, SRC-20. These innovative token standards originating from inscriptions are worth further research and development. These new token standards provide an inclusive financial ecosystem with improved functionality, ensuring that everyone with internet access has an equal opportunity to participate in fundraising.

Another increasingly popular track is the Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Network (DePIN). The emergence of DePIN represents a new paradigm, leveraging blockchain technology to facilitate and manage distributed physical infrastructure systems. DePIN aims to address the challenges of deploying and managing physical infrastructure, which are typically dominated by large corporations due to the need for significant capital and complex logistics.

IoTex (2021) first introduced the concept of DePIN, calling it MachineFi, aiming to merge machine and decentralized finance (DeFi) to leverage data, events, and tasks driven by machines. Messari introduced the term "DePIN" in its 2022 report based on a Twitter poll.

At the outset, DePIN uses tokens or potential airdrop incentives to engage users in ecosystem development, attracting technically skilled developers to provide more cost-effective products. As more users use the products or services, the protocol's revenue increases, which can be used for market capitalization management and further marketing, feedback to demand and supply, incentivizing more participants, and attracting market attention, building a thriving ecosystem. During a bull market, DePIN will generate a good positive feedback loop. By implementing incentive mechanisms, the DePIN network can generate initial momentum to compete with established Web2 companies and achieve widespread adoption (Sami 2023). DePIN is an important link between the virtual Web3+ and the real world, effectively promoting data security, coordinating idle resources, and improving our lives, while allowing more people to see the actual value of cryptocurrencies. This is the first time that cryptocurrencies have been used to develop real-world physical infrastructure.

Although BRC-20 and DePIN are innovative cryptocurrency financing strategies, they have failed to change the speculative atmosphere of cryptocurrencies. During the transition from a bull market to a bear market, a large number of BRC-20 tokens have no trading volume, and DePIN track tokens trend towards zero. How to better empower organizations using tokens, and create a long-lasting, sustainable distribution mechanism, is the focus that cryptocurrency entrepreneurs need to consider and practice. Only in this way can we not waste the once-in-a-century financing method created by Satoshi Nakamoto. Otherwise, the cryptocurrency industry will degenerate into a new type of casino and will not be able to further develop.

6. Conclusion

The evolution of cryptocurrency financing supported by blockchain technology has ushered in an era challenging traditional financial paradigms. The democratization of this financing redefines the nature of value exchange and trust, and expands access to global investment opportunities. However, this profound transformation also brings challenges, particularly regulatory ambiguity and potential fraudulent activities. The dynamic nature of the cryptocurrency ecosystem, as demonstrated in its adaptability and innovation (such as ICOs, IEOs, and strategic airdrops), is a testament to its resilience and potential.

Facilitating financing is one of the core functions of cryptocurrencies. Compared to traditional finance, it operates more efficiently and brings greater inclusivity. The inclusivity of cryptocurrencies in financing activities should not be underestimated. Cryptocurrencies provide more fundraising opportunities and exposure, lowering the threshold for investors to fund projects that have the potential to change the world. When considering how to make more people understand and use cryptocurrencies for fundraising, protecting investors and reducing fraud risks without stifling innovation is the direction that policymakers, industry groups, scholars, and project owners need to consider and work together on.

Last but not least, due to the permissionless nature of public chains, anyone with the intention of using cryptocurrency for financing can issue tokens at a lower cost. If a project fails, entrepreneurs are likely to start another project. According to statistics, 92% of blockchain projects cease operations within a year of launch. In contrast, the IPO application process is more difficult, and entrepreneurs listed on traditional markets are more motivated to sustain project operations. Therefore, investors should carefully assess the risks of cryptocurrency investments.

References

• L. Geuer, "The impact of cryptocurrencies on the financial market", Advances in Finance Accounting and Economics Book Series, 2023. doi: 10.4018/978-1-6684-8368-8.ch004.

• V. Jiménez-Serranía, J. Parra-Domínguez, F. De la Prieta, and J. M. Corchado, "Cryptocurrencies impact on financial markets: Some insights on its regulation and economic and accounting implications", 2021. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-86162-9_29.

• S. Stein Smith, "Cryptocurrencies & The Financial Services Landscape", 2020. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-29761-9.

• S. Enajero, "Cryptocurrency Money Demand and the Mundell-Fleming Model of International Capital Mobility", Atlantic Economic Journal, 2021. doi: 10.1007/S11293-021-09701-W.

• Z. Li, Q. Lu, S. Chen, Y. Liu, and X. Xu, "A Landscape of Cryptocurrencies", 2019. doi: 10.1109/BLOC.2019.8751469.

• S. Li and Y. Huang, "Do Cryptocurrencies Increase the Systemic Risk of the Global Financial Market", China & World Economy, 2020. doi: 10.1111/CWE.12314.

• J. Jagtiani, M. G. Papaioannou, G. P. Tsetsekos, E. Dolson, and D. Milo, "Cryptocurrencies: Regulatory Perspectives and Implications for Investors", 2021. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-65117-6_7.

• D. K. C. Lee and L. Low, "Inclusive FinTech: Blockchain Cryptocurrency and ICO", World Scientific, 2018. doi: 10.1142/10949.

• K. Light, "Cryptocurrencies: Can They Live Together with National Currencies and What Impact Do They Have on National and Global Economies?", 2019. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-90659-1_23.

• C. Wilson, "Cryptocurrencies: The Future of Finance?", 2019. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-6462-4_16.

• E. Fouad, "The role of cryptocurrencies in financial transactions considering modern global conditions", 2020. doi: 10.21608/AASJ.2020.155061.

• J. Kregel and P. Savona, "The Impact of Technological Innovations on Money and Financial Markets", 2020.

• A. Rejeb, K. Rejeb, and J. G. Keogh, "Cryptocurrencies in Modern Finance: A Literature Review", Etikonomi, 2021. doi: 10.15408/ETK.V20I1.16911.

• H. Izhar and A. S. Gundogdu, "Characterizing Cryptocurrencies and Why It Matters", 2019. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-10749-9_7.

• S. H. M. Zubir, N. A. Awi, A. Ali, S. Mokhlis, and F. Sulong, "Cryptocurrency Technology and Financial Reporting", The International Journal of Management, 2020. doi: 10.35940/IJMH.I0898.054920.

• J. Paul, "A study on blockchain technology its implications on the financial landscape and its future", Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 2019.

• S. Corbet, B. M. Lucey, A. Urquhart, and L. Yarovaya, "Cryptocurrencies as a financial asset: a systematic analysis", 2018.

• S. Corbet, B. M. Lucey, A. Urquhart, and L. Yarovaya, "Cryptocurrencies as a financial asset: A systematic analysis", International Review of Financial Analysis, 2019. doi: 10.1016/J.IRFA.2018.09.003.

• K. N. Johnson, "Decentralized Finance: Regulating Cryptocurrency Exchanges", William and Mary Law Review, 2021.

• Y. Yao, X. Li, D. Zhang, and S. Wang, "How cryptocurrency affects the economy? A network analysis using bibliometric methods", International Review of Financial Analysis, 2021. doi: 10.1016/J.IRFA.2021.101869.

• S. Enajero, "Cryptocurrency Money Demand and the Mundell-Fleming Model of International Capital Mobility", Atlantic Economic Journal, 2021. doi: 10.1007/S11293-021-09701-W.

• K. Light, "Cryptocurrencies: Can They Live Together with National Currencies and What Impact Do They Have on National and Global Economies?", 2019. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-90659-1_23.

• A. Shehu Umar, "Cryptocurrencies", Advances in Finance Accounting and Economics Book Series, 2023. doi: 10.4018/978-1-6684-5691-0.ch011.

• C. Şarkaya İçellioğlu and S. Öner, "An Investigation on the Volatility of Cryptocurrencies by means of Heterogeneous Panel Data Analysis", Procedia Computer Science, 2019. doi: 10.1016/J.PROCS.2019.09.131.

• V. C. Oliveira, J. A. Valadares, J. E. de A. Sousa, A. B. Vieira, H. S. Bernardino, S. M. Villela, and G. Goncalves, "Analyzing Transaction Confirmation in Ethereum Using Machine Learning Techniques", ACM Digital Library, 2021. doi: 10.1145/3466826.3466832.

• J. E. de A. Sousa, V. C. Oliveira, J. A. Valadares, A. B. Vieira, H. S. Bernardino, S. M. Villela, and G. Goncalves, "Fighting Under-price DoS Attack in Ethereum with Machine Learning Techniques", ACM Digital Library, 2021. doi: 10.1145/3466826.3466835.

• X. Li, T. Chen, X. Luo, and C. Wang, "CLUE: towards discovering locked cryptocurrencies in ethereum", ACM Digital Library, 2021. doi: 10.1145/3412841.3442130.

• X. Li, T. Chen, X. Luo, and C. Wang, "CLUE: Towards Discovering Locked Cryptocurrencies in Ethereum", arXiv: Cryptography and Security, 2020.

• P. Zheng, Z. Zheng, J. Wu, and H.-N. Dai, "XBlock-ETH: Extracting and Exploring Blockchain Data From Ethereum", IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society, 2020. doi: 10.1109/OJCS.2020.2990458.

• A. S. Umar, "Cryptocurrencies", in Advances in Finance Accounting and Economics Book Series, IGI Global, 2023. doi: 10.4018/978-1-6684-5691-0.ch011.

• B. J. Winkel, "Extraordinary cryptology collection", Cryptologia, 2003. doi: 10.1080/0161-110391891847.

• M. Harrigan, L. Shi, and J. Illum, "Airdrops and Privacy: A Case Study in Cross-Blockchain Analysis", arXiv: Cryptography and Security, 2018.

• D. K. C. Lee and S. Low, "Inclusive Fintech: Blockchain Cryptocurrency and ICO", World Scientific, 2018.

• D. K. C. Lee, J. Lim, K. F. Phoon, and Y. Wang, "Foundations for Fintech | Global Fintech Institute", World Scientific Series on Fintech, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/epdf/10.1142/12330. [Accessed: 08-Aug-2023].

• J. Zheng and K. C. Lee, "Understanding the Evolution of the Internet: Web1.0 to Web3.0 Web3 and Web 3 plus", SSRN, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4431284. [Accessed: 21-Jun-2023].

• K. Sami, "The DePIN Sector Map", Messari, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://messari.io/report/the-depin-sector-map.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。