Cryptocurrency is attracting the attention of academic and non- academic researchers as an alternative architecture of currency. Because of the growing of cryptocurrency research, it is essential to value the existing research of cryptocurrency and identify potential future research areas. This paper provides an up to date review of IS research on cryptocurrency adoption. In this paper, we conduct a systematic literature review to gather the previous research related to cryptocurrency adoption. The goal of this research is to identify the current research stage and open challenges for future studies in cryptocurrency adoption. Moreover, the paper presents a systematic literature review (SLR) of 25 research articles published on the adoption of cryptocurrency from 2014 to 2017. The results demonstrate that cryptocurrency adoption research has grown significantly throughout this period, and remains a fertile area for academic research. The results show that the cryptocurrency adoption literature can be classified according to three main classifications: qualitative research, quantitative research and others. The results of the SLR reveal that there is a lack of study focusing on the factors that are significantly influenced on the acceptance of cryptocurrency.

1. Cryptocurrency- Open Challenges
In Brief:
Cryptocurrency is attracting the attention of academic and non- academic researchers as an
alternative architecture of currency. Because of the growing of cryptocurrency research, it is
essential to value the existing research of cryptocurrency and identify potential future research
areas. This paper provides an up to date review of IS research on cryptocurrency adoption. In this
paper, we conduct a systematic literature review to gather the previous research related to
cryptocurrency adoption. The goal of this research is to identify the current research stage and
open challenges for future studies in cryptocurrency adoption. Moreover, the paper presents a
systematic literature review (SLR) of 25 research articles published on the adoption of
cryptocurrency from 2014 to 2017. The results demonstrate that cryptocurrency adoption
research has grown significantly throughout this period, and remains a fertile area for academic
research. The results show that the cryptocurrency adoption literature can be classified according
to three main classifications: qualitative research, quantitative research and others. The results of
the SLR reveal that there is a lack of study focusing on the factors that are significantly
influenced on the acceptance of cryptocurrency.
What are the main arguments against cryptocurrencies?
Cryptocurrencies, today’s privately issued monies or quasi-monies, are threatened with a
regulatory clampdown. Many central banks and regulators are calling for their comprehensive

2. regulation, and an announcement is expected at the forthcoming G20 meetings in Argentina.
Most economists now echo this sentiment (James 2018, Turner 2018, Danielsson 2018)
following earlier, more sympathetic voices (Fernandez-Villaverde 2017).
What are the main arguments against cryptocurrencies? The official sector seems to be
suggesting that no currency other than those issued by a government entity – typically the central
bank – can be trusted and therefore can be true money. (Carstens 2018, Mersch 2018). While this
may hold in many countries, it does not hold in quite a few. Argentina – whose currency, the
peso, or its previous incarnation, the austral, has been lost multiple times over during the past
few decades to hyperinflation and devaluations – offers a splendid backdrop to discuss the
performance of government-issued currencies.
What are the other arguments?
● Cryptocurrencies don’t fulfil all the criteria of money.
● Private money is inherently unsustainable.
● Uninformed consumers and investors need protection against cryptocurrencies’
underlying ‘Ponzi scheme’.
● The technology and the associated business model are too disruptive to the financial
sector.
● The underlying technology facilitates illegal or even criminal activities and their
financing.
We agree with many of these points – to a degree. Cryptocurrencies are not performing all the
money functions today, though these are early days and the outcome largely depends on evolving
government regulations. Un-anchored private money issuance is not sustainable, but neither is
publicly issued money without an appropriate monetary framework, as economic history has
amply demonstrated. Sharp price fluctuations themselves do not justify regulatory protection.
Fraud happens of course, just as with other financial transactions, and must be addressed head-
on, yet there is no evidence that cryptocurrencies are inherent Ponzi schemes. As for their
disruptive nature, competition, innovation, and challenges to the status quo are just as beneficial
in the financial sector as elsewhere in the economy. Speed can be an issue, however, and
safeguards towards an orderly transition may be required. And, of course, cryptocurrencies
should be subject to money laundering and terrorist financing provisions.
How big is the cryptocurrency market today? The total market capitalization of digital coins and
tokens at the end of January 2018 was $520 billion (down from US$830 billion in early January
2018). There were 1,474 cryptocurrencies at the end January compared with 682 at the same
time in 2017, and a total of 9.1 trillion cryptocurrency coins outstanding.1 The market
capitalization at the end of December 2017 represents more than 15% of currency held by the
public in the US, Japan, and the euro area combined, compared with less than 1% in December
2016.

3. Regulatory Response:
So far, the regulatory response to the rapid rise of cryptocurrencies has been concerned mostly
with illicit transactions, consumer protection, market manipulation, capital flight, and
governance (Balboa 2017, BIS 2015, de Filippi 2014, Morris 2017, Wildau 2017). Concerns
about money laundering and terrorist financing remain dominant in the context of the anonymity
provided and limited identification of cryptocurrency participants (FATF 2014). Regulatory
actions include possible outright bans in China and South Korea, several initiatives in the EU
under anti-money laundering regulations, and warnings about the risks of initial coin offerings to
special regulatory regimes (sandboxes). At the same time, regulatory approvals of
cryptocurrency exchanges in Japan and the adoption of bitcoin futures contracts in the US reflect
a more hands-off approach.3 Moreover, some of the central banks have been contemplating, and
some have even announced, the issuance of their own cryptocurrencies, in view of their
advantages.

4. Such monetary innovations are not new, of course. Historically, monies have often started out as
private money. Bank notes issued by private banks were the cryptocurrencies of the past. One of
us (Mandeng 2018) finds that 19th century Germany recognised the important advantages that
bank notes offered to facilitate payments while confronting the risks of over issuance. In 1876,
Germany adopted a mixed central banking model. It established a central bank – the German
Imperial Bank (Reichsbank) – to regulate as primus inter pares bank note issuance together with
the private banks of issue. The central bank adopted what we would today call a ‘joint monetary
framework’ with 30+ private banks authorized to facilitate orderly bank note issuance, adoption
and circulation. At the same time, it imposed firm and transparent common requirements on the
basis of a set qualification criteria. The reason for the mixed model was the lack of trust in one
monopolistic entity and the desire to support, under the joint framework, money emission in a
decentralized way. Monetary innovation was thus met with inclusion, not exclusion.
.
Cryptocurrency challenges the status of quo:
Central banks have come a long way to establish their credibility as the provider of money. But
should this be their ‘natural monopoly’? While there may be good reasons to believe so,
technology is offering a qualitatively new type of decentralized private money with potentially
far-reaching benefits. Illegal use must surely be stamped out, but should we throw out the baby
with the bathwater? Under a unified monetary framework and associated regulation, the
objectives of fostering innovation, competition, and financial system stability and efficiency
could be mutually reinforcing.
Cryptocurrencies challenge the status quo of both central banking and commercial banking. This
carries risks, but also benefits. In the end, as Rogoff (2017) pointed out, “the long history of
currency tells us that what the private sector innovates, the state eventually regulates and
appropriates”. Yet it would be good to have a public debate about the pros and cons of this latest
wave of monetary innovation before any sweeping regulation. For one thing, this would be

5. hugely informative for consumers and investors alike – and particularly important amid today’s
anti-elite and populist sentiment.
Conclusion:
Valuation of cryptocurrency is challenging due to a lack of comparable trades, differences in
pricing between buy and sell orders, disparate methods in reporting exchange currency pricing,
and the difference in pricing of a particular cryptocurrency depending on the exchange used for
the trade. Cryptocurrencies challenge the status quo of both central banking and commercial
banking. This carries risks, but also benefits. crypto ecosystem include operational and financial
integrity risks from crypto asset providers, investor protection risks for crypto assets and DeFi,
and inadequate reserves and disclosure for some stablecoins.