IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i10p5822-d813322.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Sustainable Digital Currency Exchange Platforms Using Analytic Models

Author

Listed:
  • Claire Davison

    (School of Business and Information Systems, Torrens University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia)

  • Peyman Akhavan

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Qom University of Technology, Qom 1519-37195, Iran)

  • Tony Jan

    (Design and Creative Technology Vertical (Faculty), Torrens University, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia)

  • Neda Azizi

    (School of Business and Information Systems, Torrens University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia)

  • Somayeh Fathollahi

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Qom University of Technology, Qom 1519-37195, Iran)

  • Nastaran Taheri

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Qom University of Technology, Qom 1519-37195, Iran)

  • Omid Haass

    (School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia)

  • Mukesh Prasad

    (School of Computer Science, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia)

Abstract

This study presents an analytic model to support the general public in evaluating digital currency exchange platforms. Advances in technologies have offered profitable opportunities, but the general public has difficulty accessing appropriate information on digital currency exchange platforms to facilitate their investments and trading. This study aims to provide a decision support system using analytic models that will guide the public in deciding the appropriate digital currency exchange platform for trading and investment. The overarching objective is to support the public in embracing the new era of a dependable, trustworthy, and sustainable digital society. Particularly, this study offers an analytics model that compares numerous well-known digital currency exchange platforms based on the opinions of 34 human expert members on six main criteria to identify the most suitable platform. In this study, the analytic hierarchy process approach, which is a multiple-criteria decision-making method, and Expert Choice software were used for decision support. Using pairwise comparisons of exchanges with respect to the criteria in the software, the weight of each exchange was determined, and these weights became the basis for prioritizing the exchange platform. This study provides valuable insight into how an analytics-driven expert system can support the public in selecting their digital currency exchange platform. This work is an integral part of an effort to help disruptive digital technology become widely accepted by the general public.

Suggested Citation

  • Claire Davison & Peyman Akhavan & Tony Jan & Neda Azizi & Somayeh Fathollahi & Nastaran Taheri & Omid Haass & Mukesh Prasad, 2022. "Evaluation of Sustainable Digital Currency Exchange Platforms Using Analytic Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-12, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:10:p:5822-:d:813322
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/5822/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/5822/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Evin Özkan & Neda Azizi & Omid Haass, 2021. "Leveraging Smart Contract in Project Procurement through DLT to Gain Sustainable Competitive Advantages," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-25, December.
    2. Stephen Williamson, 2022. "Central Bank Digital Currency: Welfare and Policy Implications," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 130(11), pages 2829-2861.
    3. Higor Y. D. Sigaki & Matjaz Perc & Haroldo V. Ribeiro, 2019. "Clustering patterns in efficiency and the coming-of-age of the cryptocurrency market," Papers 1901.04967, arXiv.org.
    4. Omid Haass & Neda Azizi, 2019. "Knowledge sharing practice in project-oriented organisations: a practical framework based on project life cycle and project management body of knowledge," International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(2), pages 171-197.
    5. M. S. Krishnan & Venkatram Ramaswamy & Mary C. Meyer & Paul Damien, 1999. "Customer Satisfaction for Financial Services: The Role of Products, Services, and Information Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(9), pages 1194-1209, September.
    6. Sara Siddique & Ali Ahsan & Neda Azizi & Omid Haass, 2022. "Students’ Workplace Readiness: Assessment and Skill-Building for Graduate Employability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-15, February.
    7. Neda Azizi & Peyman Akhavan & Maryam Philsoophian & Claire Davison & Omid Haass & Shazi Saremi, 2021. "Exploring the Factors Affecting Sustainable Human Resource Productivity in Railway Lines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, December.
    8. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    9. Vasu Kalariya & Pushpendra Parmar & Patel Jay & Sudeep Tanwar & Maria Simona Raboaca & Fayez Alqahtani & Amr Tolba & Bogdan-Constantin Neagu, 2022. "Stochastic Neural Networks-Based Algorithmic Trading for the Cryptocurrency Market," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-15, April.
    10. Corbet, Shaen & Lucey, Brian & Peat, Maurice & Vigne, Samuel, 2018. "Bitcoin Futures—What use are they?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 23-27.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fatih Ecer & Tolga Murat & Hasan Dinçer & Serhat Yüksel, 2024. "A fuzzy BWM and MARCOS integrated framework with Heronian function for evaluating cryptocurrency exchanges: a case study of Türkiye," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 1-29, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Malik Khalfan & Neda Azizi & Omid Haass & Tayyab Maqsood & Istiaq Ahmed, 2022. "Blockchain Technology: Potential Applications for Public Sector E-Procurement and Project Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-21, May.
    2. Reza Banai, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    3. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    4. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    5. Azhar Mohamad & Sarveshwar Kumar Inani, 2023. "Price discovery in bitcoin spot or futures during the Covid-19 pandemic? Evidence from the time-varying parameter vector autoregressive model with stochastic volatility," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(19), pages 2749-2757, November.
    6. Kamila Hodasová & Dávid Krčmář & Ivana Ondrejková, 2025. "Satellite-based drought assessment: integrating AHP method and fuzzy logic for comprehensive vulnerability and risk analysis," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 121(10), pages 11609-11632, June.
    7. Seyed Rakhshan & Ali Kamyad & Sohrab Effati, 2015. "Ranking decision-making units by using combination of analytical hierarchical process method and Tchebycheff model in data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 505-525, March.
    8. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    9. Mónica García-Melón & Blanca Pérez-Gladish & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Paz Mendez-Rodriguez, 2016. "Assessing mutual funds’ corporate social responsibility: a multistakeholder-AHP based methodology," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 475-503, September.
    10. Panagiotis Ravanos & Giannis Karagiannis, 2023. "Correction: A VEA Benefit-of-the-Doubt Model for the HDI," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 170(2), pages 793-796, November.
    11. repec:pre:wpaper:202416 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Luis Pérez-Domínguez & Luis Alberto Rodríguez-Picón & Alejandro Alvarado-Iniesta & David Luviano Cruz & Zeshui Xu, 2018. "MOORA under Pythagorean Fuzzy Set for Multiple Criteria Decision Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-10, April.
    13. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    14. Kumar B, Pradeep, 2021. "Changing Objectives of Firms and Managerial Preferences: A Review of Models in Microeconomics," MPRA Paper 106967, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 13 Mar 2021.
    15. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Anirban Mukhopadhyay & Sugata Hazra & Debasish Mitra & C. Hutton & Abhra Chanda & Sandip Mukherjee, 2016. "Characterizing the multi-risk with respect to plausible natural hazards in the Balasore coast, Odisha, India: a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) appraisal," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(3), pages 1495-1513, February.
    17. Chamoli, Sunil, 2015. "Hybrid FAHP (fuzzy analytical hierarchy process)-FTOPSIS (fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity of an ideal solution) approach for performance evaluation of the V down perforated baffle r," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 432-442.
    18. H. S. C. Perera & W. K. R. Costa, 2008. "Analytic Hierarchy Process for Selection of Erp Software for Manufacturing Companies," Vision, , vol. 12(4), pages 1-11, October.
    19. Juuso Pajasmaa & Kaisa Miettinen & Johanna Silvennoinen, 2025. "Group Decision Making in Multiobjective Optimization: A Systematic Literature Review," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 329-371, April.
    20. G. La Scalia & F.P. Marra & J. Rühl & R. Sciortino & T. Caruso, 2016. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methodology to optimise olive agro-engineering processes based on geo-spatial technologies," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15.
    21. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2014. "Dual criteria decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 101-113.
      • Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet, 2009. "Dual Criteria Decisions," Working Papers 02-2009, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:10:p:5822-:d:813322. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.