Cryptocurrencies’ Impact on Accounting: Bibliometric Review
1
Doctoral School of Economics and Business Administration, West University of Timisoara, 300115 Timisoara, Romania
2
Department of Accounting and Audit, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, West University of Timisoara, 300115 Timisoara, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Risks 2024, 12(6), 94; https://doi.org/10.3390/risks12060094
Submission received: 11 March 2024
/
Revised: 17 May 2024
/
Accepted: 29 May 2024
/
Published: 11 June 2024
Abstract
:This bibliometric study explores the cryptocurrency accounting (CA) literature and the connections between authors, institutions, and countries where cryptocurrency activity involves transactions that must be legally recognized in accounting, ensure accuracy and reliability for auditing, and adhere to tax compliance. The design involves the selection of data from Web of Science Core Collection (WoS) and Scopus, published between 2007 and 2023. The technique helps identify influential publications, collaboration networks, thematic clusters, and trends in research on CA using tools VOSviewer, Biblioshiny, and MS Excel. The originality of the study lies in its dual role as a support for accounting professionals and academics to develop innovative solutions for the challenges posed by crypto technology across core accounting areas: financial and managerial accounting, taxation, and auditing. The findings offer insights into the themes mentioned, and even if the collaboration between the authors is not very developed, the innovation and public recognition of the subject could raise researchers’ interest. The limitation of the dataset is that it does not cover all relevant publications in a different period from the one in which the data were retrieved, 9–11 May 2024. This review might need periodic updates because the CA landscape is constantly changing.
1. Introduction
As knowledge expands and new technologies emerge, this study explores the trends of research regarding the subject of cryptocurrency accounting (CA) (Beigman et al. 2023; Bellucci et al. 2022; Blahušiaková 2022; Derun and Mysaka 2022; Fomina et al. 2019; Huang et al. 2023; Hubbard 2023; Klopper and Brink 2023; Matusky 2017; Niftaliyev 2023; Procházka 2018; Smith et al. 2019; Vasicek et al. 2019) and the growing interest in specific concepts between researchers and professionals. The paper aims to evaluate scholarly scientific performance by measuring the keywords with the most significant impact in the field of research and grouping them under specific themes. Since bibliometric indicators provide quantitative information, they assess the impact and productivity of different entities or categories.
Factually, this bibliometric analysis identifies collaboration patterns between authors, organizations, or countries and research themes. It also evaluates the authors’ productivity and highlights the period when the research for cryptocurrency accounting started being of interest to researchers. Based on the recent trend of analysis, the authors can also predict future exploration areas.
Therefore, the bibliometric analysis of cryptocurrency accounting consists of identifying and analyzing academic research articles, papers, and other scholarly publications that explore the intersection of cryptocurrency and accounting. The dataset for this study was obtained by combining the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS) database with the Scopus database. WoS is a precious tool allowing researchers, scientists, and scholars to search for literature, analyze citations, and monitor research impact. Scopus is an extensive, multidisciplinary database of abstracts and citations launched by Elsevier. Moreover, a combination of software tools was employed: VOSviewer 1.6.20 (van Eck and Waltman 2023) for visualization and network analysis, together with Biblioshiny (Bibliometrix) (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017) from RStudio for data manipulation and exploration, and Microsoft (MS) Excel for basic graphs and world maps. VOSviewer generates three distinct kinds of bibliometric maps, which include cluster visualization, “overlay visualization”, and “density visualization” (van Eck and Waltman 2023). Biblioshiny is an instrument that uses data from bibliographic databases to perform bibliometric analysis or portray dynamic maps and graphs. Nonetheless, with MS Excel, we studied the most relevant sources and generated different figures and maps.
To conduct this study, the authors investigate the answers to the potential research questions for the bibliometric analysis: 1. What is the current state of collaboration between countries, organizations, and authors? 2. Which themes are of interest among the researchers?
In addition, the study incorporates a thematic review of academic studies to analyze trends, identify research gaps, and evaluate the impact and influence of different publications in the field.
The intersection of cryptocurrencies and accounting is a nascent area of study that necessitates a thorough understanding of both the technological underpinnings of digital currencies and the traditional principles of accounting. As cryptocurrencies continue to gain mainstream acceptance, they pose unique challenges and opportunities for the accounting profession, particularly in the areas of recognition, measurement, and reporting (Tiron-Tudor et al. 2024; Vigna and Casey 2015).
CA is a concept studied by various research areas such as business finance, economics, management, mathematics, interdisciplinary applications, social sciences, mathematical methods, sociology, accounting, auditing, and more. This interdisciplinary nature introduces an element of novelty, prompting critical thinking and new perspectives among professional accountants, auditors, economists, and researchers (Harrast et al. 2022; Smith et al. 2019; Yatsyk and Shvets 2020).
The rise of cryptocurrencies, built on blockchain technology (Bunget and Lungu 2023; Church et al. 2021; Dai and Vasarhelyi 2017; Fuller and Markelevich 2020; Gomaa et al. 2019; Lombardi et al. 2022; Smith 2018; Yu et al. 2018), has led to discussions about their financial and accounting implications (Angeline et al. 2021; Bunget and Trifa 2023; Luo and Yu 2022; Morozova et al. 2020; Procházka 2018; Ram et al. 2016; Smith 2021a, 2021b; Sokolenko et al. 2019), including recognition, disclosure, auditing, and taxation.
In theory, financial accounting (Angeline et al. 2021; Coyne and McMickle 2017; Luo and Yu 2022; Yu et al. 2018) and managerial accounting (Procházka 2018; Vodáková and Foltyn 2020b; Volosovych and Baraniuk 2018; Zadorozhnyi et al. 2022) are vital subjects in the reporting and decision-making infrastructure, each serving specific purposes and addressing different audiences. If financial accounting’s primary interest lies in external reporting according to specific standards (e.g., IFRS, International Financial Reporting Standards; GAAP, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) and providing transparency and trust (Pflueger et al. 2022), managerial accounting’s task is to offer internal reporting focusing on costs and strategic planning (Zadorozhnyi et al. 2018).
The diverse range of topics related to CA includes challenges in accounting for cryptocurrencies under existing financial standards (Pelucio-Grecco et al. 2020; Smith et al. 2019; Vasicek et al. 2019), recognition and disclosure of cryptocurrencies (Bourveau et al. 2022; Fomina et al. 2019; Hubbard 2023; Jayasuriya and Sims 2023), characteristics and taxonomy of cryptocurrencies (Derun and Mysaka 2022; Yatsyk and Shvets 2020), costs of production (Barros et al. 2023; Kolková 2018; Zadorozhnyi et al. 2018), and valuation (Beigman et al. 2023; Blahušiaková 2022; Jackson and Luu 2023; Morozova et al. 2020; Niftaliyev 2023; Procházka 2018).
Cryptocurrencies further complicate tax compliance due to anonymity and lack of a central jurisdiction. This raises concerns about the possible uses of cryptocurrencies for tax evasion or money laundering (DeVries 2016). Accountants must be vigilant and implement robust AML (Anti-Money Laundering) and KYC (Know Your Customer) systems to comply with international regulations.
Described as decentralized (Alsalmi et al. 2023; Makurin et al. 2023; Yu et al. 2018), not regulated, anonymous, quite volatile, and secure, cryptocurrencies pose unique challenges for financial and managerial accounting due to the lack of a unified regulatory approach (Angeline et al. 2021; Jackson and Luu 2023; Pimentel and Boulianne 2020; Smith et al. 2019).
Current accounting standards are often ill-equipped to address the volatile and decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies. These assets do not fit comfortably into the traditional classifications of financial assets (Baur et al. 2018). Cryptocurrencies require an accounting framework that better reflects their economic realities, including specific methods for periodic valuation and reporting (Tapscott and Tapscott 2016).
These assets do not have a predictable income stream and are subject to high price fluctuations in exchange markets. Therefore, accountants must apply valuation methods that reflect both the current market price and the associated risk. In addition, the absence of a specific regular framework in international standards, such as IFRS or GAAP, for reporting these types of assets further complicates the situation (Cyrus 2023; Pieters and Vivanco 2017).
However, in this context, many scholars suggest treating cryptocurrencies as intangible assets, financial investments, stocks, or monetary means (Fomina et al. 2019; Hubbard 2023; Jackson and Luu 2023; Morozova et al. 2020; Procházka 2018).
The acquisition of cryptocurrency through initial coin offerings (ICO) or mining is a laborious and costly process that affects accounting practices (Barros et al. 2023; Harrast et al. 2022; Makurin 2023; Luo and Yu 2022; Zadorozhnyi et al. 2018). Additionally, crypto mining (Corbet et al. 2020; Makurin et al. 2023) and taxation (Bellucci et al. 2022; Pelucio-Grecco et al. 2020; Volosovych and Baraniuk 2018) are highlighted as significant areas in accounting for digital assets (Angeline et al. 2021).
Ozeran and Gura (2020) have also explored auditing aspects. They believe that auditors lack experience with crypto assets, which poses challenges for auditing practices (Dai and Vasarhelyi 2017; Dyball and Seethamraju 2022; Fuller and Markelevich 2020).
Blockchain technology offers revolutionary possibilities for financial auditing by increasing transparency and reducing fraud risks. This technology enables real-time transaction verification, which can fundamentally transform internal and external audits (Casey and Vigna 2018; Peters et al. 2015).
The paper is structured in five parts: (1) the first part creates the introduction to the scientific research; (2) the second part presents the research methods followed; (3) the third part shapes the descriptive bibliometric analysis of the manuscripts from the combined database; (4) the fourth part designs the bibliometric analyses of the main topics researched and offers insights in a thematic analysis, results, and discussion; (5) the conclusion part reveals the findings and offers other exploration suggestions.
2. Research Method
2.1. Keywords and Data Selection
The authors developed a search plan for this analysis to identify the relevant literature in WoS and Scopus databases using specific key terms. In the academic context, the use of the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases is essential for researchers for multiple reasons that support the efficiency, quality, and breadth of research activities. These platforms not only facilitate access to a vast range of scientific literature but also ensure the rigor and relevance of consulted materials, a crucial fact in undertaking any serious academic research.
The selection criteria were customized to WoS and Scopus database, using the string (“crypto*” OR “cryptocurrenc*” OR “virtual currenc*” OR “digital currenc*” OR “initial coin offering” OR “bitcoin”) AND (“account*”) to search based on the topic in WoS and by article title, abstract, and keywords in Scopus. Within the string, we can find the essential keywords related to the research: “crypto*”, “cryptocurrenc*”, “virtual currenc*”, “digital currenc*”, “initial coin offering*”, and “bitcoin”. For a focused approach to the accounting issues, we added the word “account*”.
The selected timeframe encompassed a significant period of development in the field. Articles published between 2007 and 2023 were included in the WoS and Scopus databases. We chose 2023 as the final year because we wanted to analyze complete years and have a fixed database.
The sources include journal articles, review articles, early access articles, proceeding papers, and book chapters. To ensure accessibility and consistency, only English-language published content was included in the search. We extracted the data from Scopus on 11 May 2024, and WoS on 9 May 2024.
Firstly, in Scopus (Figure 1), the authors employed the search within the business, management, and accounting research areas across different countries worldwide. This targeted approach yielded an initial set of 525 scientific papers. However, following a rigorous screening process outlined in Figure 1, 317 were deemed irrelevant and excluded. This left a refined collection of 208 suitable research papers based on the inclusion criteria.
Secondly, in WoS (Figure 2), the search filters for this study were meticulously designed to target the available literature on cryptocurrency accounting within the business economics research area from different countries worldwide. As a result, out of 431 scientific papers, 47 were considered irrelevant and excluded according to the eligibility steps described in Figure 2. The scheme shows the selection of studies and the inclusion or exclusion criteria of papers at every stage. Therefore, based on the inclusion standards, the database included 384 suitable research papers.
2.2. Method of Data Refining and Data Analysis
Following the initial screening, the authors assessed the relevance of the papers included. This multiple-step process ensured the accuracy of the data used for analysis.
Firstly, the abstracts and the contents of the papers were analyzed to ensure the relevance of academic literature included in the process. An abstract is a concise summary that highlights the main points of the research article. By carefully reading the abstracts and the contents, the authors were able to obtain a quick overview of the paper’s topic. After this step, documents lacking the key terms, documents using the key terms in unrelated contexts, and thematically irrelevant documents were excluded. This procedure was performed because not all the articles contained pertinent keywords central to the research, or even if these terms appeared, the manuscripts did not pertain to the study, as the term “accounting” did not refer to “bookkeeping” or financial aspects regarding cryptocurrencies. For example, articles that included the term “account*” in forms such as “taking into account”, “account/ing for”, “unit of account”, “personal/social media account”, “accountable”, and “accountability” would likely be excluded because they do not discuss accounting practices in the cryptocurrency industry. This screening process is significant for ensuring the quality and relevance of the research. By carefully selecting articles that directly address the research question and avoid irrelevant tangents, authors can build a foundation for their research.
Next, we combined the two databases in RStudio using a specific code. The database combination resulted in 195 papers, including duplicate files (from both WoS and Scopus). To maintain the database’s accuracy, duplicates were removed, leaving only 157 manuscripts.
Consequently, in the combined and refined database, we standardized the keywords. This involved merging, in the Excel database, plural and singular forms of terms like “crypto/s”, “cryptocurrency/ies”, “crypto asset/s”, “digital currency/ies”, “virtual currency/ies”, “smart contract/s”, “intangible asset/s”, “financial asset/s”, “digital asset/s”, as well as unifying variations such as “decentralized finance/defi”, “triple-entry accounting/triple entry”, “fair value/fair value measurement”, and “audit/auditing”.
After this laborious process, the analysis involved the descriptive bibliometric analysis and the analyses of the topics researched (including keyword co-occurrence analysis and thematic analysis).
3. Descriptive Bibliometric Analysis
3.1. Annual Scientific Production and Citations
The authors consider it relevant for this study to observe the annual scientific production of documents on CA. The evidence from Figure 3 suggests that the number of publications is continually growing due to the rising interest in this subject.
From 2015, the production of articles evolved until 2020, when 29 scholarly publications were recorded. Despite the low number of publications in 2022 (22 articles), in 2022 and 2023 the production per year grew to 29–35 publications, an increase compared to the previous period. The growing trend might appear due to the intensification of online transactions and the development of blockchain technologies and therefore the necessity to study and legally recognize cryptocurrency transactions.
Considering the citations for the 157 articles, the trend, graphically represented in Figure 3 by the orange line, seems opposite to annual scientific productions, with 952 citations in 2018 but recording a continual decrease until 2023, when the total number of citations per year was 141 citations. According to the growth of publications, we expect the trend of citations to grow because publications released in recent years will be cited. This citation delay is especially found in rapidly evolving fields, such as technology, where newer research may supersede older more quickly.
3.2. Publications’ Sources
At the micro level, Figure 4 illustrates the top 10 of the most relevant sources where articles about CA were published.
The sources are presented in increasing order: “Economic Annals-XXI”, “Australian Accounting Review”, “ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research”, and “Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal” published three articles. Four papers were released through the “Journal of Risk and Financial Management”, and the “Journal of Information Systems”. Also, there are two journals with five articles published: “Financial and Credit Activity—Problems of Theory and Practice” and the “Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal”. The “International Journal of Digital Accounting Research” published six articles, and the most significant source, with 11 publications, is the “Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting”.
3.3. Countries’ Scientific Production and Citation Analysis
The production and citation analyses show the impact of the bibliography and the most relevant documents that study CA, which is reflected in the total number of citations of a scientific work. Analyzing the production and citation patterns by country reveals the most frequent collaborations between countries and offers valuable quantitative insights into the research output of these states. Therefore, this study specifies the number of times authors, institutions, or countries are cited. This technique helps identify the most influential organizations and sheds light on potential collaboration networks between authors across different countries.
At the macro level, regarding the country’s scientific production of articles, the authors projected Figure 5 from Biblioshiny, which illustrates that the USA is the world leader in the research regarding CA, with 44 documents released, followed by Ukraine with 14 articles. With 13 manuscripts in the United Kingdom and 11 articles in Australia, a growing interest in CA is indicated. China and South Africa released seven research papers. Italy released eight documents; the Czech Republic recorded six articles; Canada has five articles; and Spain, Malaysia, and Indonesia have four manuscripts on CA. Finally, there are countries with fewer articles published: Turkey, Russia, New Zealand, Japan, Ireland, India, France, and Switzerland (three articles).
Observing Figure 6 and Table 1, it can be easily seen that the USA is paramount when exploring CA, with 971 citations of scientific scripts. The following countries are Australia, with 830 citations, and Austria with 696 citations. Italy and France rank highly in the top five, with 269 and 219 citations, respectively. The authors generated a Miller map projection within MS Excel to visualize these findings, with data retrieved from Biblioshiny. This map presents the most cited countries in CA (Figure 6).
As Figure 6 graphically represents the number of citations by country, the visualizations from Figure 7 reveal seven clusters, regarding the country citation network:
- The first cluster contains the Czech Republic (six articles, 5 total link power), Indonesia (two articles, 2 total link power), Italy (seven documents, 54 total link power), Russia (three documents, 7 total link power), and South Africa (six articles, 8 total link power), which added their contribution to the research topic between 2019 and 2020.
- The second network is formed by a central node, the USA (41 documents, 91 total link power), indicating a significant role in international research; India (2 articles, 1 total link power); Malaysia (3 articles, 2 total link power); and South Korea (1 article, 1 total link power), with articles released around 2020.
- The third cluster shows the interconnection between China (four manuscripts, 34 total link power), Singapore (one document, 2 total link power), and Taiwan (one item, 4 total link power), and it added its contribution recently, between 2021 and 2023.
- The fourth network contains the United Kingdom as a central node because it released 12 documents, with a total link strength of 18. It is followed by Australia (nine articles, 31 total link power) and Spain (four documents, 7 total link power), which contributed between 2021 and 2022.
- The fifth interconnection was created between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (one article released, 5 total link strength), Canada (five documents, 22 total link power), and Turkey (three documents, 13 total link power), and it added its contribution around the year 2022.
- France (three articles, seven total link power) and Japan (three documents, three total link power) form the sixth couple, being active between 2020 and 2021.
- In the seventh cluster, we note Ukraine (14 articles, seven total link power) and Lithuania (1 article, one total link power), with published articles between 2021 and 2022.
To further explore international collaboration patterns, the authors generated a network visualization using VOSviewer (Figure 7). This map highlights research areas where different countries contribute the most and unveils their collaboration networks. Academic institutions and policymakers can gain valuable insights by comparing these visualizations with citation data. The analysis incorporated a threshold of at least one published and three citations of a document per country. As a result, of the 62 explored countries, 29 met the limit, and 25 of the states were connected. When analyzing an emerging subject, such as CA, we consider employing lower thresholds a well-suited approach because crucial research areas might still be forming. Additionally, standard limits might exclude relevant studies due to their lower citation counts in a new field. Conversely, lower thresholds can provide a more inclusive view of the research landscape, potentially uncovering hidden connections. Consequently, in Figure 7, the nodes represent the countries, and the lines indicate the relations. The thickness of the lines reflects the frequency of citations.
3.4. Author Network and Productivity
Author citation analysis involves identifying how often each author’s work has been cited by counting the references for each document in the dataset and analyzing how frequently different pairs of authors are mentioned together. The study exposes the total link strength attributed to a specific author. Therefore, it can help identify highly cited, influential scientists and their interconnections within the research or their most significant contributions. Additionally, VOSviewer generates maps illustrating collaborations between authors by visualizing their network in a graphical format. These maps also indicate the density and centrality of specific researchers within a particular research area.
The analysis employs a normalization technique known as the strength association method and a threshold of three citations for an author’s work as a minimum requirement for inclusion in the research. This approach acknowledges that new ideas may take time to gain recognition, particularly in a rapidly evolving field like CA. While a higher threshold might prioritize established scholars, a lower limit provides a more comprehensive picture of the research community, including those making initial contributions. Therefore, out of 359 authors from the database, 227 authors met the limit. VOSviewer calculates the total link power of citations between all authors and identifies the ones with the highest power (van Eck and Waltman 2023). Even if so, only 143 authors are connected. This means that the items that are not linked are not cited among the others from their cluster.
As a result, in Figure 8, the 227 items representing the authors from the database were grouped in 76 clusters, with 1016 links between them and a total link power of citations of 1075. Moreover, Table 2 shows six clusters formed by authors who collaborated and were interested in CA. Even if the collaboration between the authors is not very developed at this point, it is essential to consider the novelty and notoriety of the subject.
As evidenced by Table 3, Böhme et al. (2015) were co-authors and were granted the most citations (696 citations), with a total link power of two, for one document published. Their article was published in the “Journal of Economic Perspectives”, indexed in SSCI—Business, Finance, which has the “American Economic Association” as its publisher.
In second place are three co-authors, Baur et al. (2018), who published an article in the “Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money” that received 604 citations and a total link power of two. The journal is indexed in SSCI in the Business, Finance category, with Elsevier as the publisher.
Besides the listed journals, a notable journal is the “Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal”, indexed in SSCI in the Business, Finance category, with the publisher “Emerald Group Publishing”, in which the following authors chose to make public their research: Ramassa and Leoni (2022) (11 citations), Lombardi et al. (2022) (30 citations), and Dyball and Seethamraju (2022) (12 citations).
Ergo, the clusters from the citation of the authors’ network are more dispersed, which indicates that the connections between the study authors are not very tight, but the collaborations are promising.
3.5. Citations at Institutions Level
Building upon the author citation analysis, the study utilizes VOSviewer to conduct a similar analysis for organizations/institutions. The analysis plan involves identifying the impact and influence of academic institutions and research organizations and the frequency of their collaboration. Therefore, the most active organizations in terms of research partnership will be visually evidenced.
Figure 9 illustrates the distribution of the 240 organizations that released at least one article. The figure utilizes a network visualization approach, where nodes represent organizations and lines represent relationships between them. The map also indicates the density and the centrality of specific institutions within the research field. One noteworthy observation is the relatively low level of collaboration between institutions. As can be seen, only 164 out of 240 organizations meet the threshold, suggesting limited interconnectedness. Linked with Figure 9, Table 4 records the institutions that released at least two documents on CA. These findings may reflect the nascent stage of CA research, where institutions are still establishing their research agendas.
4. Bibliometric Analyses of the Topics Researched
The empirical results of the bibliometric study are based on the outputs of VOSviewer, Biblioshiny, and Microsoft Excel. The graphics from Section 4.1 were employed to identify and illustrate the co-occurrence of the authors’ keywords in their publications. Grouping the keywords into clusters results in four core accounting-focused areas: financial, managerial, tax, and auditing. Therefore, starting from Section 4.2, the thematic analysis, based on the mentioned areas, reveals the geographical regions of the research setting, providing a detailed summary of the present state of understanding of CA. Finally, Section 4.3 provides key discussions and diverse perspectives on the researched subject.
4.1. Keyword Co-Occurrence Analysis
Keyword analysis is the process used to identify the key terms and words relevant to this topic. This way, the most important keywords are highlighted, and the researchers become aware of their importance. The threshold set for the analysis is three keywords because of the low number of studies on this subject. As a result, after the database was processed in VOSviewer, out of the total of 328 keywords, only 36 met the limit. Thereby, for all the 36 keywords included, the strength of the links between co-occurring keywords was computed. Notably, just one link can appear with different thicknesses between two words.
Figure 10 reveals the most important keywords, according to the selections made, reflected by the nodes. The size of the vertex shows how frequently the keywords appear. The edges illustrate the relationship between the terms. The stronger the relationship, the thicker and the shorter the line between the words. The edge weight indicates the number of articles in which two items occur together. Therefore, a network, or a cluster, is constructed by a set of nodes of the same color with links between them. VOSviewer 1.6.20 Manual explains that each cluster has a specific color and number that can be easily identified (van Eck and Waltman 2023).
Evaluating the distance between the green cluster, where the principal word is “cryptocurrency”, and the red cluster, which comprises the second term of the analysis, “accounting”, it can be remarked that the two clusters are positioned next to each other. The thickness of the edge bordering “cryptocurrency”, which is directly connected to “accounting”, explains the necessity of this analysis.
For a more detailed explanation, Table 5 presents the most relevant key terms in the network visualization figure. Four important words can be identified in the most prominent nodes (green, red, turquoise, blue, and purple): “cryptocurrency”, “accounting”, “blockchain”, “auditing”, and “bitcoin”.
Consequently, these vertices form clusters with other keywords of the same color, meaning they are more likely to co-occur in the same scientific paper and cover a specific topic together.
The co-occurrence overlay visualization map (Figure 11) depicts the critical terms according to the period in which they were most used. Therefore, as can be seen, terms such as “crypto”, “digital assets”, and “triple-entry accounting”, colored with yellow, were used in recent publications around 2022. Next on the timescale, with light green shades, in the period from 2020 to the end of 2021, we can notice that the most frequent words were: “auditing”, “crypto assets”, “taxation”, “risk”, “accounting”, “cryptocurrency”, and “IFRS”. This suggests that discussions and research on the accounting and reporting of cryptocurrency as an intangible asset were prevalent during this period. Before 2020, keywords such as “bitcoin”, “virtual currency”, “digital currency”, and “innovation”, highlighted with darker blue, were frequently used. Hence, it is likely that these words will be interrelated to subjects on the impact of cryptocurrencies on specialized markets and the emergence of new regulations.
Moreover, the co-occurrence density visualization map (Figure 12) exhibits the most concentrated areas regarding using the key terms. The standard color gradient varies from blue to green shades, ending with yellow. When an item has a higher density and its weight increases, the color is dark blue; when the density is lower, the shade is light yellow. Thus, the densest zones, with dark blue shades, are the ones around the terms: “cryptocurrency” with 84 occurrences, “blockchain” with 80 occurrences, “accounting” which appears 58 times, “bitcoin” with 43 occurrences, and “auditing” which appears 31 times. Near the paramount zone, in light blue shades, but also important, are displayed connected items: “crypto assets” with 20 occurrences, “taxation” with 16 occurrences, and “IFRS” which appears 15 times. From this illustration, it can be observed that “cryptocurrency” and “accounting” are neighboring items, emphasizing that accounting practices need to evolve to ensure accurate and transparent reporting for cryptocurrency activities.
It can be concluded that the relationship between the two topics continues to be of great importance and relevance, as the accounting and auditing of digital assets is in the phase of development and discovery.
4.2. Thematic Analysis
Nonetheless, the literature can be analyzed from the thematical point of view to consolidate the prevalent discussions and to understand the different perspectives on CA. In addition, the originality of this study results from examining and categorizing the articles from the database and starting from the main topics from Table 5 in four pivotal research themes related to accounting: financial accounting, managerial accounting, taxation accounting, and auditing. Thus, each article was assessed by reading and searching for explicit key terms, such as “accounting”, “financial”, “financial accounting”, “management accounting”, “managerial accounting”, “fair value”, “cost(s)”, “production”, “tax”, “taxation”, “tax accounting”, “taxation accounting”, “audit”, “auditing”, “internal auditing”, and “external auditing”.
The findings of this exploration are materialized in Table 6, which presents the authors who delved into the mentioned themes and the geographical regions of the research setting. Thus, the distribution of the four themes suggested is as follows: “financial accounting” theme is represented in 87% of the articles, meaning all 138 items in yellow shades; the “managerial accounting” theme appears in 32% of the papers, represented by 51 orange items; 28% of the manuscripts write about “taxation” (44 articles in blue color); and 34% of the studies discuss “auditing” (53 of the articles in green shades from the table).
From the results of Figure 13, most of the studies on financial accounting (39 articles) and auditing (18 articles) are from the USA. Also, Ukraine manifested a high interest in financial accounting (12 articles), managerial accounting research (9 articles), and taxation matters (8 articles). The information was attentively inserted and processed into tables in MS Excel, following the plotting of the maps, with the software’s ability to generate and insert this type of graphics.
This study’s contribution is reflected in providing a detailed summary of the present state of understanding of CA, consolidating the previous discussions in Table 6. This table points to the key insights from the literature regarding the accounting and auditing categories (Rana et al. 2023).
4.3. Results and Discussion
The results and discussion section offers insights into the thematic framework, which serves as a powerful lens for analyzing the existing literature. Thematic research is a qualitative data analysis used to identify, analyze, and interpret patterns of meaning. Within each of the core accounting areas, the research delves into the key discussions and diverse perspectives presented by the authors of the analyzed papers. This comprehensive analysis provides a detailed summary of the current state of understanding in CA. It sheds light on the various approaches, challenges, and potential solutions that different researchers have proposed. Moreover, by examining the discussions within each theme, the research fosters a deeper understanding of the multifaceted nature of cryptocurrency accounting and the diverse perspectives at play.
Therefore, once the data were collected, each article was read to gain a comprehensive understanding of the content and identify potential themes. The next step involved categorizing each article according to the themes we searched for and found: financial accounting, managerial accounting, taxation, and auditing. The articles that comprised multiple themes were noted down in each category alongside their respective citations. After each theme was clearly defined, it was given descriptive subheadings to help communicate and group the findings of the research concisely into sub-themes.
4.3.1. Insights into Financial Accounting Regarding Cryptocurrencies
The issue of disconnection between legal and accounting treatment for cryptocurrencies (Huang et al. 2023; Kolková 2018; Matusky 2017) manifests in two areas: the general absence of legal frameworks governing cryptocurrencies (Pantielieieva et al. 2019) and the absence of established accounting standards for how companies should handle them in their financial statements. While law classifies them as property, accounting standards like IFRS offer options like inventories (IFRS IAS 2 2024), intangible assets (IFRS IAS 38 2024) (Huang et al. 2023), or long-term investments (IFRS IAS 32 2024) (Zadorozhnyi et al. 2022) according to the intended use (Zadorozhnyi et al. 2018). This is because “current legal and financial structures are not designed with a technology like this in mind” (DeVries 2016).
Kolková (2018) emphasizes the interplay of legal and accounting structures in the Czech system and states that cryptocurrencies should be treated as long-term intangible assets because Czech law does not recognize them as money or investments. Virtual currencies used for payments and trading currently exist in a regulatory gray area (Matusky 2017).
The emergence of cryptocurrencies has exposed limitations in the current accounting framework. A significant concern (Vodáková and Foltyn 2020b) is the lack of explicit guidance on how to account for crypto assets and cryptocurrencies in financial statements (Angeline et al. 2021; Alsalmi et al. 2023; Alhasana and Alrowwad 2022; Chou et al. 2022; Dyball and Seethamraju 2022; Morozova et al. 2020; Niftaliyev 2023; Zadorozhnyi et al. 2022; Zelic and Baros 2018). Due to the absence of a standardized approach regarding their valuation (Smith et al. 2019), different authors propose various valuation models (Alsalmi et al. 2023; Blahušiaková 2022; Fomina et al. 2019; Huang et al. 2023; Hubbard 2023; Procházka 2018; Yatsyk and Shvets 2020).
Current standards allow the classification of cryptocurrencies as intangible assets or inventory (Ramassa and Leoni 2022), with deficiencies that call for robust legal frameworks, economical identification methods for crypto transactions (Fomina et al. 2019), and the associated risks (Al-Wreikat et al. 2023). The guidelines should faithfully represent the financial position and relevant information for users (Yee et al. 2020). This is crucial for ensuring reliable accounting assessment, transparency, and consistency in financial reporting.
In unison with the other studies, Jackson and Luu (2023) tackle the issue regarding the need for amendments or new standards specifically for digital assets (Yan et al. 2022; Luo and Yu 2022; Morozova et al. 2020; Pimentel and Boulianne 2020; Zadorozhnyi et al. 2022). They expose the current accounting treatment of cryptos under GAAP as intangibles, inventory, or financial instruments.
Jayasuriya and Sims (2023) observe there is no single, universally accepted method for CA under IFRS standards, but they could be categorized as intangible assets (IFRS IAS 38 2024) because cryptocurrencies held by businesses meet three criteria for being classified as mentioned (Vincent and Davenport 2022). These criteria include being acquired through exchange, used for debt repayment, and potentially distributed to owners.
Makurin (2023) highlights the challenges in Ukraine due to cryptocurrency accounting ambiguity and the absence of an appropriate framework for domestic and international transactions.
Luo and Yu (2022) delve into the complexities of accounting treatment of cryptocurrency holdings under both GAAP and IFRS standards across five activities: (1) buying and investing; (2) mining cryptocurrencies; (3) using crypto as payment; (4) trading and participating in early-stage investments (ICOs); (5) other activities involving crypto.
The classification of cryptocurrencies in financial statements remains a debated topic. Primarily designed for transactional purposes (Nakamoto 2009) with the possibility of replacing fiat money (Lazea et al. 2023; Ammous 2018; Jumde and Cho 2020), they are also proposed to be recognized as inventory, financial instruments, intangible assets, or more (Angeline et al. 2021; Alsalmi et al. 2023; Munteanu et al. 2023).
Traditional accounting models for long-term assets, based on depreciation due to extensive utilization, may not be suitable for digital assets because they might not accurately reflect their value. Therefore, for digital assets with an indefinite lifespan, a method similar to land valuation reflects their ongoing value without depreciation charges. On the other hand, when valuing cryptocurrencies acquired via business activities, a precise fair value method is essential to account for fluctuations and enable potential revaluations, ensuring a precise reflection of their value (Derun and Mysaka 2022).
According to Ram et al. (2016) there are two models for valuing bitcoins: cost (grounded in stewardship) and fair value (grounded in neoliberalism). Using the cost model for intangible assets might not reflect the actual economic value of cryptocurrencies, especially during periods of rapid price increases (Alsalmi et al. 2023; Blahušiaková 2022; Huang et al. 2023; Pimentel and Boulianne 2020; Parrondo 2023; Ram et al. 2016; Zadorozhnyi et al. 2018), because it is used for less active markets. In the presence of an active market, applying the fair value model when each reporting period ends (as outlined in IFRS 13 (2024)) is a more suitable accounting practice because of the cryptocurrencies’ high volatility (Angeline et al. 2021; Beigman et al. 2023; Blahušiaková 2022; Fomina et al. 2019; Huang et al. 2023; Morozova et al. 2020; Pimentel and Boulianne 2020; Yan et al. 2022; Pandey and Gilmour 2024; Parrondo 2023). This approach ensures that the financial statements accurately record gains or losses from cryptocurrency value fluctuations. This volatility is emphasized by Volosovych and Baraniuk (2018), who argue that high price fluctuations and mining costs necessitate frequent revaluations of cryptocurrency holdings. These models are influenced by the authors’ professional reasoning and their need to comply with accounting standards in specific jurisdictions (e.g., IFRS, GAAP).
A key distinction emerges when examining how US and international companies account for cryptocurrencies. According to Luo and Yu (2022), US companies typically rely on the cost method for cryptocurrencies categorized as intangible assets. This approach reflects any decrease in value as impairment losses. In contrast, international companies following IFRS often utilize the fair value method, as evidenced by Morozova et al. (2020) and Niftaliyev (2023). This method emphasizes the current market value of the cryptocurrency, providing a more dynamic picture. However, Vasicek et al. (2019) identify a fundamental mismatch between cryptocurrencies and current IFRS accounting regulations. While fair value through profit or loss (FVTPL) might appear to be a logical valuation approach, it is not permitted under IFRS (Ramassa and Leoni 2022; Vasicek et al. 2019). IFRS (2019) offers some guidance, recommending classification as either inventory or long-term intangible asset, but the initial valuation is based on the acquisition cost. This approach may not reflect the nature of cryptocurrency prices (Vodáková and Foltyn 2020b).
Raiborn and Sivitanides (2015) delve into the debate over valuation methods, proposing two main options: fair value accounting, potentially applicable for short-term and long-term investments in cryptocurrencies, or the historical cost for long-term investments.
Derun and Mysaka (2022) delve deeper into valuation models for long-term digital assets, favoring an approach without amortization. They propose three models: (1) historical value (based on the acquisition cost), (2) current value (fair value), and (3) mixed model (a combination of the two models). Historical value reflects past expenses, while fair value reflects market expectations for future benefits. The mixed model values the crypto assets at the lowest possible price (between cost or fair value).
Several authors support classifying cryptocurrencies as intangible assets measured at fair value (IFRS IAS 38 2024; Angeline et al. 2021; Alsalmi et al. 2023; Klopper and Brink 2023; Yatsyk and Shvets 2020), inventory recorded at cost under IFRS IAS 2 (2024), or both (Bellucci et al. 2022; Blahušiaková 2022; Fomina et al. 2019; Jayasuriya and Sims 2023; Jackson and Luu 2023; Klopper and Brink 2023; Niftaliyev 2023; Makurin et al. 2023; Morozova et al. 2020; Păunescu 2018; Pimentel and Boulianne 2020; Procházka 2018; Ramassa and Leoni 2022).
Jayasuriya and Sims (2023) offer a broader perspective, considering alternative classifications under IFRS standards such as cash (IFRS IAS 7 2024); financial instruments (IFRS IAS 39 2024); investment properties (IFRS IAS 40 2024); or property, plant, and equipment (IFRS IAS 16 2024). Despite these options, they conclude that crypto assets should be classified as intangible assets under IFRS IAS 38 (2024), using cost or revaluation models for valuation (Jayasuriya and Sims 2023) to ensure proper accounting (Hampl and Gyönyörová 2021). Ram et al. (2016) propose that bitcoins should be recognized as inventory (IFRS IAS 2 2024), intangible assets (IFRS IAS 38 2024), or plant and equipment (IFRS IAS 16 2024).
Furthermore, the AASB (Australian Accounting Standards Board) argues that IFRS IAS 38 (2024) might not be suitable because it restricts “fair value measurement through profit or loss (FVTPL)” (Ramassa and Leoni 2022).
Beigman et al. (2023) advocate for fair value using the market approach (IFRS 13 2024) to value cryptocurrencies. Unlike investments, this conforms with their function as exchange-traded assets. Identifying the principal trading market is crucial for accurate valuation, which aligns with crypto’s primary use of exchange.
To add another layer of importance, the IRS (Internal Revenue Service—the US agency responsible for tax collecting and law enforcement) classifies cryptocurrencies as property (Terando et al. 2017).
Between all these opinions, Hubbard (2023) advocates for their recognition as a separate asset class requiring distinct accounting treatment. However, he reflects on three accounting treatment options: treating crypto as cash or cash equivalents, recording it as an investment at fair value (reflecting its market fluctuations), or maintaining its current classification as an intangible asset with a revaluation model. This approach balances fair value measurement with minimizing immediate impact on reported earnings.
Morozova et al. (2020) notice an absence of clear guidance on recognizing cryptocurrencies as cash equivalents. Hampl and Gyönyörová (2021) suggest reporting fiat-backed stablecoins (Kochergin 2020) as cash equivalents, even though they are not technically financial assets, because of their similarity to cash in terms of holding value.
The ideal classification and treatment for crypto-related activities like mining and ICOs (Gan et al. 2021) remain debated topics (Jayasuriya and Sims 2023; Luo and Yu 2022). While mining is one way to acquire cryptocurrency, Makurin (2023) also acknowledges the option of purchasing it on exchanges, which, with price stability, could become a payment option, moving beyond speculation.
Gomaa et al. (2019) examine a scenario where an accounting consulting service is paid for using cryptocurrency, understanding it as a legitimate form of payment. Rella (2020) would recognize cryptocurrencies as money, “turning them into monetary commodities”. Yee et al. (2020) emphasize the potential of fair value measurement when cryptocurrencies are received as payment.
Another interesting article is the one of Pelucio-Grecco et al. (2020), who make a classification of bitcoins and suggest assessing them as foreign currency for accounting purposes (Procházka 2019).
Yan et al. (2022) delve into the treatment of cryptocurrencies as investments, as intangible assets, or as inventories. The manuscript covers the idea of cryptocurrencies being classified as cash (IFRS IAS 7 2024) and accepted as payment by economic partners. It is not surprising that Makurin et al. (2023) study the potential implications of appreciating them as official means of payment (Yee et al. 2020).
Bellucci et al. (2022) propose a nuanced approach to cryptocurrency classification and valuation, considering the company’s purpose for holding them. Firstly, they suggest classifying them as financial instruments measured at fair value (under IFRS 9 2024) if the company considers them long-term investments. Alternatively, if the company actively trades cryptocurrencies (falling under IFRS IAS 2 2024), they recommend valuing them at fair value less cost to sell (supported by Păunescu 2018; Procházka 2018; Morozova et al. 2020). Thirdly, they acknowledge the possibility of classifying cryptocurrencies as intangible assets (IFRS IAS 38 2024), impaired, and valued at fair value (Procházka 2018; Morozova et al. 2020). Finally, they recognize the debate upon classifying cryptocurrencies as foreign currency (IFRS IAS 21 2024), but this definition is not widely accepted (Hampl and Gyönyörová 2021).
Procházka (2018, 2019) argues for fair value accounting for crypto investments and highlights scenarios where cryptocurrencies can be treated as cash or foreign currency (even if not legal tender), imagining scenarios like receiving crypto as payment (Rella 2020). He also explores how crypto might be used for hedging or derivative contracts under IFRS 9 (2024) and suggests treating it as a non-financial investment.
Parrondo (2023) proposes a classification based on the properties and rights associated with crypto tokens. This framework categorizes tokens into payment tokens (cryptocurrencies/stablecoins), utility tokens, and security tokens. The core of this classification is based on four key factors that Parrondo (2023) identifies: (1) the existence of a legal right; (2) the degree of token value stability; (3) the presence of intrinsic value of the token; and (4) the level of investment risk associated with the token.
Raiborn and Sivitanides (2015) focus on specific accounting issues related to cryptocurrencies, including asset classification (Yatsyk and Shvets 2020), bitcoin holdings for investment purposes, mining activity, bitcoin exchanges (Baur et al. 2018; Böhme et al. 2015), and transactions. The manuscript concludes that a reasonable classification for bitcoins would be as investments (long or short-term) (Beigman et al. 2023).
Table 7 summarizes the valuation approaches for cryptocurrencies proposed by various authors in our reviewed literature, all contributing valuable insights into managerial accounting practices. A clear trend emerges: fair value treatment is the most prominently discussed method in 31 articles. This suggests a preference for reflecting the current market value of cryptocurrencies in financial statements. Cost treatment remains a relevant option, supported by 18 studies.
A key challenge is the difficulty of establishing active markets for all cryptocurrencies, which complicates the application of fair value treatment. This uncertainty might lead accountants to favor the more conservative approach of historical cost valuation.
Regardless of the chosen standard, Niftaliyev (2023) emphasizes the importance of businesses maintaining proper accounting records for their cryptocurrency transactions. Therefore, legalizing cryptocurrencies and adopting modern blockchain-based accounting methods will contribute to a more robust and competitive landscape (Shvayko and Grebeniuk 2020). More than that, legislation is beneficial for both protecting the country’s economy and safeguarding the interests of its citizens (Salawu and Moloi 2018).
In conclusion, the ideal approach for valuation treatment for cryptocurrencies depends on a company’s specific cryptocurrency use case. Careful consideration of this factor and a commitment to transparency and consistency in financial reporting are crucial for companies navigating this evolving landscape.
The uncertainty and evolving nature of accounting treatments for cryptocurrencies (Smith et al. 2019) might be a reason behind the slow adoption of digital currencies by businesses and accounting firms (Appelbaum et al. 2022) and high volatility in stock markets (Soepriyanto et al. 2023; Borri 2019). Moreover, Smith (2018) highlights the need for accounting professionals to adapt to the emerging trends in blockchain technology (Alles and Gray 2020, 2023; Ntanos et al. 2020).
Pimentel and Boulianne (2020) explore the implications of blockchain technology on financial reporting. Similarly, Bonyuet (2020) talks about Big Four accounting firms actively advising on and developing blockchain solutions for financial accounting (Kokina et al. 2017) and reporting on cryptocurrencies. More than that, the paper of Barros et al. (2023) discusses decentralized accounting management regarding cryptocurrencies, highlighting the importance of coordination in updating accounting records.
Abdennadher et al. (2022) argue that blockchain technology presents a double win for the accounting profession (Atik and Kelten 2021; Pflueger et al. 2022). On the one hand, it has the potential to automate many routine accounting tasks, facilitate processes, enhance efficiency (Alhasana and Alrowwad 2022; Caliskan 2020), and support sustainable development (Al-Htaybat et al. 2019; ALSaqa et al. 2019). On the other hand, blockchain’s inherent security strengthens record-keeping, significantly reducing the risk of fraudulent transactions (Dai and Vasarhelyi 2017; Appelbaum and Nehmer 2020; Maffei et al. 2021). This frees up valuable time for accountants and auditors to shift their focus toward providing advisory services and leveraging their expertise (Garanina et al. 2022). Bonyuet (2020) emphasizes that proper accounting treatment for transactions requires significant accounting knowledge and experience (Schmitz and Leoni 2019).
Makurin et al. (2023) explore blockchain technology’s impact on accounting using a triple-entry system instead of the traditional double-entry (Adelowotan and Coetsee 2021; Han et al. 2023; Maffei et al. 2021; Mosteanu and Faccia 2020). This additional layer adds a cryptographic stamp for each transaction (Buhussain and Hamdan 2023), ensuring identical copies for all stakeholders (accountant, client, tax authorities, and auditor).
Incorporating blockchain technology into accounting education and practice is challenging due to its multidisciplinary nature (Desai 2023; Kaden et al. 2021; Stern and Reinstein 2021).
Recognizing the need for accurate record-keeping and understanding the financial transactions of cryptocurrencies, Stratopoulos’s (2020) work centers around creating an interactive learning activity for accounting students. This activity explores Bitcoin blockchains to equip students with a strong foundation on this subject. Specifically, it aims to cultivate a conceptual understanding of blockchain technology and its functions.
4.3.2. Insights into Managerial Accounting Regarding Cryptocurrencies
Management accounting involves the recognition and valuation of cryptocurrencies as elements of cost, with different accounting treatments leading to inconsistencies and potential distortions in assessing a company’s performance (Luo and Yu 2022). Fuller and Markelevich (2020) believe that accountants prioritize high-reliability information, ideally achieved at a reasonable cost. This suggests a balancing act between accuracy and efficiency in financial reporting.
Păunescu (2018) considers two phases in the creation of crypto assets: the research phase, during which any expenses incurred cannot be recognized as assets, and the development phase, during which associated costs can be capitalized as intangible assets.
In their research, Barros et al. (2023) delve into the production costs (Yang and Hamori 2021) of cryptocurrency, specifically mining costs (Proelss et al. 2023) related to energy consumption and computational capacity. These costs highlight how frequently the blockchain grows with new blocks. The frequency with which new blocks are added directly impacts several factors. Firstly, it establishes the update time for the ledger. Secondly, it influences the mining rewards, incentivizing miners to secure the network. Finally, it affects mining costs, which include IT equipment and software, electricity consumption, and personnel wages needed to operate the system (Kolková 2018; Zadorozhnyi et al. 2018; Zianko et al. 2022). Makurin (2023) breaks down the specific costs of mining one bitcoin, highlighting factors such as equipment depreciation and maintenance (Peters et al. 2015), high-speed internet access, software, and electricity costs. Considering these ongoing aspects, Makurin et al. (2023) advocate for revaluing cryptocurrencies on the balance sheet to reflect their current market value.
The cost of mining depends heavily on the approach taken by the miner (Makurin et al. 2023). If the miner develops a new technology, the development costs become part of the initial value of the mined coins. If existing technology is used, the initial value is simply the direct cost of mining. In both cases, mining costs and the desired profit margin for miners ultimately influence the cryptocurrency’s exchange rate (Volosovych and Baraniuk 2018).
Corbet et al. (2020) highlight a critical cost variable in cryptocurrency valuation: the amount of electricity consumed during mining. They emphasize that energy consumption has a dual impact, influencing the cryptocurrency’s fair value and the potential investment returns for miners.
In this context, Smith et al. (2019) differentiate between externally acquired and internally created crypto assets. Externally acquired assets are recorded at their initial purchase cost, while internally created crypto assets (e.g., through mining) have all associated creation costs expensed as incurred.
An interesting idea is offered by Altukhov et al. (2020). They suggest that for some enterprises, creating and utilizing their own cryptocurrency could be beneficial for predicting the flow of information within the management accounting system. We believe these internal cryptocurrencies could function only as a closed-loop system within a company.
Derun and Mysaka (2022) highlight an additional cost consideration: transaction fees. Users may incur high commissions to expedite transaction confirmations, adding to the overall cost of managing digital assets (Borri and Shakhnov 2022).
Therefore, when appraising this type of asset, the preferred valuation method is the fair value treatment (Makurin et al. 2023; Smith et al. 2019; Alsalmi et al. 2023; Angeline et al. 2021; Beigman et al. 2023; Bellucci et al. 2022; Corbet et al. 2020; Hubbard 2023; Morozova et al. 2020; Niftaliyev 2023; Ramassa and Leoni 2022) which offers two approaches. Firstly, the market approach involves comparing the cryptocurrency with similar assets based on the same technology in an active market (Luo and Yu 2022). The comparison can be influenced by inputs such as the current market price (the value of one unit of cryptocurrency) (Derun and Mysaka 2022; Procházka 2018; Proelss et al. 2023; Zadorozhnyi et al. 2018), market capitalization (the overall value of the market) (Yang and Hamori 2021; Proelss et al. 2023; Zianko et al. 2022; Peters et al. 2015), trading volume (the total volume of cryptocurrencies traded in a specific period) (Yang and Hamori 2021; Zianko et al. 2022; Peters et al. 2015), or regulatory landscape (compliance and clarity of regulations) (Derun and Mysaka 2022; Yang and Hamori 2021; Proelss et al. 2023; Zianko et al. 2022; Makurin et al. 2023; Peters et al. 2015). The reliability of the information is influenced by the volatility of the cryptocurrency market (Luo and Yu 2022; Proelss et al. 2023; Makurin 2023; Makurin et al. 2023), leading to uncertainty when making comparisons between different markets (Zianko et al. 2022; Makurin et al. 2023). Secondly, the income approach is typically used for traditional assets. Therefore, this method is less applicable to cryptocurrencies because they often lack inherent cash flow (Proelss et al. 2023). If this approach were applied, the transaction fees (Derun and Mysaka 2022; Peters et al. 2015) would be a notable input.
4.3.3. Insights into Taxation of Cryptocurrencies
The emergence of cryptocurrencies has introduced a novel asset class with unique accounting and taxation considerations (Bozdoğanoğlu 2022; Cassidy et al. 2020; Cong et al. 2023; Obu and Ukpere 2022). Governments are still grappling with establishing clear rules for taxing cryptocurrency transactions, creating uncertainty for both governments and taxpayers (Pimentel and Boulianne 2020; Vumazonke and Parsons 2023). Tax authorities must explore the underlying principles of taxing cryptocurrency transactions to increase tax revenue potentially (Angeline et al. 2021).
A crucial aspect regarding the taxation of crypto assets lies in identifying ownership. The pseudonymous nature of cryptocurrency transactions (Pimentel and Boulianne 2020; Caliskan 2020) makes it challenging to track the true owner of these assets. This lack of transparency also makes it difficult to determine who is liable for taxes on income generated from cryptocurrency transactions.
In the situation of holding cryptocurrencies, different authors choose to consider that cryptocurrencies should be taxed similarly to properties or commodities (Alsalmi et al. 2023; Jayasuriya and Sims 2023; Smith et al. 2019; Terando et al. 2017; Cong et al. 2023). Offering a simple tax framework could potentially encourage taxpayers to comply with regulations. However, Angeline et al. (2021) draw attention to how companies must navigate accounting standards (e.g., IFRS IAS 38 2024; IFRS IAS 2 2024) and relevant tax regulations to determine their tax liabilities for cryptocurrencies accurately (Davenport and Usrey 2023).
Huang et al. (2023) explain the specific tax implications for cryptocurrency activities in Hong Kong. Profits earned from trading cryptocurrencies held as inventory and staking rewards received during the holding period are likely subject to profits tax. In contrast, cryptocurrencies sold after being classified as intangible assets fall outside the scope of Hong Kong profits tax. However, it is essential to note that other jurisdictions might have capital gains taxes (profits taxes) on such transactions, which differ from income tax. The profits tax is a percentage applied to the profit, which is the positive difference between revenue and expenses. The income tax represents a percentage applied to the income.
Smith et al. (2019) also consider holding periods. If a taxpayer holds cryptocurrency for more than one year before selling it, any profits are generally regarded as long-term capital gains. This distinction is significant because long-term capital gains are often taxed lower than ordinary income.
Donating cryptocurrency to charity offers an additional tax benefit in South Africa: exemption from capital gains tax. This means the fair market value of the donated cryptocurrency is not counted as income, a capital gain, or a loss for tax purposes (Vumazonke and Parsons 2023). This exemption can incentivize charitable giving using cryptocurrency.
The taxation of cryptocurrency mining activity sparks debate among scholars. Bellucci et al. (2022) suggest treating mining as a business activity subject to “general taxes” like other production activities. In their view, taxation should occur at the time of production, capturing the value generated during mining.
Conversely, Pelucio-Grecco et al. (2020) consider a different approach, aligning with Volosovych and Baraniuk (2018). They argue that mined cryptocurrencies should be taxed upon sale, not at the time of mining. This approach may be preferable due to the inherent volatility of cryptocurrency prices. We consider that taxing at the point of sale offers a more stable tax base.
The tax treatment of cryptocurrency exchanges also presents challenges (Cong et al. 2023; Nylen and Huels 2022). Several authors, including Bellucci et al. (2022) and Volosovych and Baraniuk (2018), recommend treating these exchanges similarly to foreign currency transactions. This analogy suggests that profits generated from cryptocurrency exchanges might be subject to capital gains taxes. Essentially, the argument is for taxing cryptocurrency exchanges like foreign currency trades. Furthermore, Kolková (2018) proposes that cryptocurrency conversions to fiat currency with a profit due to exchange rate fluctuations may be subject to income tax (Pelucio-Grecco et al. 2020). However, only the profit, not the entire amount converted, should be considered taxable income.
The taxation of cryptocurrency transactions extends beyond capital gains. Huang et al. (2023) suppose cryptocurrency transactions might be subject to transaction taxes depending on the jurisdiction.
Kolková (2018) emphasizes the importance of deductible expenses related to acquiring or managing the cryptocurrencies (e.g., exchange fees, training courses, hardware wallet) that can be diminished from the profit before calculating the final tax amount. This approach ensures a more accurate reflection of taxable income.
When a business accepts cryptocurrency as payment for goods or services, the tax treatment becomes similar to traditional currency sales. Income or sales tax applies in Brazil, as suggested by Pelucio-Grecco et al. (2020). However, these authors also highlight a debate surrounding Brazil’s tax on the circulation of goods and services (ICMS). One view suggests it might apply when buying crypto from a third party, while another proposes its application upon exchanging crypto for traditional money. Pimentel and Boulianne (2020) offer an alternative perspective, suggesting that cryptocurrency purchases for goods or services be treated as “barter transactions” for tax purposes.
Bellucci et al. (2022) believe that cryptocurrency activities should be exempted from Value Added Tax (VAT) in Italy. They draw a parallel to currency trading activities, which are typically exempt from VAT (Kolková 2018). This reasoning aligns with the approach taken in Ukraine, which follows the EU recommendations by not applying VAT to cryptocurrency transactions (Volosovych and Baraniuk 2018).
In conclusion, a critical link exists between the accounting treatment of cryptocurrencies in financial statements and their subsequent taxation (Makurin et al. 2023; Niftaliyev 2023). The absence of clear and consistent regulations creates an unpredictable and unstable environment for businesses operating in this space (Sokolenko et al. 2019; Ilham et al. 2019a, 2019b). Establishing well-defined rules would enhance transparency and comparability in financial reporting and stabilize businesses dealing with cryptocurrencies.
4.3.4. Insights into Auditing of Cryptocurrencies
The integration of blockchain technology into the auditing profession (Lombardi et al. 2022) holds the potential to revolutionize audit processes, making them more transparent and clear (Abdennadher et al. 2022; Bonyuet 2020; Dai and Vasarhelyi 2017; Dyball and Seethamraju 2022), including the verification of cryptocurrency transactions, recognition, and disclosure. These advancements could fundamentally reshape the way audits are conducted because transactions can be recorded when they happen, data are secure and cannot be altered once recorded, and every transaction has a verifiable time stamp (Buhussain and Hamdan 2023), while information is private on the blockchain (Pan et al. 2023). Even if blockchain technology can bring significant changes, it will not replace auditors themselves or their professional rationale (Coyne and McMickle 2017).
As cryptocurrency investments gain adoption within businesses, the demand for auditing and advisory services tailored to these assets is expected to rise (Klopper and Brink 2023; Ozeran and Gura 2020; Smith 2023). Auditors can leverage existing accounting guidance to assess how companies account for their cryptocurrency holdings to ensure proper financial reporting and adherence to relevant regulations (Klopper and Brink 2023).
However, the relatively nascent cryptocurrency market presents challenges for auditors. Ozeran and Gura (2020) noticed the lack of extensive experience with cryptocurrency among many auditors. This can make it difficult to decide whether to accept or continue auditing a company with significant crypto activity. Compounding this challenge is the absence of clear, consistent regulatory guidelines for crypto assets.
One of the primary challenges auditors face in the realm of cryptocurrency is the inherent volatility of the price (Angeline et al. 2021). This price fluctuation makes accurate valuation difficult, demanding heightened caution from both internal and external auditors when they estimate cryptocurrency values, review transactions (Gomaa et al. 2019), and consider factors like dates, estimations used, and assumptions made. Auditors must be careful in identifying and assessing the risks of errors in financial statements due to crypto transactions (Ozeran and Gura 2020). To achieve this, auditors can employ a set of risk assessment procedures tailored explicitly to crypto assets: (1) verification of cryptocurrency wallets and trading balances; (2) confirmation of ownership through third-party verification; (3) examination of whitepapers and trading agreements; (4) evaluation of internal controls for securing cryptocurrencies (Ozeran and Gura 2020).
Beyond the valuation challenges, auditors must consider inherent risks and control risks associated with cryptocurrencies (Angeline et al. 2021; Dunn et al. 2021; Tzagkarakis and Maurer 2023; Sheldon 2023). Inherent risks are those likely to occur due to the very nature of cryptocurrencies. A prime example is the valuation difficulty when holding cryptocurrencies over time, as highlighted by Smith et al. (2019). Another significant, both inherent and control, risk involves unauthorized access to private keys used to secure cryptocurrency holdings (Harrast et al. 2022; Gurdgiev and Fleming 2021), potentially leading to substantial misstatements in financial reporting. Control risks are those that an entity’s internal controls (Smith and Castonguay 2020) over financial reporting are ineffective in preventing or detecting.
Furthermore, the pseudonymous nature of cryptocurrency transactions presents unique auditing challenges for accountants in accurately recording and reporting financial transactions (Harrast et al. 2022). Bellucci et al. (2022) point out that auditors must rely heavily on a company’s internal controls for auditing (Dyball and Seethamraju 2022; Bauer et al. 2023). This underscores the critical role of robust internal controls for ensuring reliable data, a cornerstone for auditors to assess a company’s financial health properly (Fuller and Markelevich 2020).
In conclusion, auditing cryptocurrencies presents a complex challenge due to inherent risks, control risks, and the evolving nature of the technology. Further research on these challenges and developing a robust framework for auditing crypto assets remains pivotal for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of financial reporting in this dynamic space.
5. Conclusions
The analysis reveals several key insights in pursuit of an answer to the first research question, “What is the current state of collaboration between countries, organizations, and authors?” While collaboration between authors is still developing, the novelty and notoriety of the subject could raise the interest of other scientists. The network visualization suggests a gradual spread of connections between authors.
Similar trends are observed in the country and organization citation networks. Collaboration appears to be in its early stages, with the most involved countries being the USA, Australia, Austria, Italy, France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Lebanon, the Czech Republic, China, and Ukraine. This geographical spread reflects potential factors influencing research activity in cryptocurrency accounting. Therefore, countries with a higher rate of cryptocurrency adoption among their citizens or with well-developed financial markets would accelerate research to address practical accounting challenges. Examples include the USA and Ukraine, which have a significant cryptocurrency user base, and China, a central financial hub. Moreover, countries with established or evolving regulatory frameworks for cryptocurrencies might be more inclined to invest in research. The USA, with its division between the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) and CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission), and the United Kingdom, where the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) is taking the lead, are first examples of this, as both nations are actively developing frameworks to oversee cryptocurrency activities and address potential risks.
Regarding the institutions involved in the publishing process, we highlight the connected ones from the most significant cluster: Rutgers State University, Masaryk University Brno, City University of New York, Columbia University, Kyiv National University, Auckland University, and Concordia University. Universities in certain countries might have a focus on innovation and emerging technologies (Masaryk University Brno), financial and regulatory implications (Rutgers State University, Concordia University), crypto challenges in adoption countries (Kyiv National University), or impact on international standards (University of Auckland), leading to a natural extension of research into cryptocurrency accounting.
Investigating the second research question, “Which themes are of interest among the researchers?”, the authors reveal the distribution research across four key themes based on the network visualizations and the extracted citation data. The “financial accounting” theme forms the core subject matter, appearing in most of the articles. The “managerial accounting” and “auditing” themes are the next in the hierarchy, highlighting their relevance to the field. The impact of cryptocurrencies on “taxation” is addressed in fewer studies, but the interest will increase significantly as governments worldwide seek to regulate the growing cryptocurrency market.
Thematic analysis and discussions of the reviewed literature fill the gap by unveiling the valuation approaches most prominently discussed by authors for cryptocurrencies. The fair value treatment approach emerges as the most favored method. This finding suggests a preference for reflecting the current market value of cryptocurrencies within financial statements, potentially to provide a more accurate representation of their worth.
The established valuation approach for cryptocurrencies in financial statements has a critical link to their subsequent taxation (Makurin et al. 2023; Niftaliyev 2023). This underscores the urgent need for clear and consistent regulations to govern cryptocurrency accounting. The absence of such regulations creates an unpredictable and unstable environment for businesses operating in this space (Sokolenko et al. 2019). Crypto exchanges are always exempt from VAT, but the additional services provided by the platforms that host the crypto market (e.g., intermediary services that facilitate access to the market) are not exempt from this tax (Kontozis 2019). Moreover, they are subject to income or profit taxation depending on the jurisdiction (Pandey and Gilmour 2024). Establishing well-defined rules would enhance transparency and comparability in financial reporting and provide stability for businesses dealing with cryptocurrencies.
Auditing cryptocurrencies presents a complex challenge due to inherent risks, control risks, and the technology’s evolving nature. Further research on these challenges and developing a robust framework for auditing crypto assets remain pivotal for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of financial reporting in this dynamic space.
In conclusion, the ideal approach to the valuation treatment for cryptocurrencies depends on a company’s specific cryptocurrency use case. Careful consideration of this factor and a commitment to transparency and consistency in financial reporting are crucial for companies navigating this evolving landscape.
In light of these, there is a significant ongoing discussion about regulating this type of asset. Therefore, this topic can allow other researchers to explore the following:
- How does pseudonymity interact with regulation regarding cryptocurrency holdings?
- How can the financial reporting of cryptocurrencies comply with the existing standards, or can we explore whether new standards are necessary?
- Which valuation approach is more effective for measuring cryptocurrency value over time?
- Which tax regulations would be appropriate for mining, trading, or staking activities with cryptocurrencies?
- The development of audit methodologies designed explicitly for crypto assets.
- The application of blockchain technology and triple-entry accounting in auditing and accounting of crypto assets.
The authors consider that a limitation of the study could be that the chosen dataset might not cover all academic publications on CA. Also, the period selected might miss early or recent developments in the research field. Other future bibliometric studies could be conducted in a different period. This review might need periodic updates because the cryptocurrency and CA landscapes constantly change.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, G.-I.L. and O.-C.B.; methodology, G.-I.L.; software, G.-I.L. and C.L.; validation, G.-I.L. and O.-C.B.; formal analysis, G.-I.L.; investigation, G.-I.L. and C.L.; resources, G.-I.L.; data curation, G.-I.L.; writing—original draft preparation, G.-I.L.; writing—review and editing, G.-I.L. and C.L.; visualization, G.-I.L.; supervision, O.-C.B.; project administration, G.-I.L., O.-C.B. and C.L.; funding acquisition, G.-I.L., O.-C.B. and C.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The APC was funded by the WEST UNIVERSITY OF TIMISOARA, ROMANIA.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on the Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus or upon request from the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Abdennadher, Sonia, Rihab Grassa, Hareb Abdulla, and Abdulla Alfalasi. 2022. The Effects of Blockchain Technology on the Accounting and Assurance Profession in the UAE: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 20: 53–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adams, Mollie T., and William A. Bailey. 2021. Emerging Cryptocurrencies and IRS Summons Power: Striking the Proper Balance between IRS Audit Authority and Taxpayer Privacy. The ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research 19: 61–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adelowotan, Michael, and Daniel Coetsee. 2021. Blockchain Technology and Implications for Accounting Practice. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal 25: 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Alamad, Samir. 2019. Financial and Accounting Principles in Islamic Finance. New York: Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alhasana, Khaled Ahmad Haroun, and Anas Mohammad Mousa Alrowwad. 2022. National Standards of Accounting and Reporting in the Era of Digitalization of the Economy. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice 1: 154–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Htaybat, Khaldoon, Khaled Hutaibat, and Larissa von Alberti-Alhtaybat. 2019. Global Brain-Reflective Accounting Practices Forms of Intellectual Capital Contributing to Value Creation and Sustainable Development. Journal of Intellectual Capital 20: 733–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alles, Michael, and Glen L. Gray. 2020. What Accountants Need to Know about Blockchain. Information For Efficient Decision Making: Big Data, Blockchain and Relevance 19: 303–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alles, Michael, and Glen L. Gray. 2023. Hope or Hype? Blockchain and Accounting. International Journal of Digital Accounting Research 23: 19–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alsalmi, Noora, Subhan Ullah, and Muhammad Rafique. 2023. Accounting for Digital Currencies. Research in International Business and Finance 64: 101897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ALSaqa, Zeyad Hashim, Ali Ibrahim Hussein, and Saddam Mohammed Mahmood. 2019. The Impact of Blockchain on Accounting Information Systems. Journal of Information Technology Management 11: 62–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altukhov, P. L., E. B. Nozhkina, and E. M. Dushevina. 2020. Process Approach to the Creation of Intellectual-Information Management System of Industrial Enterprise Development. In International Scientific Conference. Edited by D. B. Solovev. Amsterdam: Atlantis Press, vol. 128, pp. 1758–65. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Wreikat, Assyad, Adel Almasarwah, and Ola Al-Sheyab. 2023. Blockchain Technology, Cryptocurrencies and Transforming Accounting Fees. International Journal of Electronic Business 19: 95–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ammous, Saifedean. 2018. Can Cryptocurrencies Fulfil the Functions of Money? Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 70: 38–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angeline, Yap Kiew Heong, Wong Siew Chin, Melissa Teoh Teng Tenk, and Zakiah Saleh. 2021. Accounting Treatments for Cryptocurrencies in Malaysia: The Hierarchical Component Model Approach. Asian Journal of Business and Accounting 14: 137–71. [Google Scholar]
- Appelbaum, Deniz, and Robert A. Nehmer. 2020. Auditing Cloud-Based Blockchain Accounting Systems. Journal of Information Systems 34: 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Appelbaum, Deniz, Eric Cohen, Ethan Kinory, and Sean Stein Smith. 2022. Impediments to Blockchain Adoption. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 19: 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aria, Massimo, and Corrado Cuccurullo. 2017. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Inometrics 11: 959–75. Available online: https://www.bibliometrix.org/home/ (accessed on 11 May 2024). [CrossRef]
- Atik, Asuman, and Goksal Selahatdin Kelten. 2021. Blockchain Technology and Its Potential Effects on Accounting: A Systematic Literature Review. Istanbul Business Research 50: 495–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barros, Fernando, Jr., Jefferson Bertolai, and Matheus Carrijo. 2023. Cryptocurrency Is Accounting Coordination: Selfish Mining and Double Spending in a Simple Mining Game? Mathematical Social Sciences 123: 25–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, Tim D., J. Efrim Boritz, Krista Fiolleau, Bradley Pomeroy, Adam Vitalis, and Pei Wang. 2023. Cataloging the Marketplace of Assurance Services. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baur, Dirk G., KiHoon Hong, and Adrian D. Lee. 2018. Bitcoin: Medium of Exchange or Speculative Assets? Journal of International Financial Markets Institutions & Money 54: 177–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beigman, Eyal, Gerard Brennan, Sheng-Feng Hsieh, and Alexander J. Sannella. 2023. Dynamic Principal Market Determination: Fair Value Measurement of Cryptocurrency. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 38: 731–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bellucci, Marco, Damiano Cesa Bianchi, and Giacomo Manetti. 2022. Blockchain in Accounting Practice and Research: Systematic Literature Review. Meditari Accountancy Research 30: 121–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, Sheldon, Ken Charbonneau, Ryan Leopold, Linda Mezon, Carol Paradine, Anthony Scilipoti, and Rebecca Villmann. 2020. Blockchain and Cryptoassets: Insights from Practice*. Accounting Perspectives 19: 283–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blahušiaková, Miriama. 2022. Accounting for Holdings of Cryptocurrencies in the Slovak Republic: Comparative Analysis. Contemporary Economics 16: 16–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bondarenko, Olena, Oksana Kichuk, and Andrii Antonov. 2019. The Possibilities of Using Investment Tools Based on Cryptocurrency in the Development of the National Economy. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 5: 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonyuet, Derrick. 2020. Overview and Impact of Blockchain on Auditing. International Journal of Digital Accounting Research 20: 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Borri, Nicola. 2019. Conditional Tail-Risk in Cryptocurrency Markets. Journal of Empirical Finance 50: 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borri, Nicola, and Kirill Shakhnov. 2022. The Cross-Section of Cryptocurrency Returns. Review of Asset Pricing Studies 12: 667–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouri, Elie, Naji Jalkh, Peter Molnar, and David Roubaud. 2017. Bitcoin for Energy Commodities before and after the December 2013 Crash: Diversifier, Hedge or Safe Haven? Applied Economics 49: 5063–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bourveau, Thomas, Emmanuel T. De George, Atif Ellahie, and Daniele Macciocchi. 2022. The Role of Disclosure and Information Intermediaries in an Unregulated Capital Market: Evidence from Initial Coin Offerings. Journal of Accounting Research 60: 129–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bozdoğanoğlu, Burçin. 2022. Evaluation of the Effects of Technology Literacy and Digital Financial Literacy on the Investment and Taxation Process in Crypto Assets. In Current Issues and Empirical Studies in Public Finance. Bandirma: Peter Lang AG. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85138957012&partnerID=40&md5=5eaf96405cfa6b1f821d82dae2bc58e5 (accessed on 10 May 2024).
- Böhme, Rainer, Nicolas Christin, Benjamin Edelman, and Tyler Moore. 2015. Bitcoin: Economics, Technology, and Governance. Journal of Economic Perspectives 29: 213–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buhussain, Ghadeer, and Allam Hamdan. 2023. Blockchain Technology and Audit Profession. Contributions to Management Science 1640: 715–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bunget, Ovidiu-Constantin, and Cristian Lungu. 2023. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Implications of Artificial Intelligence on the Accounting Profession. CECCAR Business Review 4: 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bunget, Ovidiu-Constantin, and Georgiana-Iulia Trifa. 2023. Cryptoassets–Perspectives of Accountancy Recognition in the Technological Era. Audit Financiar 21: 526–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caliskan, Koray. 2020. Data Money: The Socio-Technical Infrastructure of Cryptocurrency Blockchains. Economy And Society 49: 540–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casey, Michael, and Paul Vigna. 2018. The Truth Machine: The Blockchain and the Future of Everything, 1st ed. New York: HarperCollins. [Google Scholar]
- Cassidy, Julie, Man Hung Alvin Cheng, Toan Le, and Eva Huang. 2020. A Toss of a (Bit)Coin: The Uncertain Nature of the Legal Status of Cryptocurrencies. Journal of Tax Research 17: 168–92. [Google Scholar]
- Chou, Chi-Chun, Nen-Chen Richard Hwang, Gary P. Schneider, Tawei Wang, Chang-Wei Li, and William Wei. 2021. Using Smart Contracts to Establish Decentralized Accounting Contracts: An Example of Revenue Recognition. Journal of Information Systems 35: 17–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chou, Jun Heng, Prerana Agrawal, and Jacqueline Birt. 2022. Accounting for Crypto-Assets: Stakeholders’ Perceptions. Studies in Economics and Finance 39: 471–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Church, Kimberly Swanson, Sean Stein Smith, and Ethan Kinory. 2021. Accounting Implications of Blockchain: A Hyperledger Composer Use Case for Intangible Assets. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 18: 23–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cong, Lin William, Wayne Landsman, Edward Maydew, and Daniel Rabetti. 2023. Tax-Loss Harvesting with Cryptocurrencies. Journal of Accounting and Economics 76: 101607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corbet, Shaen, Andrew Urquhart, and Larisa Yarovaya. 2020. Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Technology. Berlin: De Gruyter. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coyne, Joshua G., and Peter L. McMickle. 2017. Can Blockchains Serve an Accounting Purpose? Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 14: 101–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cyrus, Rocher. 2023. Custody, Provenance, and Reporting of Blockchain and Cryptoassets. In The Emerald Handbook on Cryptoassets: Investment Opportunities and Challenges. Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 233–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, Jun, and Miklos A. Vasarhelyi. 2017. Toward Blockchain-Based Accounting and Assurance. Journal of Information Systems 31: 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, Jun, Na He, and Haizong Yu. 2019. Utilizing Blockchain and Smart Contracts to Enable Audit 4.0: From the Perspective of Accountability Audit of Air Pollution Control in China. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 16: 23–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davenport, Stephan A., and Spencer C. Usrey. 2023. Crypto Assets: Examining Possible Tax Classifications. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 20: 55–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Derun, Ivan, and Hanna Mysaka. 2022. Digital Assets in Accounting: The Concept Formation and the Further Development Trajectory. Economic Annals-XXI 195: 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Desai, Hrishikesh. 2023. Infusing Blockchain in Accounting Curricula and Practice: Expectations, Challenges, and Strategies. International Journal of Digital Accounting Research 23: 97–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- DeVries, Peter D. 2016. An Analysis of Cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, and the Future. International Journal of Business Management and Commerce 1: 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Dunn, Ryan T., J. Gregory Jenkins, and Mark D. Sheldon. 2021. Bitcoin and Blockchain: Audit Implications of the Killer Bs. Issues in Accounting Education 36: 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyball, Maria Cadiz, and Ravi Seethamraju. 2022. Client Use of Blockchain Technology: Exploring Its (Potential) Impact on Financial Statement Audits of Australian Accounting Firms. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 35: 1656–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fomina, Olena, Olena Moshkovska, Olena Avhustova, Olha Romashko, and Daria Holovina. 2019. Current Aspects of the Cryptocurrency Recognition in Ukraine. Banks and Bank Systems 14: 203–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuller, Stephen H., and Ariel Markelevich. 2020. Should Accountants Care about Blockchain? Journal of Corporate Accounting and Finance 31: 34–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, Jingxing, Gerry Tsoukalas, and Serguei Netessine. 2021. Initial Coin Offerings, Speculation, and Asset Tokenization. Management Science 67: 914–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Xiaoxue. 2023. Digital Transformation in Finance and Its Role in Promoting Financial Transparency. Global Finance Journal 58: 100903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garanina, Tatiana, Mikko Ranta, and John Dumay. 2022. Blockchain in Accounting Research: Current Trends and Emerging Topics. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 35: 1507–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Monleón, Fernando, Anett Erdmann, and Ramón Arilla. 2023. A Value-Based Approach to the Adoption of Cryptocurrencies. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge 8: 1003–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gietzmann, Miles, and Francesco Grossetti. 2021. Blockchain and Other Distributed Ledger Technologies: Where Is the Accounting? Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 40: 1068–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomaa, Ahmed A., Mohamed I. Gomaa, and Ashley Stampone. 2019. A Transaction on the Blockchain: An AIS Perspective, Intro Case to Explain Transactions on the ERP and the Role of the Internal and External Auditor. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 16: 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gurdgiev, Constantin, and Adam Fleming. 2021. Informational Efficiency and Cybersecurity: Systemic Threats to Blockchain Applications. In Innovations in Social Finance: Transitioning Beyond Economic Value. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hampl, Filip, and Lucie Gyönyörová. 2021. Can Fiat-Backed Stablecoins Be Considered Cash or Cash Equivalents Under International Financial Reporting Standards Rules? Australian Accounting Review 31: 233–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Handoko, Bambang Leo, Bryan Aurelio Gunawan, and Muhammad Fikri Permana Djati. 2022. Importance of Blockchain within The Big 4 CPA Firms: Cryptocurrency’s Existence. West Jakarta: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 190–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, Hongdan, Radha K. Shiwakoti, Robin Jarvis, Chima Mordi, and David Botchie. 2023. Accounting and Auditing with Blockchain Technology and Artificial Intelligence: A Literature Review. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 48: 100598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrast, Steven A., Debra McGilsky, and Yan Sun. 2022. Determining the Inherent Risks of Cryptocurrency: A Survey Analysis. Current Issues in Auditing 16: A10–A17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hazar, Hulya Boydas. 2020. Anonymity in Cryptocurrencies. Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics 14: 171–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Holub, Mark, and Jackie Johnson. 2018. Bitcoin Research across Disciplines. Information Society 34: 114–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Robin Hui, Hui Deng, and Aiden Foon Lok Chan. 2023. The Legal Nature of Cryptocurrency as Property: Accounting and Taxation Implications. Computer Law and Security Review 51: 1058–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hubbard, Benjamin. 2023. Decrypting Crypto: Implications of Potential Financial Accounting Treatments of Cryptocurrency. Accounting Research Journal 36: 369–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IFRS Foundation. 2019. Holding of Cryptocurrencies. Available online: https://www.ifrs.org/content/dam/ifrs/meetings/2019/june/ifric/ap12-holdings-of-cryptocurrencies.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2024).
- IFRS Foundation. 2024. IAS 2 Inventories. Available online: https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ias-2-inventories/ (accessed on 11 May 2024).
- IFRS Foundation. 2024. IAS 7 Statement of Cash Flows. Available online: https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ias-7-statement-of-cash-flows/ (accessed on 11 May 2024).
- IFRS Foundation. 2024. IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment. Available online: https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ias-16-property-plant-and-equipment/ (accessed on 11 May 2024).
- IFRS Foundation. 2024. IAS 21 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates. Available online: https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ias-21-the-effects-of-changes-in-foreign-exchange-rates/ (accessed on 11 May 2024).
- IFRS Foundation. 2024. IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation. Available online: https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ias-32-financial-instruments-presentation/ (accessed on 11 May 2024).
- IFRS Foundation. 2024. IAS 38 Intangible Assets. Available online: https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ias-38-intangible-assets/ (accessed on 11 May 2024).
- IFRS Foundation. 2024. IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement. Available online: https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ias-39-financial-instruments-recognition-and-measurement/ (accessed on 11 May 2024).
- IFRS Foundation. 2024. IAS 40 Investment Property. Available online: https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ias-40-investment-property/ (accessed on 11 May 2024).
- IFRS Foundation. 2024. IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. Available online: https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ifrs-9-financial-instruments/ (accessed on 11 May 2024).
- IFRS Foundation. 2024. IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement. Available online: https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ifrs-13-fair-value-measurement/ (accessed on 11 May 2024).
- Ilham, Rico Nur, Khairah Amalia Fachrudin Erlina, Amlys Syahputra Silalahi, and Jumadil Saputra. 2019a. Comparative of the Supply Chain and Block Chains to Increase the Country Revenues via Virtual Tax Transactions and Replacing Future of Money. International Journal of Supply Chain Management 8: 1066. [Google Scholar]
- Ilham, Rico Nur, Khairah Amalia Fachrudin Erlina, Amlys Syahputra Silalahi, Jumadil Saputra, and Wahyuddin Albra. 2019b. Investigation of the Bitcoin Effects on the Country Revenues via Virtual Tax Transactions for Purchasing Management. International Journal of Supply Chain Management 8: 737. [Google Scholar]
- Jackson, Andrew B., and Steven Luu. 2023. Accounting For Digital Assets. Australian Accounting Review 33: 302–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jayasuriya, D. Dulani, and Alexandra Sims. 2023. From the Abacus to Enterprise Resource Planning: Is Blockchain the Next Big Accounting Tool? Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal 36: 24–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jumde, Avaneesh, and Boo Yun Cho. 2020. Can Cryptocurrencies Overtake the Fiat Money? International Journal of Business Performance Management 21: 6–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juškaitė, Lina, and Laura Gudelytė-Žilinskienė. 2022. Investigation of the Feasibility of Including Different Cryptocurrencies in the Investment Portfolio for its Diversification. Business, Management and Economics Engineering 20: 172–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaden, Stacey R., Jeff W. Lingwall, and Trevor T. Shonhiwa. 2021. Teaching Blockchain through Coding: Educating the Future Accounting Professional. Issues in Accounting Education 36: 281–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kampakis, Stylianos. 2022. Auditing Tokenomics: A Case Study and Lessons from Auditing a Stablecoin Project. Journal of the British Blockchain Association 5: 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Klopper, Nicolette, and Sophia Magaretha Brink. 2023. Determining the Appropriate Accounting Treatment of Cryptocurrencies Based on Accounting Theory. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 16: 379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kochergin, Dmitrii A. 2020. Economic Nature and Classification of Stablecoins. Finance: Theory and Practice 24: 140–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koker, Thomas E., and Dimitrios Koutmos. 2020. Cryptocurrency Trading Using Machine Learning. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 13: 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kokina, Julia, Ruben Mancha, and Dessislava Pachamanova. 2017. Blockchain: Emergent Industry Adoption and Implications for Accounting. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 14: 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolková, Andrea. 2018. The Use of Cryptocurrency in Enterprises in Czech Republic. Edited by O. Dvoulety, M. Lukes and J. Misar. Ostrava: Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze, pp. 541–52. [Google Scholar]
- Kontozis, Nikolas. 2019. VAT Treatment of Cryptocurrencies. PwC. Available online: https://www.pwc.com.cy/en/press-room/articles-2019/vat-treatment-of-cryptocurrencies.html (accessed on 10 May 2024).
- Lazea, Georgiana-Iulia, Ovidiu-Constantin Bunget, and Anca Diana Sumănaru. 2023. “Comparative Analysis of Cryptocurrencies Versus Fiat Money”. The Annals of the University of Oradea. Economic Sciences 32: 111–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Lorraine S., Deniz Appelbaum, and Richard D. Mautz III. 2022. Blockchains: An Experiential Accounting Learning Activity. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 19: 181–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lombardi, Rosa, Charl de Villiers, Nicola Moscariello, and Michele Pizzo. 2022. The Disruption of Blockchain in Auditing—A Systematic Literature Review and an Agenda for Future Research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 35: 1534–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Mei, and Shuangchen Yu. 2022. Financial Reporting for Cryptocurrency. Review of Accounting Studies 29: 1707–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maffei, Marco, Raffaela Casciello, and Fiorenza Meucci. 2021. Blockchain Technology: Uninvestigated Issues Emerging from an Integrated View within Accounting and Auditing Practices. Journal of Organizational Change Management 34: 462–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makurin, Andrii. 2023. Technological Aspects and Environmental Consequences of Mining Encryption. Economics Ecology Socium 7: 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makurin, Andrii, Andrii Maliienko, Olena Tryfonova, and Lyudmyla Masina. 2023. Management of Cryptocurrency Transactions from Accounting Aspects. Economics Ecology Socium 7: 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matusky, Tomas. 2017. Accounting of Cryptocurrencies. Paper presented at EDAMBA 2017: Conference Proceedings: Knowledge and Skills for Sustainable Development: The Role of Economics, Business, Management and Related Disciplines: [20th] International Scientific Conference for Doctoral Students and Post-Doctoral Scholars, Bratislava, Slovakia, April 4–6; pp. 313–21. [Google Scholar]
- McCallig, John, Alastair Robb, and Fiona Rohde. 2019. Establishing the Representational Faithfulness of Financial Accounting Information Using Multiparty Security, Network Analysis and a Blockchain. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 33: 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGuigan, Nicholas, Alessandro Ghio, and Thomas Kern. 2021. Designing Accounting Futures: Exploring Ambiguity in Accounting Classrooms through Design Futuring. Issues in Accounting Education 36: 325–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morozova, Tatiana, Ravil Akhmadeev, Liubov Lehoux, Alexei Yumashev, Galina Meshkova, and Marina Lukiyanova. 2020. Crypto Asset Assessment Models in Financial Reporting Content Typologies. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 7: 2196–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mosteanu, Narcisa Roxana, and Alessio Faccia. 2020. Digital Systems and New Challenges of Financial Management—FinTech, XBRL, Blockchain and Cryptocurrencies. Quality-Access to Success 21: 159–66. [Google Scholar]
- Munteanu, Ionela, Kamer-Ainur Aivaz, Adrian Micu, Alexandru Capatana, and Valentin Jakubowicz. 2023. Digital Transformations Imprint Financial Challenges: Accounting Assessment of Crypto Assets and Building Resilience in Emerging Innovative Businesses. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research 57: 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Nakamoto, Satoshi. 2009. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Available online: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2024).
- Niftaliyev, Sultan Gurban. 2023. Problems Arising in the Accounting of Cryptocurrencies. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice 3: 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ntanos, Stamatios, Sofia Asonitou, Dimitrios Karydas, and Grigorios Kyriakopoulos. 2020. Blockchain Technology: A Case Study from Greek Accountants. In Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Edited by A. Kavoura, E. Kefallonitis and P. Theodoridis. Cham: Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nylen, Paul C., and Brian W. Huels. 2022. Using Unrelated IRS Guidance as a Framework for Taxing Crypto Transactions: Revenue Procedure 2019–18. The ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research 20: 30–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obu, Osiebuni Collins, and Wilfred I. Ukpere. 2022. The Implications of the Incursion of Cryptocurrency on the Effectiveness of Fiscal Policy. Review of Applied Socio-Economic Research 23: 134–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Leary, Daniel E. 2018. Open Information Enterprise Transactions: Business Intelligence and Wash and Spoof Transactions in Blockchain and Social Commerce. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management 25: 148–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozeran, Alla, and Nadiia Gura. 2020. Audit and Accounting Considerations on Cryptoassets and Related Transactions. Economic Annals-XXI 184: 124–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozili, Peterson K. 2023. CBDC, Fintech and Cryptocurrency for Financial Inclusion and Financial Stability. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance 25: 40–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandey, Durgesh, and Paul Gilmour. 2024. Accounting Meets Metaverse: Navigating the Intersection between the Real and Virtual Worlds. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 22: 211–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, Liuxuan, Owen Vaughan, and Craig Steven Wright. 2023. A Private and Efficient Triple-Entry Accounting Protocol on Bitcoin. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 16: 400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pantielieieva, N. M., N. V. Rogova, S. M. Braichenko, S. V. Dzholos, and A. S. Kolisnyk. 2019. Current Aspects of Transformation of Economic Relations: Cryptocurrencies and Their Legal Regulation. Financial and Credit Activity-Problems of Theory and Practice 4: 410–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papp, Anna, Douglas Almond, and Shuang Zhang. 2023. Bitcoin and Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Evidence from Daily Production Decisions. Journal of Public Economics 227: 105003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parrondo, Luz. 2020. DLT-Based Tokens Classification towards Accounting Regulation. In FEMIB—Proceedings International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business. Edited by P. Baudier, M. Arami and V. Chang. Setúbal: SciTePress, pp. 15–26. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85088368491&partnerID=40&md5=8079373cce7b9633805456da0502ee83 (accessed on 11 May 2024).
- Parrondo, Luz. 2023. Cryptoassets: Definitions and Accounting Treatment under the Current International Financial Reporting Standards Framework. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management 30: 208–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Păunescu, Mirela. 2018. The Accountant’s Headache: Accounting for Virtual Currencies Transactions. București: Bucharest University of Economic Studies, pp. 145–59. [Google Scholar]
- Pedreño, Eladio Pascual, Vera Gelashvili, and Laura Pascual Nebreda. 2021. Blockchain and Its Application to Accounting. Intangible Capital 17: 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pelucio-Grecco, Marta Cristina, Jacinto Pedro dos Santos Neto, and Diego Constancio. 2020. Accounting for Bitcoins in Light of IFRS and Tax Aspects. Revista Contabilidade e Financas 31: 275–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, Gareth William, Efstathios Panayi, and Ariane Chapelle. 2015. Trends in Crypto-Currencies and Blockchain Technologies: A Monetary Theory and Regulation Perspective. SSRN Electronic Journal. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pflueger, Dane, Martin Kornberger, and Jan Mouritsen. 2022. What Is Blockchain Accounting? A Critical Examination in Relation to Organizing, Governance, and Trust. European Accounting Review, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pieters, Gina, and Sofia Vivanco. 2017. Financial Regulations and Price Inconsistencies across Bitcoin Markets. Information Economics and Policy 39: 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pimentel, Erica, and Emilio Boulianne. 2020. Blockchain in Accounting Research and Practice: Current Trends and Future Opportunities. Accounting Perspectives 19: 325–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pimentel, Erica, Emilio Boulianne, Shayan Eskandari, and Jeremy Clark. 2021. Systemizing the Challenges of Auditing Blockchain-Based Assets. Journal of Information Systems 35: 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Procházka, David. 2018. Accounting for Bitcoin and Other Cryptocurrencies under IFRS: A Comparison and Assessment of Competing Models. International Journal of Digital Accounting Research 18: 161–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Procházka, David. 2019. Is Bitcoin a Currency or an Investment? An IFRS View. In Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Edited by David Procházka. Dordrecht and Cham: Springer, pp. 217–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Proelss, Juliane, Denis Schweizer, and Stephane Sevigny. 2023. Is Bitcoin ESG-Compliant? A Sober Look. European Financial Management 30: 680–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raiborn, Cecily, and Marcos Sivitanides. 2015. Accounting Issues Related to Bitcoins. Journal of Corporate Accounting and Finance 26: 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ram, Asheer, Warren Maroun, and Robert Garnett. 2016. Accounting for the Bitcoin: Accountability, Neoliberalism and a Correspondence Analysis. Meditari Accountancy Research 24: 2–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramassa, Paola, and Giulia Leoni. 2022. Standard Setting in Times of Technological Change: Accounting for Cryptocurrency Holdings. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 35: 1598–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rana, Tarek, Jan Svanberg, Peter Öhman, and Alan Lowe. 2023. Introduction: Analytics in Accounting and Auditing. In Handbook of Big Data and Analytics in Accounting and Auditing. Singapore: Springer, pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reepu. 2019. Blockchain: Social Innovation in Finance & Accounting. International Journal of Management 10: 14–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rella, Ludovico. 2020. Steps towards an Ecology of Money Infrastructures: Materiality and Cultures of Ripple. Journal of Cultural Economy 13: 236–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salawu, Mary Kehinde, and Tankiso Moloi. 2018. Benefits of Legislating Cryptocurrencies: Perception of Nigerian Professional Accountants. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal 22: 1–17. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85061856468&partnerID=40&md5=c82546d028992b4ce7a1f44284df2182 (accessed on 11 May 2024).
- Sarwar, Muhammad Imran, Kashif Nisar, Imran Khan, and Danish Shehzad. 2023. Blockchains and Triple-Entry Accounting for B2B Business Models. Ledger 8: 37–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmitz, Jana, and Giulia Leoni. 2019. Accounting and Auditing at the Time of Blockchain Technology: A Research Agenda. Australian Accounting Review 29: 331–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sethibe, Tebogo, and Sibusiso Malinga. 2021. Blockchain Technology Innovation: An Investigation of the Accounting and Auditing Use-Cases. In European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Edited by Florinda Matos, Maria de Fátima Ferreiro, Isabel Salavisa and Álvaro Rosa. Reading and New York: Academic Conferences International Limited, pp. 892–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheldon, Mark D. 2023. Preparing Auditors to Evaluate Blockchains Used to Track Tangible Assets. Current Issues in Auditing 20: 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shvayko, M. L., and N. O. Grebeniuk. 2020. Current Crediting Instruments Influencing Investment Climate in Ukraine. Financial and Credit Activity-Problems of Theory and Practice 1: 414–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, Sean Stein. 2018. Implications of Next Step Blockchain Applications for Accounting and Legal Practitioners: A Case Study. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal 12: 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, Sean Stein. 2021a. Crypto Accounting Valuation, Reporting, and Disclosure. In The Emerald Handbook of Blockchain for Business. Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, Sean Stein. 2021b. Decentralized Finance & Accounting—Implications, Considerations, and Opportunities for Development. International Journal of Digital Accounting Research 21: 129–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smith, Sean Stein. 2023. The Cryptoasset Auditing and Accounting Landscape. In The Emerald Handbook on Cryptoassets: Investment Opportunities and Challenges. Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, Sean Stein, and John Jack Castonguay. 2020. Blockchain and Accounting Governance: Emerging Issues and Considerations for Accounting and Assurance Professionals. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 17: 119–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, Sean Stein, Rossen Petkov, and Richard Lahijani. 2019. Blockchain and Cryptocurrencies—Considerations for Treatment and Reporting for Financial Services Professionals. International Journal of Digital Accounting Research 19: 59–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Soepriyanto, Gatot, Shinta Amalina Hazrati Havidz, and Rangga Handika. 2023. Crypto Goes East: Analyzing Bitcoin, Technological and Regulatory Contagions in Asia–Pacific Financial Markets Using Asset Pricing. International Journal of Emerging Markets. Published electronically December 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sokolenko, Liudmyla, Tetiana Ostapenko, Olga Kubetska, Oksana Portna, and Thuy Tran. 2019. Cryptocurrency: Economic Essence and Features of Accounting. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal 23. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85071699405&partnerID=40&md5=aae414a62836e6bbf8b4416444e8d6be (accessed on 11 May 2024).
- Stern, Myles, and Alan Reinstein. 2021. A Blockchain Course for Accounting and Other Business Students. Journal of Accounting Education 56: 100742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stratopoulos, Theophanis C. 2020. Teaching Blockchain to Accounting Students. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 17: 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tapscott, Don, and Alex Tapscott. 2016. Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World, International ed. New York: Penguin. [Google Scholar]
- Terando, William D., Bryan Cataldi, and Brian E. Mennecke. 2017. Impact of the IRC Section 475 Mark-to-Market Election on Bitcoin Taxation. ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research 15: 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiron-Tudor, Adriana, Stefania Mierlita, and Francesca Manes Rossi. 2024. Exploring the Uncharted Territories: A Structured Literature Review on Cryptocurrency Accounting and Auditing. The Journal of Risk Finance 25: 253–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsujimura, Kazusuke, and Masako Tsujimura. 2019. Flow of Funds Analysis: A Combination of Roman Law, Accounting and Economics. Statistical Journal of the IAOS 35: 691–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tzagkarakis, George, and Frantz Maurer. 2023. Horizon-Adaptive Extreme Risk Quantification for Cryptocurrency Assets. Computational Economics 62: 1251–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Eck, Nees Jan, and Ludo Waltman. 2023. VOSviewer Manual. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.20.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2024).
- Vasicek, Davor, Veljko Dmitrovic, and Josip Cicak. 2019. Accounting of Cryptocurrencies under IFRS. Edited by M. L. Simic and B. Crnkovic. Rijeka: University of Rijeka, pp. 550–63. [Google Scholar]
- Vedapradha, R., and Hariharan Ravi. 2023. Blockchain: An EOM Approach to Reconciliation in Banking. Innovation & Management Review 20: 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veuger, Jan. 2021. Digitization and Blockchain in Finance, The Netherlands in 2020 and 2021. International Journal of Applied Economics, Finance and Accounting 11: 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vičič, Jernej, and Aleksandar Tošić. 2022. Application of Benford’s Law on Cryptocurrencies. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 17: 313–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vigna, Paul, and Michael J. Casey. 2015. The Age of Cryptocurrency: How Bitcoin and the Block-Chain Are Challenging the Global Economic Order. New York: Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
- Vincent, Nishani Edirisinghe, and Anne M. Wilkins. 2020. Challenges When Auditing Cryptocurrencies. Current Issues in Auditing 14: A46–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vincent, Nishani Edirisinghe, and Stephan A. Davenport. 2022. Accounting Research Opportunities for Cryptocurrencies. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 19: 79–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vodáková, Jana, and Jiri Foltyn. 2020a. Financial Reporting of Cryptocurrencies. Edited by K. S. Soliman. New York: Springer, pp. 12325–30. [Google Scholar]
- Vodáková, Jana, and Jiri Foltyn. 2020b. Valuation of Cryptocurrencies in Selected EU Countries. Edited by K. S. Soliman. New York: Springer, pp. 15529–34. [Google Scholar]
- Volosovych, Svitlana, and Yurii Baraniuk. 2018. Tax Control of Cryptocurrency Transactions in Ukraine. Banks and Bank Systems 13: 89–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vumazonke, Namhla, and Shaun Parsons. 2023. An Analysis of South Africa’s Guidance on the Income Tax Consequences of Crypto Assets. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences 26: 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Lu, and Shigeyuki Hamori. 2021. The Role of the Carbon Market in Relation to the Cryptocurrency Market: Only Diversification or More? International Review of Financial Analysis 77: 101864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, Huqin, Kejia Yan, and Rakesh Gupta. 2022. A Survey of the Accounting Industry on Holdings of Cryptocurrencies in Xiamen City, China. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 15: 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yatsyk, Tetiana, and Viktor Shvets. 2020. Cryptoassets as an Emerging Class of Digital Assets in the Financial Accounting. Economic Annals-XXI 183: 106–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yee, Teh Sin, Angeline Yap Kiew Heong, and Wong Siew Chin. 2020. Accounting Treatment of Cryptocurrency: A Malaysian Context. Management and Accounting Review 19: 119–49. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, Ting, Zhiwei Lin, and Qingliang Tang. 2018. Blockchain: The Introduction and Its Application in Financial Accounting. Journal of Corporate Accounting and Finance 29: 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zadorozhnyi, Zenovii-Mykhaylo, Volodymyr Muravskyi, and O. A. Shevchuk. 2018. Management Accounting of Electronic Transactions with the Use of Cryptocurrencies. Financial and Credit Activity-Problems of Theory and Practice 3: 169–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zadorozhnyi, Zenovii-Mykhaylo, Volodymyr Muravskyi, Mariia Humenna-Derij, and Nataliia Zarudna. 2022. Innovative Accounting and Audit of the Metaverse Resources. Marketing and Management of Innovations 13: 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zakaria, Hesham. 2022. The Role of International Tax Accounting in Assessing Digital and Virtual Tax Issues. In Accounting, Finance, Sustainability, Governance and Fraud. Singapore: Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zelic, Dragan, and Nenad Baros. 2018. Cryptocurrency: General Challenges of Legal Regulation and the Swiss Model of Regulation. In Economic and Social Development (Esd 2018): 33rd International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development “Managerial Issues in Modern Business”. Edited by T. Studzieniecki, M. Kozina and D. S. Alilovic. Varazdin: Histoire. [Google Scholar]
- Zianko, V. V., T. D. Nechyporenko, and I. M. Waldshmidt. 2022. Adaptation Mechanism of the Crypto Industry in the Process of Virtualization of Financial Flows. Academy Review 2: 69–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Flow diagram of systematic selection of studies on cryptocurrency accounting (CA) from Scopus. Source: data processed by authors.
Figure 1.
Flow diagram of systematic selection of studies on cryptocurrency accounting (CA) from Scopus. Source: data processed by authors.
Figure 2.
Flow diagram of systematic selection of studies on cryptocurrency accounting (CA) from WoS. Source: data processed by authors.
Figure 2.
Flow diagram of systematic selection of studies on cryptocurrency accounting (CA) from WoS. Source: data processed by authors.
Figure 3.
Annual scientific production and average citation of articles on CA. Source: data processed by authors from WoS and Scopus.
Figure 3.
Annual scientific production and average citation of articles on CA. Source: data processed by authors from WoS and Scopus.
Figure 4.
Top 10 most relevant sources for CA. Source: data processed by authors from Biblioshiny.
Figure 5.
Country scientific production of articles on CA. Source: own projection from Biblioshiny.
Figure 6.
Country citation map for CA. Source: authors’ projection using MS Excel with data from Biblioshiny.
Figure 6.
Country citation map for CA. Source: authors’ projection using MS Excel with data from Biblioshiny.
Figure 7.
Country citation network for CA. Source: authors’ projection with VOSviewer.
Figure 8.
Author citation network for CA. Source: authors’ projection with VOSviewer.
Figure 9.
Institution citation network for CA. Source: authors’ projection with VOSviewer.
Figure 10.
Co-occurrence cluster visualization of author keywords for CA studies. Source: authors’ projection with VOSviewer.
Figure 10.
Co-occurrence cluster visualization of author keywords for CA studies. Source: authors’ projection with VOSviewer.
Figure 11.
Co-occurrence overlay visualization of author keywords for CA. Source: authors’ projection with VOSviewer.
Figure 11.
Co-occurrence overlay visualization of author keywords for CA. Source: authors’ projection with VOSviewer.
Figure 12.
Co-occurrence density visualization of author keywords for CA. Source: authors’ projection with VOSviewer.
Figure 12.
Co-occurrence density visualization of author keywords for CA. Source: authors’ projection with VOSviewer.
Figure 13.
Geographical location of the articles by research themes. Source: authors’ projection with MS Excel.
Figure 13.
Geographical location of the articles by research themes. Source: authors’ projection with MS Excel.
Table 1.
Distribution of citations of countries for CA.
| Country | Citations | Country | Citations | Country | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| USA | 971 | Malta | 47 | Saudi Arabia/Spain | 18 |
| Australia | 830 | Czech Republic | 45 | New Zealand | 10 |
| Austria | 696 | China | 35 | Slovakia/UAE | 7 |
| Italy | 269 | Russia | 30 | South Korea | 6 |
| France | 219 | Malta | 47 | Lithuania/Turkey | 4 |
| United Kingdom | 135 | Nigeria | 26 | Singapore/Slovenia | 3 |
| Ireland | 71 | Ukraine | 26 | Brazil/Jordan/Norway | 2 |
| Canada | 63 | Finland | 25 | Romania/Switzerland | 2 |
| Lebanon | 61 | South Africa | 24 | Croatia/Greece/Pakistan | 1 |
| Japan | 47 | Malaysia | 21 | Azerbaijan/Netherlands | 1 |
Source: authors’ projection with data from Biblioshiny.
Table 2.
Authors interested in CA, clusters 1–6.
| Cluster | Authors |
|---|---|
| Cluster 1—red (27 items): | Appelbaum, Castonguay, Chou, Church, Clark, Cohen, Coyne, Dai, Dunn, Dyball, Eskandari, Hwang, Jenkins, Kinory, Kokina, Li, Mancha, McMickle, Nehmer, Pachamanova, Schneider, Seethamraju, Sheldon, Smith, Vasarhelyi, Wang, Wei |
| Cluster 2—green (19 items): | Akhmadeev, Ammous, Boulianne, Cho, Fuller, Gilmour, Gyönyörová, Hampl, Jayasuriya, Jumde, Lehoux, Lukiyanova, Markelevich, Morozova, Pandey, Pimentel, Sims, Yumashev |
| Cluster 3—blue (18 items): | Botchie, De V, Gomaa A, Gomaa M, Han, Holub, Jarvis, Johnson, Lombardi, McCallig, Mordi, Moscariello, Pizzo, Ramassa, Robb, Rohde, Shiwakoti, Stampone |
| Cluster 4—yellow (16 items): | Alsalmi, Avhustova, Fomina, Gelashvili, Lin, Moshkovska, Nebreda, Pedreno, Rafique, Raiborn, Romashko, Sivitanides, Tang, Ullah, Yu T |
| Cluster 5—purple (15 items): | Agrawal, Birt, Bourveau, Chou, Cong, De G, Ellahie, Jackson, Landsman, Luo, Luu, Macciocchi, Maydew, Rabetti, Yu S |
| Cluster 6—turquoise (12 items): | Baraniuk, Beigman, Bellucci, Bianchi, Brennan, Gan, Hsieh, Manetti, Netessine, Sannella, Tsoukalas, Volosovych |
Source: authors’ projection from VOSviewer.
Table 3.
Top 10 globally cited authors and publications.
| Publication Title | Authors | Journal | Year | Citations | Average/Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| “Bitcoin: Economics, Technology, and Governance” | Böhme, R et al. | “Journal of Economic Perspectives” | 2015 | 696 | 69.60 |
| “Bitcoin: Medium of Exchange or Speculative Assets?” | Baur, DG; Hong, K and Lee, AD | “Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money” | 2018 | 604 | 86.29 |
| “Toward Blockchain-Based Accounting and Assurance” | Dai, J and Vasarhelyi, MA | “Journal of Information Systems” | 2017 | 297 | 37.13 |
| “Bitcoin for Energy Commodities Before and After the December 2013 Crash: Diversifier, Hedge or Safe Haven?” | Bouri, E et al. | “Applied Economics” | 2017 | 216 | 27.00 |
| “Conditional Tail-Risk in Cryptocurrency Markets” | Borri, N | “Journal of Empirical Finance” | 2019 | 168 | 28.00 |
| “Blockchain: Emergent Industry Adoption and Implications for Accounting” | Kokina, J; Mancha, R and Pachamanova, D | “Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting” | 2017 | 134 | 16.75 |
| “Accounting and Auditing at the Time of Blockchain Technology: A Research Agenda” | Schmitz, J and Leoni, G | “Australian Accounting Review” | 2019 | 128 | 21.33 |
| “Can Blockchains Serve an Accounting Purpose?” | Coyne, JG and McMickle, PL | “Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting” | 2017 | 101 | 12.63 |
| “Financial Regulations and Price Inconsistencies Across Bitcoin Markets” | Pieters, G and Vivanco, S | “Information Economics and Policy” | 2017 | 93 | 11.63 |
| “Bitcoin Research Across Disciplines” | Holub, M and Johnson, J | “The Information Society” | 2018 | 75 | 10.71 |
Source: authors’ projection from WoS and Scopus, with Biblioshiny.
Table 4.
Institutions that released at least two documents on CA.
| Institution | Documents | Citations | Total Link Power |
|---|---|---|---|
| City University of New York Cuny System | 6 | 81 | 20 |
| Rutgers State University | 5 | 310 | 51 |
| Columbia University | 3 | 91 | 8 |
| Concordia University | 3 | 56 | 26 |
| Montclair State University | 3 | 36 | 22 |
| Masaryk University Brno | 3 | 9 | 12 |
| Taras Shevchenko National University Kyiv | 3 | 7 | 12 |
| Southwestern University of Finance & Economics | 2 | 326 | 55 |
| Luiss University | 2 | 183 | 0 |
| University of Genoa | 2 | 139 | 33 |
| RMIT University | 2 | 128 | 23 |
| Shenzhen University | 2 | 94 | 19 |
| University of Auckland | 2 | 40 | 47 |
| University Witwatersrand | 2 | 24 | 15 |
Source: authors’ projection with VOSviewer.
Table 5.
Keyword clusters with more than 1 item for CA in VOSviewer.
| Clusters | Most Relevant Key Terms | Occurrences | Total Link Strength | Main Topic |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cluster 1 red (ten items) | accounting | 58 | 167 | Financial accounting and reporting |
| crypto assets | 20 | 59 | ||
| IFRS | 15 | 35 | ||
| distributed ledger technology | 11 | 40 | ||
| financial reporting | 10 | 27 | ||
| stablecoins | 4 | 19 | ||
| intangible assets | 4 | 13 | ||
| ICO (initial coin offering) | 3 | 12 | ||
| tokens | 3 | 8 | ||
| banking | 3 | 6 | ||
| Cluster 2 green (nine items) | cryptocurrency | 84 | 182 | Taxation |
| taxation | 16 | 32 | ||
| digital assets | 5 | 12 | ||
| crypto | 5 | 10 | ||
| IRS | 3 | 10 | ||
| NFT | 3 | 10 | ||
| accounting information systems | 3 | 7 | ||
| mining | 3 | 6 | ||
| electronic money | 3 | 4 | ||
| Cluster 3 blue (four items) | auditing | 31 | 92 | Auditing |
| smart contract | 13 | 46 | ||
| triple-entry accounting | 6 | 20 | ||
| assurance | 3 | 9 | ||
| Cluster 4 yellow (four items) | innovation | 5 | 18 | Innovation management |
| artificial intelligence | 4 | 10 | ||
| management | 3 | 10 | ||
| digital finance | 3 | 5 | ||
| Cluster 5 purple (four items) | bitcoin | 43 | 91 | Investments |
| digital currency | 6 | 18 | ||
| virtual currency | 5 | 11 | ||
| safe haven | 3 | 5 | ||
| Cluster 6 turquoise (two items) | blockchain | 80 | 196 | Accounting education trends |
| accounting education | 3 | 2 | ||
| Cluster 7 orange (two items) | governance | 4 | 11 | Frameworks |
| technology | 3 | 5 |
Source: authors’ projection with VOSviewer.
Table 6.
Research themes according to accounting categories by relevant authors and countries.
Source: data processed by authors from WoS and Scopus.
Table 7.
Valuation treatment for cryptocurrencies.
| Authors | Fair Value or Revaluation Treatment | Cost Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Alsalmi et al. (2023) | ✓ | |
| Alhasana and Alrowwad (2022) | ✓ | |
| Angeline et al. (2021) | ✓ | |
| Beigman et al. (2023) | ✓ | |
| Bellucci et al. (2022) | ✓ | |
| Blahušiaková (2022) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Corbet et al. (2020) | ✓ | |
| Derun and Mysaka (2022) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Fomina et al. (2019) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Huang et al. (2023) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Hubbard (2023) | ✓ | |
| Jackson and Luu (2023) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Jayasuriya and Sims (2023) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Klopper and Brink (2023) | ✓ | |
| Luo and Yu (2022) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Makurin et al. (2023) | ✓ | |
| Morozova et al. (2020) | ✓ | |
| Niftaliyev (2023) | ✓ | |
| Pandey and Gilmour (2024) | ✓ | |
| Parrondo (2023) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Păunescu (2018) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Pimentel and Boulianne (2020) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Procházka (2018) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Raiborn and Sivitanides (2015) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Ram et al. (2016) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Ramassa and Leoni (2022) | ✓ | |
| Smith et al. (2019) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Vasicek et al. (2019) | ✓ | |
| Vodáková and Foltyn (2020b) | ✓ | |
| Volosovych and Baraniuk (2018) | ✓ | |
| Yan et al. (2022) | ✓ | |
| Yatsyk and Shvets (2020) | ✓ | |
| Yee et al. (2020) | ✓ | |
| Zadorozhnyi et al. (2018) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Total | 31 | 18 |
Source: authors’ projection. The authors who expressed their point of view on cryptocurrency valuation were considered.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Lazea, G.-I.; Bunget, O.-C.; Lungu, C. Cryptocurrencies’ Impact on Accounting: Bibliometric Review. Risks 2024, 12, 94. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks12060094
AMA Style
Lazea G-I, Bunget O-C, Lungu C. Cryptocurrencies’ Impact on Accounting: Bibliometric Review. Risks. 2024; 12(6):94. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks12060094
Chicago/Turabian StyleLazea, Georgiana-Iulia, Ovidiu-Constantin Bunget, and Cristian Lungu. 2024. "Cryptocurrencies’ Impact on Accounting: Bibliometric Review" Risks 12, no. 6: 94. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks12060094
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
