Government Oversight and Institutional Influence: Exploring the Dynamics of Individual Adoption of Spot Bitcoin ETPs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1)    Authors use fake references. For example, Bridging the Gap: The Role of Bitcoin ETPs in Integrating Cryptocurrency with Conventional Finance. Journal of Financial Markets, 10(3), 200-215 OR Understanding the Mechanics of Spot Bitcoin ETPs: Direct Exposure Without Derivatives. 909 Journal of Financial Markets, 10(3), 200-215. These articles do not exist. Authors invented them. 
2)    On the other hand, Author(s) omit very important references. For example a recently published paper on spot bitcoin ETF: Spot Bitcoin ETFs: The Effect of Fund Flows on Bitcoin Price Formation at the Journal of Alternative Investments (https://www.pm-research.com/content/iijaltinv/early/2025/02/21/jai20251239)
3)    Author(s) should focus more on ETF characteristics in general and link their research questions as well as the results obtained to the existing literature on ETFs (not only on bitcoin ETFs). 
4)    Why citing marketing literature? For example. Wang, A. (2010). Implications for brokerage firms’ financial disclosures: From CSR perspectives. Journal of Financial 922 Services Marketing, 15, 112-125. I believe the paper is finance paper and therefore should be rooted in the finance research
5)    Why citing prospect theory or Keynes?
6)    Seems like the Authors have a problem with the selection of the right literature. At present, large parts of the list of references seem random. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate English changes required

Author Response

1)    Authors use fake references. For example, Bridging the Gap: The Role of Bitcoin ETPs in Integrating Cryptocurrency with Conventional Finance. Journal of Financial Markets, 10(3), 200-215 OR Understanding the Mechanics of Spot Bitcoin ETPs: Direct Exposure Without Derivatives. 909 Journal of Financial Markets, 10(3), 200-215. These articles do not exist. The authors invented them. 

Our Response:

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's thorough assessment of our references. We regret the inclusion of incorrect citations and acknowledge our responsibility in ensuring the accuracy of all referenced sources. We removed it from our manuscript.

2)    On the other hand, Author(s) omit very important references. For example, a recently published paper on spot bitcoin ETF: Spot Bitcoin ETFs: The Effect of Fund Flows on Bitcoin Price Formation at the Journal of Alternative Investments (https://www.pm-research.com/content/iijaltinv/early/2025/02/21/jai20251239)

Our Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to incorporate relevant and recently published research. In response, we have added the suggested paper. This study enhances our discussion of Bitcoin ETFs by offering insights into fund flows and price formation.

3)    Author(s) should focus more on ETF characteristics in general and link their research questions as well as the results obtained to the existing literature on ETFs (not only on bitcoin ETFs).

Our Response:

We acknowledge the need to contextualize our study within the broader ETF literature rather than focusing solely on Bitcoin ETFs. We also need to note that, since it is an empirical study, the data sample needs to be narrowed down to Spot Bitcoin ETPs, as exchange-traded funds (ETFs) is a diverse category of financial instruments, comprising at least 15 different asset types, each with unique feature introducing unique adoption dynamics, risk perceptions and legal framework serving distinct investor profiles. In response, we have revised our literature review and discussion sections to integrate insights from research on ETFs in general, linking our research questions and findings to established literature on ETF. These additions provide a stronger foundation for our study within the finance literature.

 

4)    Why citing marketing literature? For example. Wang, A. (2010). Implications for brokerage firms’ financial disclosures: From CSR perspectives. Journal of Financial 922 Services Marketing, 15, 112-125. I believe the paper is finance paper and therefore should be rooted in the finance research

Our Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s concern regarding the relevance of marketing literature in a finance-focused manuscript. Upon review, we agree that the citation of Wang (2010) is not directly relevant to our study. This reference has been removed, and we have ensured that all remaining citations align with the discipline.

 

5)    Why citing prospect theory or Keynes?

Our Response:

We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion to remove citations related to prospect theory and Keynes, as they do not directly align with the manuscript’s theoretical framework.

 

6)    Seems like the Authors have a problem with the selection of the right literature. At present, large parts of the list of references seem random. 

Our Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the selection of references. Please note that the references have been studied carefully to ensure the inclusion of relevant prior studies and to provide appropriate scholarly context for the work. Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have removed a few references—such as the work by Wang—that were deemed less directly related. Additionally, some references were omitted as part of the broader revisions to the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language:

We will request an English edition service after our manuscript is accepted.

Moderate English changes required:

Our Response:

Thank you for your comment regarding the quality of the English language. We have carefully edited the manuscript to ensure that it flows well and is grammatically correct. We have also made revisions to improve clarity and readability throughout the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article contains a comprehensive piece of research, with clear and well-presented research aims and objectives, appropriate research methodology and good structure. The research design and the analysis of the results were robust. The few areas of improvement I have identified are primarily linked to the potential connection of the research in this paper with the broader literature. Such a connection must be strengthened to improve the value of the authors' work. In particular:

1. The reasons for the selection of the conceptual model on which the research is based and the relationship of the model with the broader literature must be explained. The authors described the conceptual model but they did not explain why this model was appropriate and the source of their inspiration. Similarly a better explanation is needed about the six hypotheses. 

In section 2.2. the authors claim that their work is closely linked to the research conducted by Chokor and Alfieri, without elaborating on the latter's work.  Such an elaboration would be useful. Also the relevant discussion should take place in the methodology section (section 3). 

2. The discussion of the study's significance (section 6) is brief and section 6.1 refers to key insights emerging from the work, without the authors elaborating on what these insights are. There must be more analytical explanation of the key insights which are closely linked to the study's contribution.

3. The discussion section has no references to the broader literature. This needs to be addressed as it is difficult to discern the study's value without comparisons with other relevant research and engagement with the broader relevant literature.

 

 

 

Author Response

The article contains a comprehensive piece of research, with clear and well-presented research aims and objectives, appropriate research methodology and good structure. The research design and the analysis of the results were robust. The few areas of improvement I have identified are primarily linked to the potential connection of the research in this paper with the broader literature. Such a connection must be strengthened to improve the value of the authors' work. In particular:

1.    The reasons for the selection of the conceptual model on which the research is based and the relationship of the model with the broader literature must be explained. The authors described the conceptual model, but they did not explain why this model was appropriate and the source of their inspiration. Similarly, a better explanation is needed about the six hypotheses. 

Our Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment regarding the need for a clearer justification of our conceptual model and its relationship with the broader literature. In response, we have expanded Section 2 to explicitly explain why this model was chosen, detailing its theoretical foundations and alignment with prior research (page 4-6). Additionally, we have elaborated on the six hypotheses, providing a stronger rationale for their inclusion based on existing literature. These revisions are highlighted and can be found on page 7-9.

In section 2.2. the authors claim that their work is closely linked to the research conducted by Chokor and Alfieri, without elaborating on the latter's work.  Such an elaboration would be useful. Also the relevant discussion should take place in the methodology section (section 3). 

Our Response:

Thank you for the feedback. In response, we have clarified our reference to their research by providing a more detailed discussion of their study and its relevance to our conceptual framework. This expanded explanation strengthens the theoretical grounding of our model and ensures clarity for the reader. Please see page 4-5. Just to clarify, Alfieri is the co-author for the same article, and we updated the citation to avoid confusion.

2. The discussion of the study's significance (section 6) is brief and section 6.1 refers to key insights emerging from the work, without the authors elaborating on what these insights are. There must be more analytical explanation of the key insights which are closely linked to the study's contribution.

Our Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to provide a more detailed discussion of the study’s significance and key insights. In response, we have expanded Section 5.1 to elaborate on the main findings, clarifying how they contribute to the literature on cryptocurrency adoption and financial regulation. These revisions provide a more in-depth discussion of the study’s theoretical and practical implications. The updated content is highlighted and can be found on page 17.

3. The discussion section has no references to the broader literature. This needs to be addressed as it is difficult to discern the study's value without comparisons with other relevant research and engagement with broader relevant literature. 

Our Response:

We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the lack of references to the broader literature in the discussion section. To address this, we have incorporated additional relevant studies, situating our findings within the existing body of research. This additional engagement strengthens the study’s contribution by demonstrating how our results align with or diverge from prior work. These additions can be found on section 2 and section 5.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript examines Spot Bitcoin ETPs and focuses on the factors that influence their adoption  by investors - more specifically, the authors analyze individual investor characteristics, such as financial literacy, risk tolerance, and other behavioral factors that affect investment decisions. In addition, the manuscript looks at market dynamics, including asset volatility and the role of regulations by supervisory authorities in the integration and the acceptance of Spot Bitcoin ETPs. The authors apply the concept of individual adoption to explain Spot Bitcoin ETPs acceptance by investors and to identify the factors that may hinder their trading. The authors use Confirmatory Factor Analysis and define first and second order constructs to measure the impact of various factors and to analyze the hierarchical relationships between latent variables. The empirical study is well-structured. 
I have some comments on the manuscript to help make it clearer and stronger:
1.    Some tables and figures are not described in the text (for example Figure 1 and Table 3). The authors also do not mention which software was used to create the figures - it would be helpful to include a note under the figures or at the beginning of the manuscript. 
2.    When formulating the objectives of the manuscript and the hypotheses it is better to avoid citing other authors because it might give the impression that the topic has already been widely studied, which could make it more difficult to clearly define the contribution of the manuscript. I believe il would be helpful for the authors to explain their scientific parameters more clearly. 
3.    The hypotheses in the manuscript are logically sound and intuitively correct, which shows that the research focus is well chosen. I believe the study could be even stronger if these hypotheses were explored in more detailed relationships or if additional aspects were considered to offer new perspectives - this would enrich the analysis and provide a deeper understanding of the topic. For example, individual factors (investment experience, risk tolerance and trust in regulatory mechanisms) play an important role in the adoption of a financial asset and this effect is stronger for assets with high uncertainty, such as Spot Bitcoin ETPs. I believe that in this way, the hypotheses can be reformulated, which would contribute more to the manuscript.   
4.    Тhe manuscript would be better structured with the following changes:
- The introduction should include key research elements - objectives, research questions, hypotheses, scope and relevance of the study, along with general information about empirical research. The introduction should establish the main framework of the manuscript. It should also clearly state what kind of empirical research will be conducted, along with an overview of the hypotheses, methods and models used.
-    At the end of the Literature Review section, it would be helpful to include a table summarizing the development of research on this topic over the years - this would make it clearer how the authors contribute to and expand on previous studies. 
-    It would be better to move Figure 1 and the accompanying background analysis to the Literature Review section because the scheme explaining what Spot Bitcoin ETPs and Blockchain Network are is based on past research.
-    It would be better to merge the Research Model and Hypotheses section with the Literature Review section, as it mainly relies on previous studies - the methodology should contain the empirical research, including the hypotheses and Figure 3. This would help make the authors contribution clearer in the manuscript. 
5.    In the paragraph between lines 110-118 the authors mention that this study builds on the work of Chokor and Alfieri, which examines how regulations affect cryptocurrency returns - Chokor & Alfieri identified four key hypotheses on government regulations, this manuscript would be even stronger if the authors more clearly stated how their work expands on those findings.  

 

Author Response

The manuscript examines Spot Bitcoin ETPs and focuses on the factors that influence their adoption  by investors - more specifically, the authors analyze individual investor characteristics, such as financial literacy, risk tolerance, and other behavioral factors that affect investment decisions. In addition, the manuscript looks at market dynamics, including asset volatility and the role of regulations by supervisory authorities in the integration and the acceptance of Spot Bitcoin ETPs. The authors apply the concept of individual adoption to explain Spot Bitcoin ETPs acceptance by investors and to identify the factors that may hinder their trading. The authors use Confirmatory Factor Analysis and define first and second order constructs to measure the impact of various factors and to analyze the hierarchical relationships between latent variables. The empirical study is well-structured. 

I have some comments on the manuscript to help make it clearer and stronger:
1.    Some tables and figures are not described in the text (for example Figure 1 and Table 3). The authors also do not mention which software was used to create the figures - it would be helpful to include a note under the figures or at the beginning of the manuscript.

Our Response:

Thank you for your observation. In response, we have ensured that all figures and tables, including Figure 1 and Table 3, are explicitly referenced and described within the text to enhance clarity. We used PowerPoint to manually create figures. 

2.    When formulating the objectives of the manuscript and the hypotheses it is better to avoid citing other authors because it might give the impression that the topic has already been widely studied, which could make it more difficult to clearly define the contribution of the manuscript. I believe il would be helpful for the authors to explain their scientific parameters more clearly.

Our Response:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. To address this, we have revised the relevant sections to focus more on our unique research parameters and contributions. These revisions ensure a clearer articulation of our study’s novelty and scientific contribution. The updated content is highlighted and can be found on section 1 and section 2.4.

3.    The hypotheses in the manuscript are logically sound and intuitively correct, which shows that the research focus is well chosen. I believe the study could be even stronger if these hypotheses were explored in more detailed relationships or if additional aspects were considered to offer new perspectives - this would enrich the analysis and provide a deeper understanreding of the topic. For example, individual factors (investment experience, risk tolerance and trust in regulatory mechanisms) play an important role in the adoption of a financial asset and this effect is stronger for assets with high uncertainty, such as Spot Bitcoin ETPs. I believe that in this way, the hypotheses can be reformulated, which would contribute more to the manuscript.   

Our Response:

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s positive feedback on the logical soundness of our hypotheses. In response to the suggestion for further exploration, we have revised the hypothesis development section to provide a deeper understanding of investor behavior in the context of Spot Bitcoin ETP adoption. The revised hypotheses are presented with stronger theoretical justification and empirical exploration. These modifications are highlighted and can be found on page 7-9.

4. 4.    Тhe manuscript would be better structured with the following changes:
   - The introduction should include key research elements - objectives, research questions, hypotheses, scope and relevance of the study, along with general information about empirical research. The introduction should establish the main framework of the manuscript. It should also clearly state what kind of empirical research will be conducted, along with an overview of the hypotheses, methods and models used.

Our Response:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We revised the introduction section to incorporate the required elements (Pages 1-2, lines: 27-76).

-    At the end of the Literature Review section, it would be helpful to include a table summarizing the development of research on this topic over the years - this would make it clearer how the authors contribute to and expand on previous studies. 

Our Response:

Thank you for the suggestion. A new table summarizing the development of research on this topic has been added at the end of the literature review section, highlighting how our study contributes to existing literature (Pages 9-11).

-    It would be better to move Figure 1 and the accompanying background analysis to the Literature Review section because the scheme explaining what Spot Bitcoin ETPs and Blockchain Network is based on past research.

Our Response:

As suggested, we moved Figure 1 and the accompanying background analysis to the Literature Review section and place it above Figure 2 (Page 3).

-    It would be better to merge the Research Model and Hypotheses section with the Literature Review section, as it mainly relies on previous studies - the methodology should contain the empirical research, including the hypotheses and Figure 3. This would help make the authors contribution clearer in the manuscript.

Our Response:

Thank you for suggesting this. We indeed should have done this earlier. We have now integrated the Research Model and Hypotheses sections, ensuring that the content is presented as a coherent continuation of Section 2.

5.    In the paragraph between lines 110-118 the authors mention that this study builds on the work of Chokor and Alfieri, which examines how regulations affect cryptocurrency returns - Chokor & Alfieri identified four key hypotheses on government regulations, this manuscript would be even stronger if the authors more clearly stated how their work expands on those findings.

Our Response:

Thank you for your insightful comment. We recognize that the phrase ‘builds on’ may not have been the most precise choice in describing our study’s relationship with Chokor et al.’s work. Instead, we intended to convey that while Chokor et al. focus on the impact of government regulations on cryptocurrency market returns, our study shifts the perspective to individual adoption behavior in response to regulatory clarity, market sentiment, and financial literacy. Our research extends the discussion by integrating these factors into a single framework and introducing institutional investment as a mediating mechanism. Rather than examining how market prices react to regulations, our study investigates how investor perceptions shape adoption decisions in the context of Spot Bitcoin ETPs. We have revised the manuscript to reflect this distinction more clearly. We also acknowledge that Alfieri is a co-author of the same article, and we fixed the citation.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the Author(s) for incorporating my suggestions and addressing all concerns. I have no further query. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a significant improvement, both structurally and substantively, as the changes made are purposeful and well-argued, which improves the logical progression of ideas and arguments, enhances the clarity of the structure, and makes the analysis more convincing. Expanding the analysis (e.g. inserting a table of previous studies and clearly outlining the authors’ contributions) and adding arguments present the authors contributions more convincingly, clearly emphasize the purpose of the research and showing how this manuscript builds on existing research. 
Structural changes contribute to greater clarity and analytical precision of the research:

- the manuscript follows a coherent structure, specifying the goals and the research questions in the introduction.

- the literature review section is significantly improved by a clear distinction between existing research and the contribution of the authors.

- the methodology is presented in a more structured way, which facilitates the understanding of the approaches used and provides greater transparency in interpreting the results, which are logically justified and aligned with the hypotheses.