Blockchain Forensics and Regulatory Technology for Crypto Tax Compliance: A State-of-the-Art Review and Emerging Directions in the South African Context

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This manuscript’s focus on South African crypto tax compliance (and NFT-integrated model) is strong—refine these three areas to meet peer standards:​

1. Clarify Review Methods: Add a brief subsection (Section 2) on databases, keywords (e.g., “blockchain forensics + SARS”), and inclusion criteria (2018–2025, tax-focused). This validates gap identification (e.g., DeFi/NFT tax blind spots).​

2. Deepen Local Context: Link gaps to SARS’ 2023 crypto tax notes + 2024 R500M+ tax gap estimate. Expand Table 1 to highlight SA-specific issues (e.g., unclear staking tax rules) vs. global frameworks (e.g., Germany’s 0% long-term CGT).​

3. Simplify the Model: Refine Figure 2 to label SARS-aligned steps (e.g., “Apply SARS FIFO rules”) & add 1 paragraph on barriers: POPIA compliance (pseudonymized wallets) + SARS e-filing API integration.

Author Response

We have addressed the comments on the attached document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments can be found in the file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We addressed these comments as discussed in the attached documents.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on prior work, the manuscript proposes a conceptual model that integrates digital forensics, cost basis automation, wallet interaction mapping, and NFTs as verifiable audit anchors.

Some minor comments and suggestions are listed in the following.

1. The manuscript introduces NFTs as verifiable audit anchors to enhance auditability, trust, and transparency in digital tax compliance. The design choice can be elaborated for readers. It is also suggested that limitations or potential challenges (e.g., privacy, cost, long-term sustainability, and so on) associated with the proposed solution can also be described.

2. In Section 2.2 (Blockchain forensics tools and techniques), the manuscript states that "this study seeks to use the Blockchain forensic concept as a proactive mechanism to investigate crypto wallet interactions during the process of filling crypto-related tax obligations to uncover any illegal related connections or activities." If the investigation is integrated into the extended conceptual model, please provide related information for readers.

3. The process of the extended conceptual model is complex. It is suggested that a dynamic diagram (e.g., sequence diagram) be used to present the interactions more clearly. 

4. Section 4.1 presents the evaluation of the existing solutions and the proposed model. However, the comparison seems to involve the conceptual model from the previous study. It might be appropriate to compare the existing solutions with the extended conceptual model designed in this manuscript.

5. It is suggested that the applicability of the proposed model to other countries can be introduced for readers.

6. Please check and revise the term "Section 0" in the manuscript.

Author Response

We have resolved the comments as discussed in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has fully addressed all the comments I raised.