Next Article in Journal
Research on a Crime Spatiotemporal Prediction Method Integrating Informer and ST-GCN: A Case Study of Four Crime Types in Chicago
Previous Article in Journal
Online Asynchronous Learning over Streaming Nominal Data
Previous Article in Special Issue
Edge vs. Cloud: Empirical Insights into Data-Driven Condition Monitoring
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Toward the Mass Adoption of Blockchain: Cross-Industry Insights from DeFi, Gaming, and Data Analytics

by
Shezon Saleem Mohammed Abdul
*,
Anup Shrestha
and
Jianming Yong
School of Business, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2025, 9(7), 178; https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc9070178
Submission received: 14 May 2025 / Revised: 25 June 2025 / Accepted: 1 July 2025 / Published: 3 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Cloud Computing in Industrial Internet of Things)

Abstract

Blockchain’s promise of decentralised, tamper-resistant services is gaining real traction in three arenas: decentralized finance (DeFi), blockchain gaming, and data-driven analytics. These sectors span finance, entertainment, and information services, offering a representative setting in which to study real-world adoption. This survey analyzes how each domain implements blockchain, identifies the incentives that accelerate uptake, and maps the technical and organizational barriers that still limit scale. By examining peer-reviewed literature and recent industry developments, this review distils common design features such as token incentives, verifiable digital ownership, and immutable data governance. It also pinpoints the following domain-specific challenges: capital efficiency in DeFi, asset portability and community engagement in gaming, and high-volume, low-latency querying in analytics. Moreover, cross-sector links are already forming, with DeFi liquidity tools supporting in-game economies and analytics dashboards improving decision-making across platforms. Building on these findings, this paper offers guidance on stronger interoperability and user-centered design and sets research priorities in consensus optimization, privacy-preserving analytics, and inclusive governance. Together, the insights equip developers, policymakers, and researchers to build scalable, interoperable platforms and reuse proven designs while avoiding common pitfalls.

1. Introduction

Blockchain has emerged as one of the most transformative and disruptive technologies of the 21st century owing to its decentralized, immutable, transparent, autonomous, and reliable features. It enables trustless peer-to-peer interactions by eliminating centralized intermediaries, thereby offering a secure and verifiable record of transactions [1]. Initially popularized through cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin [2], blockchain’s applicability has expanded into multiple domains, profoundly disrupting traditional processes in finance, gaming, and data management.
In the realm of decentralized finance (DeFi), blockchain introduces new forms of financial infrastructure that operate outside conventional banking channels [3]. Conventional financial systems rely on intermediaries, including banks, brokers, and clearinghouses, to facilitate lending, trading, and asset transfers. Blockchain redefines this model by enabling peer-to-peer transactions through smart contracts, which automate processes such as borrowing, lending, and yield farming without third-party oversight [4]. As a result, DeFi platforms built on blockchains like Ethereum are creating more open, accessible financial systems while introducing novel risk structures and regulatory considerations.
In digital gaming, blockchain disrupts the traditional publisher-controlled model, where in-game assets and player achievements remain confined within closed ecosystems. With blockchain-based gaming, players gain verifiable ownership of digital items via non-fungible tokens (NFTs), allowing for true asset portability, resale, and monetization across platforms [5]. This transformation challenges the monopolistic control of game developers and shifts economic agency to the players themselves, giving rise to new paradigms such as play-to-earn (P2E) models and community-governed economies.
In data analytics, conventional systems are dependent on centralized data silos, which are susceptible to single-point failure, data tampering, and lack of transparency. Blockchain introduces a tamper-proof, time-stamped ledger that supports decentralized data collection, verification, and sharing [6]. This is particularly impactful in multi-stakeholder environments such as supply chain analytics, healthcare, and finance, where data provenance and auditability are essential for regulatory compliance and informed decision-making [7,8]. By integrating blockchain, these sectors can ensure data trustworthiness while enabling federated analytics models that preserve contributor privacy.
Thus, blockchain not only offers technical improvements but also initiates fundamental shifts in intermediary roles, asset ownership paradigms, and data governance across DeFi, gaming, and data analytics. These disruptions justify a focused investigation into its mass adoption, which this study aims to provide by examining the challenges, trends, and converging applications within these three critical domains. While this manuscript primarily investigates blockchain adoption in DeFi, gaming, and data analytics, the integration of complementary technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML), cloud computing, and edge computing offers potential solutions to blockchain’s technical constraints. Cloud computing enhances scalability by offering an elastic infrastructure capable of handling large transaction volumes [9]. Edge computing improves responsiveness by minimizing latency through decentralized, near-user data processing [10]. AI/ML contributes to anomaly detection and security enhancement through predictive analytics and dynamic data modeling [11]. However, to maintain a focused discussion on blockchain-driven transformation within specific application sectors, these technological integrations are acknowledged briefly here and proposed as important directions for future research.

1.1. Blockchain Foundations and Adoption Trends in DeFi

DeFi is a blockchain-based financial system that aims to overcome the limits of traditional banking, especially for people without easy access to financial services. It allows users to lend, borrow, trade, and save money online without needing banks or other intermediaries. This open-access model fosters financial inclusion, particularly for unbanked populations. For instance, platforms like Aave and Compound allow users to borrow or lend assets without traditional credit checks, while Stellar facilitates low-cost cross-border remittances [12]. DeFi also reduces barriers to investment, and tokenization enables fractional ownership of high-value assets, such as real estate or fine art, thereby democratizing access to wealth-building opportunities. Built largely on Ethereum, DeFi applications benefit from smart contract automation, supporting innovation, transparency, and resistance to censorship [13].
The breakthrough of DeFi has witnessed a significant surge in its adoption in recent years. Blockchain-based finance is expected to experience significant growth by 2030, supported by trends such as asset tokenization, the rise of NFTs, and increased institutional participation in DeFi ecosystems [14]. This momentum is further driven by enhanced scalability, regulatory clarity, and the integration of blockchain into enterprise financial infrastructure. As NFT assets have gained momentum, they have become the most popular investment instruments. DeFi platforms now accept NFTs as collateral, integrating them into lending markets and reinforcing their role in blockchain-enabled financial services [15]. The high total value locked (TVL) of DeFi illustrates the success and growing popularity of DeFi platforms and protocols [16]. TVL also serves as a benchmark for evaluating the performance and adoption of DeFi systems. Market forecasts project that the DeFi sector will grow from USD 21.04 billion in 2024 to approximately USD 1.55 trillion by 2034 [17], driven by tokenization, increasing institutional participation, and regulatory clarity.
Moreover, the mass adoption of blockchain in DeFi holds transformative potential to empower underprivileged populations by improving access to affordable financial services and reducing dependence on centralized institutions. In DeFi, blockchain creates a new financial ecosystem in which decentralization democratizes access, promotes transparency, and enables permissionless innovation. It introduces a decentralized framework for financial services, permitting individuals to bypass traditional intermediaries and access peer-to-peer lending, trading, and investment platforms. This creates new opportunities for inclusion, liquidity, and innovation. The successful adoption of blockchain has made financial services more autonomous and efficient, reducing burdens for users. DeFi has also revived broader interest in blockchain through novel applications. Decentralized exchanges (DEXs) using automated market maker (AMM) protocols have become highly influential due to their ability to reshape market dynamics [18].
Flash loans and synthetic assets [18] represent breakthrough innovations in DeFi. Flash loans allow users to borrow assets without collateral, provided the loan is repaid within the same transaction block. This functionality enables complex strategies such as arbitrage, collateral switching, and liquidation optimization [19]. As Li et al. note, flash loans are powered by smart contracts that enable rapid execution but can also be misused for market manipulation or to exploit protocol vulnerabilities [20]. Synthetic assets simulate the value of real-world financial instruments such as equities, commodities, or fiat currencies, enabling DeFi users to gain exposure to traditional markets without relying on centralized intermediaries [21]. Platforms like Synthetix offer these assets through over-collateralized positions linked to price feeds, thus promoting asset diversification and liquidity in DeFi ecosystems [22]. However, these innovations also introduce systemic risks. For instance, synthetic asset platforms depend heavily on external oracles for price data, creating a vulnerability to oracle manipulation. Additionally, extreme market conditions can trigger insolvency events and cascading liquidations [23]. While flash loans and synthetic assets expand the utility and reach of decentralized finance, their safe and scalable adoption depends on robust auditing, secure oracle integration, and proactive risk mitigation strategies to ensure platform resilience and user protection.

1.2. Blockchain Applications and Adoption Trends in Gaming

Gaming, the fastest-growing sector in entertainment, presents a unique testing ground for blockchain technology. Its reliance on digital asset ownership, microtransactions, and strong community participation aligns directly with blockchain’s core capabilities, namely, decentralization, verifiable ownership, and programmable trust through smart contracts. Paajala et al. [24] highlight how blockchain enhances player immersion by enabling true control over digital assets, while Stamatakis et al. [25] demonstrate how smart contracts can establish secure, transparent, and self-governing game mechanics.
Unlike traditional games where in-game items are confined within centralized servers, blockchain enables genuine ownership and transferability of virtual assets through NFTs. Platforms like The Sandbox allow players to buy, sell, and trade virtual land and items as NFTs, extending their use across different environments and tying them to real-world value generation [26]. This economic shift empowers players through asset monetization and decentralized economies, most notably in play-to-earn (P2E) models that reward participation and achievement. Blockchain networks such as Ethereum and Bitcoin support these ecosystems by enabling immutable, distributed transactions [25].
The scale of this transformation is reflected in industry growth: the global games market generated USD 183.9 billion in 2023, with mobile gaming alone accounting for nearly USD 90 billion [27]. Within this broader context, blockchain gaming is gaining substantial traction, with forecasts projecting growth from USD 8.5 billion in 2023 to USD 314.3 billion by 2030 [28]. This market expansion reflects how blockchain is reshaping value creation and distribution through mechanisms such as true digital ownership, play-to-earn (P2E) models, and cross-platform interoperability [29,30]. Beyond asset ownership, blockchain fosters reusability and monetization of in-game items, land, and achievements via NFTs. Community-governed models such as decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) further enhance user agency, enabling players to participate in decision-making, rule-setting, and game updates. These dynamics shift games from static entertainment products into participatory digital economies.
However, adoption is not without challenges. Speculative trading and digital asset inflation can distort gameplay, while high initial token or NFT costs may exclude casual or low-income players. Ethical concerns also arise around financial risk exposure, especially for youth. Moreover, blockchain’s immutability limits post-deployment adjustments, restricting game evolution. Nevertheless, this same immutability offers benefits: smart contracts provide auditability and fairness in multiplayer settings, enhancing trust in-game logic [31]. Technical hurdles persist as well. Chief among them is high transaction fees, especially on networks like Ethereum, which make everyday actions such as minting NFTs or executing trades costly and inaccessible for many users [32]. Without broader adoption of Layer 2 scaling solutions or low-fee alternatives, such financial frictions will remain a major barrier to mainstream adoption.

1.3. Blockchain Adoption and Challenges in Data Analytics

Blockchain-based analytics models derive insights from large datasets by leveraging the technology’s core advantages. Managing heterogeneous data is critical in decentralized finance and gaming systems. The mass adoption of blockchain in data analytics can enhance reliability by increasing trust in the accuracy of data inputs. This, in turn, improves the quality of insights derived from analytics, benefiting industries that rely on real-time and trustworthy data. In data analytics, the technology ensures data provenance, auditability, and secure decentralized exchange, which is critical for sectors such as healthcare, logistics, and finance where trust in data is paramount [33,34]. The global market value of blockchain is projected to grow from USD 7.18 billion in 2022 to USD 163.83 billion by 2029, reflecting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 56.3%. During the same period, the broader data analytics market is expected to reach USD 329.8 billion by 2030, with a CAGR of 29.9% [35]. These figures highlight the increasing relevance of blockchain in data-driven sectors that demand trust, traceability, and secure data exchange.
Blockchain contributes to data analytics by offering a distributed and immutable infrastructure. It ensures security across data acquisition, storage, processing, and privacy preservation [36]. The technology enables decentralized, tamper-resistant data management, improving transparency, integrity, and trust. These attributes make blockchain especially attractive to industries where data security and traceability are critical. However, the widespread adoption of blockchain in data analytics remains constrained by challenges such as low transaction throughput, high storage costs, and the complexity of maintaining privacy across both public and private blockchains.
Blockchain also facilitates efficient, trustless collaboration between organizations, enabling secure information sharing without concerns about tampering or loss of data ownership [37]. This capability strengthens cross-industry analytics and collaborative decision-making. However, the interoperability of real-time cross-chain data remains a major barrier. Additionally, the complexity of heterogeneous data structures and limited awareness or education about blockchain technologies hinder effective adoption. In contrast to centralized architectures, blockchain offers a decentralized and tamper-resistant framework that is particularly suited for managing the heterogeneous and large-scale data generated by intelligent devices. Ballandies et al. [38] provide a detailed classification of blockchain system architectures, showing how different design choices affect data management capabilities in decentralized environments. Similarly, Agbo et al. [39] demonstrate how blockchain can securely transmit and manage high-volume health data from mobile devices, reinforcing its suitability for complex and sensitive data flows. Its distributed ledger ensures that multi-source data can be validated, timestamped, and securely shared without reliance on a central authority. These capabilities are especially valuable in data-intensive domains such as decentralized finance, gaming, and smart city analytics, where trust, interoperability, and real-time traceability are essential.
A comprehensive understanding of distributed technologies is essential for organizations to use blockchain-based analytics tools safely and effectively. Large financial institutions are already leveraging blockchain to build lending platforms that validate transactions and generate reliable credit histories and asset classifications. Such platforms support data sharing for broader use in financial structure analysis. Moreover, blockchain contributes to the development of digital currency technologies that support innovative services, significantly impacting the financial and gaming sectors. While blockchain offers significant opportunities in data analytics, its mass adoption is impeded by complexity, performance constraints, and a lack of blockchain-related education among stakeholders.

1.4. Motivations and Contributions

Blockchain technology provides a secure, transparent, and decentralized framework for information exchange and value transfer. These attributes have encouraged adoption across finance, supply chains, energy, healthcare, education, and social media [40,41,42,43,44]. Functionality continues to expand through smart contracts, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and novel data structures [45,46]. Nevertheless, large-scale deployment remains constrained. Inefficient consensus, poorly designed smart contracts, and anonymity-driven abuse raise security concerns [47,48]. Broader obstacles include low throughput, limited interoperability, unclear regulation, and complex user interfaces that deter mainstream use.
The existing literature identifies a range of organizational, technological, and socio-economic constraints on blockchain adoption [49,50,51,52]. Technical studies highlight weaknesses in consensus mechanisms and smart contract design [53,54,55,56,57,58], while other work examines governance trade-offs, interoperability gaps, and the absence of shared standards [59,60,61,62,63]. Researchers have also begun to analyze how these barriers manifest in high-growth niches, e.g., decentralized finance, blockchain gaming, and blockchain-based data analytics [64,65,66]. Because these sectoral surveys are usually siloed, they reveal little about transferable solutions. Table 1 visualizes this fragmentation and motivates the cross-sector synthesis developed in the remainder of this review.
As Table 1 shows, few studies compare findings across domains. To close this gap, the present review focuses on three high-impact sectors, DeFi, blockchain gaming, and blockchain-based data analytics, which have been chosen for their advanced implementation levels, economic momentum, and contrasting technical requirements. Market forecasts underscore the stakes: DeFi could surpass USD 1.55 trillion by 2034 [17], blockchain gaming is projected to reach USD 314.3 billion by 2030 [28], and data-centric analytics contribute to an analytics market projected at USD 329.8 billion by 2030 [35]. Together, these fields span financial, entertainment, and data-intensive ecosystems. By analyzing adoption barriers and innovations across all three, this review identifies common infrastructure needs and transferable design patterns that can accelerate blockchain deployment.
Mapping the main obstacles into each domain clarifies the rationale. DeFi suffers from limited throughput, congestion, and high gas fees [75]. Blockchain gaming faces usability and interoperability hurdles, for example, high minting costs deter casual players, and assets moved across chains can lose utility [60]. Data-analytics deployments must satisfy strict privacy, provenance, and cross-border regulations [8,76]. In all three, the lack of standardized cross-chain communication fragments ecosystems and complicates integration [77].
These challenges map directly to blockchain’s architectural features. Decentralization removes intermediaries, enabling peer-to-peer finance in DeFi and player-owned economies in gaming. Immutability and auditability protect data integrity and contract execution. Transparency underpins accountability in financial settlements and multiplayer environments. Self-governance through DAOs allows community-driven upgrades, and dependability ensures continuous operation. Understanding how these attributes underpin token economies, NFT marketplaces, and blockchain-enabled analytics offers design guidance for scalable, interoperable solutions. Building upon this analysis, this review provides the following contributions:
  • Synthesizing adoption barriers and innovation drivers across DeFi, gaming, and data analytics;
  • Identifying research gaps and outlining future directions for technology deployment and ecosystem growth;
  • Highlighting under-explored intersections that inform system design and policy;
  • Comparing sector-specific and systemic challenges, i.e., scalability, governance, interoperability, and usability, to present an integrated view of the adoption potential;
  • Providing actionable guidance for developers, stakeholders, and regulators aiming to mainstream blockchain infrastructure.

1.5. Methodology

This review employs a three-stage process comprising planning, conducting, and reporting to investigate blockchain adoption in DeFi, gaming, and data analytics, as illustrated in Figure 1.

1.5.1. Planning Phase

The planning phase establishes the review’s objective: to examine technical constraints, barriers, cross-industry synergies, and emerging use cases in three mature blockchain domains. It also frames two guiding questions:
  • RQ1: What are the key technological, economic, and regulatory drivers influencing the widespread adoption of blockchain in DeFi, gaming, and data analytics?
  • RQ2: What insights can be drawn from current strategies and sector-specific developments to guide future large-scale blockchain adoption across these domains?

1.5.2. Conducting Phase

Relevant literature was gathered from Scopus, Web of Science, ACM Digital Library, and Google Scholar, using terms such as “blockchain technology,” “mass adoption,” and domain-specific keywords. Titles, abstracts, and keywords in peer-reviewed journals and conferences were screened against the inclusion/exclusion criteria in Table 2. Manual checks ensured thematic relevance to the research questions.

1.5.3. Reporting Phase

Figure 1 shows the screening flow. From 2525 initial records, 1553 were removed by preliminary checks, leaving 972. Title–abstract screening excluded 394, and full-text screening excluded 479, yielding 99 core papers. Reference mining added 18, providing 117 final studies. These were grouped as follows (Figure 2): 58 general blockchain adoption papers, 20 on DeFi, 16 on gaming, 22 on data analytics, and 1 cross-domain study. This classification underpins the thematic discussion in Section 2, Section 3, Section 4 and Section 5, enabling both sector-specific and comparative insights.

1.6. Survey Organization

The remainder of this survey is organized thematically, reflecting the key research directions identified. Figure 3 illustrates the overall structure, including major themes and corresponding sections. Section 2 examines blockchain implementation in decentralized finance (DeFi), focusing on system architectures, adoption drivers, risks, and both regulatory and technical constraints. Section 3 explores blockchain use in gaming, addressing application classifications, incentive structures, adoption barriers, and domain-specific risks. Section 4 discusses blockchain’s role in data analytics, highlighting integration tools, enabling factors, project typologies, and emerging challenges. Section 5 synthesizes findings through a cross-industry lens, identifying shared trends, sector-specific traits, and convergence opportunities among DeFi, gaming, and analytics. Section 6 outlines the study’s contributions, limitations, and directions for future research. Finally, Section 7 summarizes the key findings and reflects on broader implications for blockchain mass adoption across interconnected domains.

2. Blockchain-Driven Revolutions in Decentralized Finance (DeFi)

Decentralized finance (DeFi), enabled by blockchain technology, is reshaping global financial systems by offering open, permissionless alternatives to traditional banking infrastructures. Built primarily on public blockchains such as Ethereum, DeFi relies on smart contracts to remove intermediaries, lower transaction costs, improve transparency, and enhance security across financial services. These innovations are redefining user engagement with finance. Key activities now include lending, borrowing, trading, investing, and decentralized insurance.
The first phase of DeFi, often referred to as DeFi 1.0, established the foundational protocols and services that underpin the ecosystem. Core components include financial primitives such as stablecoins, decentralized exchanges, lending and borrowing platforms, and yield farming. In response to early limitations, DeFi 2.0 introduces more advanced features with a focus on long-term sustainability. Enhancements include scalable infrastructure, improved user interfaces, protocol-owned liquidity, decentralized governance, competitive oracle systems, cross-chain interoperability, and increased security and yield optimization [78].
DeFi’s growth has been accelerated by the emergence of blockchain platforms competing to gain market share through differentiated features and developer-friendly ecosystems. These platforms evolve rapidly, introducing new services as user and developer preferences shift. By democratizing access to financial tools, enhancing transparency, and simplifying user interactions, DeFi holds the potential to foster financial inclusion and accelerate mainstream blockchain adoption.

2.1. Multi-Layered Architecture of DeFi

The DeFi ecosystem is built on a modular, multi-layered architecture consisting of five interdependent layers: settlement, asset, protocol, application, and aggregation [21]. Each layer serves a distinct function within the decentralized financial system, collectively enabling seamless, trustless financial operations without centralized intermediaries. Figure 4 illustrates how these layers interact to form a scalable and cohesive infrastructure, ranging from blockchain-based transaction validation to user-facing aggregation platforms.

2.1.1. Layer 1: Settlement Layer

The foundational layer consists of distributed ledger technologies (DLTs), such as the Ethereum blockchain, which provides the core infrastructure for securely recording asset ownership and validating state changes. This layer supports the final settlement of transactions and serves as the trustless base for all higher layers.

2.1.2. Layer 2: Asset Layer

Built upon the settlement layer, the asset layer comprises digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, tokens, and stablecoins. These assets enable value exchange and collateralization within DeFi protocols.

2.1.3. Layer 3: Protocol Layer

This layer includes standardized smart contract implementations for specific financial functions, such as decentralized exchanges (DEXs), lending markets, asset management, and derivatives. These protocols provide composable and interoperable building blocks that are accessible to any DeFi participant.

2.1.4. Layer 4: Application Layer

The application layer provides user-facing interfaces, such as web applications or browser extensions, that abstract the complexity of interacting with smart contracts. This layer enhances usability and lowers entry barriers for non-technical users.

2.1.5. Layer 5: Aggregation Layer

The aggregation layer extends application functionality by integrating multiple protocols and platforms. It facilitates advanced use cases such as rate optimization, liquidity routing, and portfolio management by consolidating data and automating interactions across protocols.

2.2. DeFi Platforms

DeFi leverages secure distributed ledger technology to disrupt and reshape traditional financial systems [79]. A crucial advancement of DeFi lies in its ability to establish the value of crypto assets as equivalent to real-world assets. Novel DeFi applications, such as decentralized exchanges (DEXs), flash loans, and synthetic assets, are entirely new and can only exist on blockchain models. Blockchain empowers the DeFi system by enhancing the security of financial transactions, increasing transparency, unlocking liquidity and novel opportunities, and supporting the construction of an integrated and standardized economic strategy.
Popular DeFi projects include DEXs, stablecoin DEXs, lending and borrowing platforms, stablecoin protocols, yield aggregators, and savings or borrowing protocols. This diversity allows DeFi users to select services tailored to their financial needs. Each DeFi project has unique features supporting the diversity of financial services. For instance, Uniswap is known for its automated market maker (AMM) mechanism, Aave offers innovative flash loan services, and Curve Finance enhances stablecoin trading with low slippage. DeFi protocols leverage various token types to enable services like lending, borrowing, decentralized exchanges, and synthetic assets. The dynamic and innovative DeFi space continues to develop novel token mechanisms and models, with tokens often serving multiple purposes across different categories. User experience, community support, liquidity flexibility, and efficiency are major benefits of these DeFi projects.
Table 3 presents a comparative analysis of major DeFi platforms, highlighting their key features, strengths, limitations, and supported use cases. While each platform offers distinct value propositions, they also face shared challenges to mass adoption, including technical scalability, regulatory uncertainty, and interface usability. Understanding these dynamics is essential for harnessing the transformative potential of DeFi within evolving digital economies. Each protocol has distinct advantages and limitations. For example, MakerDAO is recognized for its stability, while PancakeSwap benefits from lower transaction fees on the Binance Smart Chain. Despite their strengths, DeFi projects face several challenges that hinder broader adoption. High gas fees on Ethereum, for instance, affect the accessibility of platforms like Uniswap and Compound, while regulatory risks remain a concern across lending and savings protocols (e.g., Anchor). These factors significantly influence user trust, cost-efficiency, and scalability. The platforms listed support a variety of use cases, including token swapping, liquidity provision, yield optimization, and stablecoin issuance. For an effective DeFi experience, users must match each protocol’s strengths to their risk appetite, goals, and preferred blockchain.

2.3. Path to Mass Adoption of Blockchain in DeFi

As one of the most prominent blockchain applications, DeFi holds significant potential to reshape modern financial systems. However, numerous technical challenges and risk factors must be addressed through continued innovation, ecosystem collaboration, and adherence to established best practices. Smart contracts provide a foundational layer for DeFi platforms, making them essential to examine the synergy between the blockchain infrastructure and DeFi protocol design.
DeFi delivers financial services without intermediaries by leveraging blockchain-based smart contracts and stablecoins, effectively bridging various segments of the financial ecosystem, including traditional banking. Blockchain’s decentralized architecture enables DeFi to function without centralized oversight, offering an increasingly viable alternative to conventional finance. Through self-executing code and trustless transaction models, DeFi platforms reduce reliance on third parties while ensuring transparency and auditability. This disintermediation lowers costs and enhances openness and operational efficiency. The growing adoption of stablecoins, decentralized exchanges (DEXs), and lending protocols continues to drive sector expansion [80].
Several factors contribute to DeFi’s increasing appeal, including global accessibility, permissionless innovation, cost efficiency, and reduced jurisdictional friction. The programmability and flexibility of blockchain technologies further support the sector’s evolution by enabling user anonymity and data privacy. While security remains a key concern, DeFi protocols strive to ensure tamper-resistant and transparent operations, positioning themselves as viable platforms for cross-border financial services. Financial inclusion is another critical motivator, opening new avenues for asset growth and income generation through crypto-economic incentives. The integration of stablecoins and decentralized governance, designed to eliminate single points of failure, enhances resilience and strengthens DeFi’s long-term viability within the global financial landscape. Nonetheless, achieving mass adoption will require sustained efforts to address scalability constraints, regulatory uncertainty, and technical complexity.

2.4. Challenges in the Mass Adoption of Blockchain in DeFi

DeFi protocols rely on decentralized exchange (DEX) mechanisms to support core financial functions such as lending, borrowing, and trading. Although blockchain technology offers notable advantages for DeFi, several persistent challenges must be addressed to enable mass adoption [81,82]. Tackling these limitations through technical innovation and strategic upgrades is critical to ensuring the scalability, accessibility, and long-term sustainability of blockchain-enabled financial services. Figure 5 illustrates the key challenges that affect the widespread adoption of blockchain in the DeFi ecosystem.

2.4.1. Accomplishing Scalability

Scalability remains a fundamental bottleneck for blockchain-enabled DeFi and gaming platforms [83]. Ethereum, one of the most widely used base-layer blockchains, continues to face throughput limitations due to its consensus mechanism (initially proof of work, now transitioned to proof of stake), fixed block dimensions, and high transaction latency. These restrictions lead to network congestion and high gas prices during peak periods [84], negatively affecting the usability of transaction-intensive applications. In DeFi, scalability constraints restrict affordable access to financial tools; in gaming, they disrupt real-time responsiveness and smooth gameplay. During periods of high demand, Ethereum’s fee structure, which is based on variable block size and user bidding, results in volatile and often prohibitive gas prices. Empirical studies confirm a direct correlation between transaction volume and increased fees, with users sometimes paying higher gas fees than the transferred value [84]. This dynamic fee deterrents both developers and users, particularly for applications involving frequent or low-value transactions [85].
To address these limitations, a range of scalability solutions has emerged, including Layer 2 technologies (e.g., optimistic and zero-knowledge rollups), sidechains, and sharding. Alternative Layer 1 platforms like Solana have also been engineered with scalability as a core objective. Solana, for example, employs a hybrid proof of history (PoH) and proof of stake (PoS) mechanism to achieve high throughput and low latency, enabling the network to process over 65,000 transactions per second under optimal conditions [86,87]. This architecture reduces reliance on timestamp synchronization, facilitating rapid consensus and efficient block production. While these solutions enhance performance, they often involve trade-offs in decentralization and require extensive validation in real-world deployments. Nonetheless, scalable infrastructure remains a prerequisite for mainstream blockchain adoption in sectors such as DeFi and gaming [88].

2.4.2. Achieving Interoperability Among DeFi Apps

In the context of DeFi, interoperability refers to the ability of decentralized applications (DApps) and protocols across different blockchains to communicate, share data, and transfer assets. This capability is essential for building integrated financial ecosystems in which users can seamlessly interact with lending platforms, decentralized exchanges, and other services across chains [60,89]. Without interoperability, liquidity becomes fragmented, user experience deteriorates, and the practical benefits of decentralization are diminished. Achieving such integration remains challenging due to differences in coding languages, data standards, and execution environments across blockchain platforms. While mechanisms such as token bridges and asset wrapping offer partial interoperability, they introduce additional complexity and pose significant security risks. Bartoletti et al. [89] emphasize that composability between DeFi protocols is critical to usability and innovation. Similarly, Belchior et al. [60] argue that scalable and secure cross-chain solutions are essential to mitigate ecosystem fragmentation. Until these challenges are overcome, limited interoperability will continue to constrain the broader adoption and functionality of DeFi systems.

2.4.3. Ensuring Reliable Connectivity

DeFi enables transactions among peer-to-peer network entities, but reliable connectivity remains a critical concern due to the decentralized nature of node operations [90]. DeFi protocols often depend on oracles and bridges to interact with external data sources, such as asset prices and market feeds. However, unreliable connectivity in these components can lead to data delays, inaccuracies, and manipulation risks, potentially causing errors in smart contract execution and resulting in significant financial losses. Secure and dependable data feeds are therefore essential, particularly for time-sensitive applications such as lending, borrowing, and asset trading.

2.4.4. Addressing Technical Complexity and Volatility

DeFi’s reliance on interoperability introduces significant technical complexity, as systems must be compatible with sidechains, bridges, cross-chain protocols, and parachains. Each DeFi protocol often requires distinct software tools and bespoke code implementations, adding to the development and integration burden. Additionally, market liquidity presents a critical challenge: trading, lending, and investment operations in DeFi are highly sensitive to asset price fluctuations. As Spano [91] notes, sudden changes in market value can lead to sharp declines in the worth of crypto tokens, thereby increasing risk and undermining user confidence.

2.4.5. Balancing Security and Performance

Security remains a critical concern in DeFi, where smart contract vulnerabilities and frequent exploits can undermine user confidence. While private blockchain models often employ large encryption keys and strict authorization mechanisms, they are not immune to attack. As Mohanta et al. [92] note, technically skilled users may obtain encryption keys and exploit system weaknesses for personal gain. In the DeFi context, balancing performance with robust security requires continuous efforts, including rigorous smart contract audits, formal verification techniques, and the adoption of standardized development practices. Without such measures, concerns over fund loss and systemic risk will continue to hinder mass adoption.

2.4.6. Navigating Regulatory and Legal Barriers

DeFi benefits from blockchain’s core features (security, transparency, and immutability), which enhance protection against threats such as ransomware and denial-of-service attacks. However, the regulatory landscape for DeFi remains underdeveloped and fragmented. Traditional approaches such as “code is law” and “law is code” are challenged by the decentralized and autonomous nature of blockchain systems [19,93]. The absence of clear legal frameworks creates uncertainty for users, developers, and institutions, posing a significant barrier to mainstream adoption [94]. Well-defined regulations addressing tax treatment, consumer protection, and anti-money laundering (AML) compliance could improve trust, reduce risk, and facilitate broader integration of DeFi into traditional financial ecosystems.

2.4.7. Addressing Capital and Liquidity Constraints

Capital is fundamental to the functioning and sustainability of the DeFi ecosystem. It underpins core services such as production, investment, and lending and is vital for supporting economic growth across decentralized platforms [81,82]. Innovative capital deployment schemes, particularly under-collateralized and trust-based lending, are gaining traction but remain inherently risky. Unlike traditional finance, which relies on collateral and credit assessments to manage lending risks, DeFi protocols often lack such safeguards. Under-collateralized loans, in particular, raise concerns regarding borrower credibility and default risk, especially in the absence of credit scoring or identity verification mechanisms [95].
The absence of regulatory oversight further amplifies these risks. Without formal accountability mechanisms or standardized fund management practices, pooled capital remains vulnerable to liquidity crises, fraud, and systemic failure [96]. Research highlights that feedback loops in DeFi lending, such as those triggered by price volatility or cascading liquidations, can destabilize entire platforms when risk controls are inadequate [97]. Moreover, the inability to enforce collateral terms may incentivize risk-seeking borrowing behavior, eroding platform resilience to defaults [98]. Addressing these capital and liquidity challenges is essential to unlocking the full potential of blockchain-based DeFi. As the ecosystem matures, solutions that improve capital efficiency, borrower vetting, and systemic risk management will be critical for strengthening trust, safeguarding liquidity, and enabling broader adoption.

2.4.8. Managing Large-Scale Data in DeFi

DeFi applications differ from other decentralized systems in their intensive data storage demands. As the DeFi user base expands, so too does the volume and complexity of transactional data. Blockchain infrastructure must be capable of managing and storing these large data volumes effectively [19]. Data requirements vary by application type, further complicating the need for scalable, decentralized storage solutions. Managing heterogeneous data originating from diverse sources, formats, and structures is critical for ensuring DeFi’s scalability and usability. As DeFi continues to scale and intersect with traditional financial systems across global markets, the ability to process and interpret diverse data streams will be essential for sustaining adoption and performance.

2.4.9. Enhancing User Experience and Accessibility

User experience remains a critical barrier to the widespread adoption of DeFi. Navigating wallets, exchanges, and protocols can be technically demanding, often resulting in user errors and fund losses, especially among newcomers [81]. Complex interfaces and unfamiliar processes may discourage non-technical users from engaging with DeFi platforms [82]. To promote inclusivity and adoption, DeFi systems must prioritize usability by offering intuitive interfaces, simplified onboarding processes, and accessible educational resources. Streamlined tools and user-centric designs can significantly reduce entry barriers, making decentralized financial services more approachable for mainstream users.

2.5. Factors Impacting the Mass Adoption of DeFi

Mass adoption of DeFi is shaped by a range of factors, broadly categorized into three domains: institutional, market, and technical. Each domain encompasses specific elements that either support or constrain the widespread integration of DeFi solutions. Table 4 summarizes these key factors.
Within the institutional domain, governance and regulatory clarity are central concerns [64,67]. The erosion of government oversight, the risk of unfair practices, and limited legal recourse for fraud remain critical barriers. Policymaker uncertainty surrounding cryptocurrencies adds to these constraints. Addressing them requires clear taxation policies, legally robust blockchain frameworks, and stronger institutional engagement.
From a market perspective, issues such as volatility, high computational costs, and the complexity of integrating smart contracts with legacy financial systems pose notable challenges [80]. Ambiguity in smart contract applications, particularly confusion between smart contracts and electronic contracts, complicates mainstream adoption. In addition, financial processes often face steep implementation costs, which further discourage entry by enterprises and developers.
Technical challenges underpin many adoption hurdles. Effective management of crypto assets and distributed ledgers demands scalable, secure, and interoperable infrastructure. Enhancing performance, reducing latency, and standardizing modular DeFi components are essential. Security threats, including cyberattacks and code vulnerabilities, must be addressed proactively through resilient infrastructure and protective protocols. Addressing these institutional, market, and technical factors in a coordinated manner is crucial for unlocking the full potential of DeFi and supporting its integration into mainstream financial ecosystems.

2.6. Evaluation of Adoption Risks of Blockchain in DeFi

While DeFi unlocks new financial models, its adoption is constrained by a range of risks that span technical, operational, and regulatory domains [67]. These risks must be addressed systematically to ensure safe and scalable participation. Table 5 outlines major adoption risks in the DeFi ecosystem alongside targeted recommendations.
Several technical risks remain pressing. Smart contract vulnerabilities, consensus weaknesses, and scaling issues threaten both security and reliability. Mitigation strategies include robust contract design, optimized block sequencing, and consensus balancing. Similarly, the management of user growth and key security demands scalable authentication systems and multi-signature protection.
Interoperability-related risks, including dependencies between protocols and reliance on external oracles, can expose DeFi platforms to cascading failures [68,82]. Mitigating these risks requires enhancing oracle resilience and reducing unnecessary dependencies through modular design.
Governance presents its own risk profile. The potential for malicious actors to manipulate voting processes or exploit token distributions underscores the need for secure and transparent governance mechanisms. As DeFi evolves, stronger token management schemes will be essential.
Default risks in peer-to-peer DeFi lending are especially critical [99]. Unlike traditional banks, which rely on regulatory oversight and credit histories, P2P platforms often lack effective credit assessment tools. Volatility in collateral assets can lead to liquidation or borrower insolvency. Smart contracts governing these arrangements may also fail to adapt to market shifts. To address this, MakerDAO’s ETH-A dataset represents a promising model for risk evaluation [100], although newer programs like spark loans require updated datasets and monitoring mechanisms.

2.7. Solutions and Research Directions for DeFi Adoption

Blockchain’s core attributes offer the potential to fundamentally transform centralized financial markets [8]. In particular, its application in finance enables the removal of centralized servers and intermediaries while supporting secure, low-cost transactions [65]. However, despite these advantages, DeFi adoption continues to face significant challenges. This section outlines practical solutions and research directions to support broader blockchain integration within the DeFi ecosystem.

2.7.1. Scalable DeFi Blockchains

The proliferation of smart devices and applications has intensified scalability challenges in public blockchain-based DeFi systems, hindering mass adoption. These limitations stem primarily from the need for every node to validate transactions, which increases computational overhead and reduces throughput. Scalability can be improved through Layer 2 solutions, sharding, and high-performance blockchain architectures. Such innovations enhance data and asset transfer speeds while lowering transaction costs, making DeFi more accessible and efficient. Solana, for example, offers notable scalability advantages over earlier models like Bitcoin. By combining proof of history (PoH) and proof of replication (PoRep), Solana reduces both time and storage requirements, enabling higher transaction throughput [86]. While private blockchains typically offer better performance and scalability than public ones [83], their complexity, particularly around key management and computational requirements, limits their applicability in diverse DeFi contexts. Overall, adopting scalable blockchain infrastructures is essential for enabling DeFi to compete with traditional financial systems and achieve mainstream integration.

2.7.2. Interoperable DeFi Apps

Beyond scalability, interoperability represents a core requirement for the sustainable growth of DeFi. It enables seamless interaction between decentralized applications (DApps) across different blockchains, facilitating asset lending, margin trading, and shared utility through standardized interfaces. Blockchain interoperability in DeFi typically occurs across three levels: (1) between DeFi applications operating on different blockchains, (2) among applications on the same blockchain, and (3) across distinct blockchain-based financial systems [60]. Tokenization-based interoperability plays a pivotal role in this landscape, fostering a sharing economy by enabling asset exchange and coordination across diverse blockchain infrastructures. Emerging cross-chain protocols such as Polkadot, Cosmos, and Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) aim to resolve interoperability challenges by providing secure, decentralized bridges that link heterogeneous blockchain networks. These mechanisms facilitate high-security asset transfers, reduce dependence on centralized exchanges, and enhance overall liquidity. By advancing interoperability, blockchain-driven DeFi can support a more integrated, user-centric, and accessible financial ecosystem. This capability is essential for realizing the mass adoption of DeFi across diverse platforms and user bases.

2.7.3. Regulation of DeFi

Alongside scalability and interoperability, regulatory clarity is essential to ensure the stable and sustainable growth of DeFi systems. Current blockchain-based DeFi platforms rely on smart contracts to automate compliance and encode regulatory logic [93,101]. As DeFi projects increasingly issue governance tokens and introduce novel financial instruments, the need for effective oversight becomes more pressing. Regulatory bodies such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) continue to assess whether crypto assets in DeFi environments qualify as traditional securities or represent new asset classes. To facilitate mass adoption, it is vital to develop regulatory frameworks that strike a balance between fostering innovation and mitigating systemic risk. Clear, well-defined legal structures can enhance legitimacy, build trust, and encourage engagement from governments, institutional investors, and enterprises. A well-regulated DeFi ecosystem promises stronger asset protection, improved data privacy, and greater stability in decentralized financial markets. However, the optimal design of regulatory frameworks for DeFi remains an open research question and a critical direction for future policy development.

2.7.4. Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Connectivity

Enhancing P2P connectivity is critical for improving the performance and scalability of blockchain-based DeFi applications. Given DeFi’s intermediary-free architecture, reliable communication between network participants is essential. One promising approach to addressing connectivity limitations is the integration of mobile edge computing into sidechain models. This technique brings computational resources and network services closer to end users, thereby reducing latency and improving system responsiveness [102]. In such models, edge devices are positioned near DeFi participants, minimizing data transfer delays and mitigating bottlenecks typically associated with large-scale decentralized networks. By incorporating edge computing into blockchain infrastructure, DeFi platforms can overcome key connectivity challenges, support seamless peer interactions, and enable scalable, real-time financial services. These enhancements are crucial for fostering mass adoption and ensuring robust, efficient system performance.

2.7.5. Extension of Default Risk Mitigation in P2P DeFi

Although the MakerDAO project introduced a novel dataset to support default risk mitigation in DeFi lending systems [100], it primarily focuses on the ETH-A borrowing program. This narrow scope excludes other emerging borrowing mechanisms such as ETH-B, ETH-C, Spark loans, and real-world asset-backed loans. The absence of these programs limits comprehensive risk modeling and hinders the ability to analyze borrower behavior across diverse collateral types and loan structures. Expanding the dataset to incorporate these newer instruments could enable deeper insights into borrower dynamics, improve collateral assessment models, and enhance automated liquidation strategies for peer-to-peer DeFi lending.

2.7.6. Security and Privacy

Maintaining the credibility and operational resilience of DeFi platforms necessitates the implementation of robust security and privacy mechanisms. The open and transparent nature of blockchain networks, while enabling trustless interactions, also increases exposure to malicious activities and systemic vulnerabilities [67]. Strengthening DeFi systems with advanced security strategies, such as attack vector stress testing and the integration of governance security modules, can safeguard user assets and protect decentralized decision-making processes. These enhancements are essential to building user confidence and achieving sustainable growth.

2.7.7. DeFi Financial Tokens

Tokenization is central to the DeFi ecosystem, transforming traditional asset ownership and transfer models through smart contract-enabled digital tokens. The evolution of Ethereum Request for Comments (ERC) token standards has facilitated greater operational efficiency and interoperability across platforms [103]. Continued development of standardized, flexible, and scalable token formats will enhance liquidity, broaden asset support, and drive institutional integration, making tokenized financial instruments a cornerstone of future DeFi infrastructure.

2.7.8. Smart Contracts and Consensus Protocols

Reliable asset transfer and data integrity in DeFi rely heavily on the design of smart contracts and underlying consensus mechanisms [90,101]. Enhancing smart contract logic and developing consensus protocols that prioritize efficiency, security, and scalability are key to ensuring the robustness of blockchain-enabled financial services. As DeFi applications grow in complexity, consensus models must evolve to support diverse operational needs without compromising decentralization, laying the groundwork for secure and efficient next-generation DeFi ecosystems.

3. Blockchain-Powered Gaming Industries

Blockchain-powered gaming industries harness cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum to build immutable ledger-based transactions distributed across various gaming platforms. These immutable ledgers make it challenging for players to modify transactions, data, or rules, resulting in high consistency, transparency, and reliability [104]. Blockchain-enabled games, often referred to as NFT games, rely on non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which are unique digital assets with distinct metadata that cannot be replicated. These games span diverse formats, including play-to-earn (P2E), trading card games (TCGs), role-playing games (RPGs), and expansive metaverse environments.
Table 6 provides a comparative analysis of prominent blockchain-driven gaming projects. It outlines key aspects such as project types, underlying blockchain platforms, core features, strengths, limitations, and representative use cases. This comparative view underscores the diversity of blockchain gaming models. Ethereum remains the dominant platform due to its mature smart contract infrastructure, although alternative chains like Binance Smart Chain (BSC), Solana, and Hive offer advantages in scalability and transaction efficiency. Each project introduces distinctive features: Zed Run leverages BSC for cost-effective transactions, while Star Atlas capitalizes on Solana’s high throughput for complex space exploration mechanics.
Gameplay mechanics vary significantly. Axie Infinity’s breeding model fosters asset creation and ownership, whereas Decentraland emphasizes social interaction through user-generated virtual real estate. The Sandbox supports in-game economies by allowing developers to monetize voxel-based environments. Illuvium offers cinematic RPG experiences with advanced visual design, while CryptoBlades focuses on low-cost, combat-centric P2E loops.
Challenges differ by project. High entry costs and energy consumption limit Axie Infinity’s accessibility, and CryptoBlades suffers from gameplay repetitiveness. Regulatory ambiguity remains a common concern across TCGs like Gods Unchained. Moreover, balancing community-driven content (e.g., in Sandbox) with platform control presents ongoing development trade-offs. Scalability and user retention continue to influence long-term sustainability.
These projects support use cases ranging from asset trading and competitive gaming to social community-building and resource management. Understanding their strengths and weaknesses helps contextualize the opportunities and limitations blockchain introduces to the gaming ecosystem. As blockchain games evolve, refining gameplay, improving interoperability, and addressing technical and regulatory constraints will be essential for mainstream adoption.

3.1. Classification of Blockchain Games

Various blockchain-based gaming models are being developed to transform conventional digital gaming ecosystems. As illustrated in Figure 6, these models can be classified into five major categories: rule transparency, asset ownership, asset reusability, user-generated content, and online casinos.

3.1.1. Rule Transparency

Traditional gaming systems often store game rules on centralized servers, limiting player access and auditability. In contrast, blockchain technology enhances transparency by encoding rules in smart contracts that are publicly accessible and verifiable. This auditability fosters trust and operational fairness [105]. By enabling provably fair gameplay, decentralized governance, and immutable rule enforcement, blockchain-based games can build strong user confidence and attract a broader player base.

3.1.2. Asset Ownership

In conventional games, virtual properties such as characters, credits, and items are stored and controlled by central game operators. Blockchain gaming shifts this paradigm by granting players verifiable ownership of in-game assets. Through tokenization, these assets can be securely traded, exchanged, or monetized across different platforms, enhancing liquidity and enabling new profit models for both users and developers [106]. Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) ensure asset authenticity and transferability, allowing players to retain value beyond individual games.

3.1.3. Asset Reusability

The open and interoperable nature of blockchain enables digital assets, often represented as NFTs, to be reused across multiple games. This allows developers to create gaming ecosystems where characters, weapons, or items maintain value and utility beyond a single game instance [107]. Asset reusability increases user engagement by extending asset lifespans and enhancing cross-game economic dynamics, thereby encouraging sustained participation.

3.1.4. User-Generated Content (UGC)

Unlike traditional game models where content creation is tightly controlled, blockchain technology empowers players to produce, own, and monetize content within decentralized gaming ecosystems. This approach encourages innovation and creativity while ensuring fair attribution and compensation [108]. By securing creator rights through tokenization, blockchain fosters a vibrant community-driven environment where players and developers collaboratively shape gaming experiences.

3.1.5. Online Casinos

Blockchain is also transforming the online gambling industry by integrating cryptocurrencies and decentralized infrastructure. Bitcoin and other digital assets allow real-money investment in virtual gaming environments, while smart contracts and decentralized random number generators (RNGs) ensure fairness and transparency [109]. Blockchain-based casino platforms offer enhanced security, provably fair mechanics, and rapid transaction settlements. These improvements strengthen trust and appeal, making such platforms more attractive to players and investors alike.

3.2. Mass Adoption of Blockchain in the Gaming Industry

As the blockchain-enabled gaming industry shifts its focus to in-game assets, this transformative technology addresses critical challenges such as fraud prevention, scarcity management, and gamified incentives through the use of highly transferable digital assets across various platforms. Incorporating blockchain into gaming brings significant benefits, paving the way for its universal adoption [110]. Figure 7 illustrates the potential benefits of blockchain mass adoption in gaming.
By adopting blockchain in gaming, players can monetize their time, skills, and efforts, creating gamified incentive models. For example, players may earn rewards in the form of cryptocurrencies, weapons, avatars, skins, and coins. Blockchain also enables players to retain full ownership of their digital assets, facilitating virtual asset management and allowing secure trade or transfer across platforms.
Furthermore, blockchain contributes to democratized gaming by enabling global participation in game-related economic opportunities. This aligns with blockchain’s decentralization ethos, making gaming more inclusive and accessible [111]. It also introduces new forms of interaction, empowering players to control virtual assets and engage in real-world economic activity within game ecosystems.
The gaming industry is rapidly evolving, and blockchain is transforming it into a dynamic, decentralized application environment. Players, often early adopters of cryptocurrencies, are already familiar with virtual currencies, making them well-positioned to embrace blockchain integration [112]. Blockchain-based architectures offer the potential to support expansive virtual environments by addressing longstanding challenges in traditional gaming, such as limited asset traceability and weak integration with the Internet of Things (IoT). Augustin et al. [113], in their analysis of Decentraland, highlight how blockchain enables user-generated content and asset management in the Metaverse, contributing to more transparent and traceable digital ownership structures.
The non-fungible characteristics of blockchain, implemented through smart contracts, provide advantages such as enhanced trust, fraud resistance, transparent transactions, and improved scarcity control. While the integration of blockchain into gaming continues to evolve, current evidence suggests it can redefine gaming from a purely recreational activity into a secure and economically meaningful system of virtual asset ownership [25].

3.3. Challenges of Blockchain Adoption in Gaming

The global adoption of blockchain in gaming continues to face several real-world challenges. A primary obstacle is the general lack of awareness and understanding regarding how blockchain technology functions and how crypto assets are utilized within gaming environments [111]. Although interest in blockchain-powered gaming is increasing, many players and developers remain unfamiliar with its practical advantages and implications. Regulatory uncertainty surrounding cryptocurrencies and NFTs further deters widespread participation, especially in jurisdictions where digital assets are poorly understood or restricted. In addition, inadequate internet infrastructure in developing regions and language-related barriers within gaming interfaces hinder accessibility. As a result, blockchain gaming remains an emerging domain that must overcome multiple adoption barriers before achieving mainstream success.

3.3.1. Technical Challenges

Technical challenges in blockchain gaming stem from both infrastructure limitations and system design complexities. Among these, scalability-related issues, such as high transaction fees, latency, and low throughput, are particularly critical. These constraints undermine gameplay responsiveness and overall user experience, reflecting broader scalability concerns observed across blockchain systems. As Zhou et al. note, increased user activity can overwhelm network capacity, leading to delayed transaction processing and gameplay lag, both of which detract from the seamless responsiveness expected in modern games [114].
Integrating blockchain with conventional gaming platforms also presents hurdles related to interoperability and technical alignment. These challenges primarily result from architectural mismatches between blockchain technologies and traditional game development environments. Most widely used game engines lack native support for decentralized asset models or smart contract execution, making integration complex [115]. Likewise, mainstream distribution platforms often restrict blockchain features such as NFTs or cryptocurrency-based transactions, limiting deployment options. Furthermore, traditional account systems do not support decentralized identity frameworks or wallet connectivity, complicating secure asset management and cross-platform compatibility [116]. Collectively, these limitations hinder the seamless incorporation of blockchain into existing gaming infrastructure and slow the adoption of decentralized models within mainstream ecosystems.
Ensuring a secure and user-friendly gaming experience while maintaining decentralization remains a key challenge. A persistent barrier is the need for players to create and manage crypto wallets for in-game assets. These wallets differ in design, functionality, and security, often posing usability challenges for new users. Player interaction also requires attention: although many blockchain gaming models incentivize activity with tokens, current feedback and reward systems are often ineffective, reducing engagement. Finally, the global gaming market is increasingly competitive, driven by mobile expansion and the rise of decentralized applications, which adds further pressure on developers aiming to implement blockchain across diverse gaming formats [117].

3.3.2. Asset Management and Payment Challenges

Blockchain technology promises efficient control over players’ virtual assets through transparency and decentralization. However, managing these assets and processing payments remains challenging due to competition among various gaming platforms and ecosystems. While asset ownership and exchangeability are notable advantages for blockchain-based gamers, effective asset management is hindered by fragmented standards and inter-industry rivalry. Reward distribution presents an additional obstacle: although blockchain’s immutable ledgers can reliably record in-game transactions, current models lack robust, scalable mechanisms for automated and fair reward provisioning.

3.3.3. Security and Privacy Challenges

Security concerns remain prominent in blockchain gaming, particularly in models requiring linkability between player identities and blockchain addresses, which raises significant privacy issues [118]. Although the immutable nature of blockchain offers a secure foundation, both web interfaces and smart contracts are still exposed to vulnerabilities. Blockchain-based games do protect virtual assets against duplication, theft, and tampering, yet the openness and decentralization of these systems also increase their attack surface. At the protocol level, smart contracts have the potential to democratize governance within gaming ecosystems. However, these contracts are susceptible to exploitation, underscoring the need for robust and proactive security measures to support safe and scalable blockchain gaming adoption.

3.3.4. Regulation Challenges

The rapid pace of blockchain innovation in gaming has outstripped the development of appropriate regulatory frameworks. Many blockchain gaming platforms employ cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin to bypass regulatory constraints typical of traditional financial systems [93]. However, this circumvention raises critical concerns about legal compliance, investor protection, and systemic stability. Regulatory ambiguity presents a barrier to entry for mainstream developers and investors. Furthermore, public understanding of blockchain’s intricacies remains limited, reducing trust and slowing adoption. Addressing these regulatory and awareness challenges is essential to unlocking the full potential of blockchain-based gaming models.

3.4. Evaluation of Adoption Risks of Blockchain in Gaming

The game server plays a central role in blockchain gaming architecture, functioning as an index engine, while smart contracts store substantial amounts of game logic and rules. Different blockchain gaming models employ varied smart contracts and governance protocols, which adds complexity to risk evaluation. The unpredictable state, openness, randomness generation, and timing constraints inherent to blockchain systems introduce additional risks to gaming applications [119]. Evaluating these adoption risks is essential, given the persistent challenges the industry faces, namely scalability limitations, regulatory uncertainty, and security vulnerabilities. Understanding these risks is crucial for developers and stakeholders seeking to implement blockchain technology in gaming. A well-informed approach enables the development of strategies that enhance adoption potential while minimizing significant drawbacks. These risks can be broadly classified into three categories: consensus mechanism risks, smart contract risks, and web-related risks.

3.4.1. Consensus Mechanism Risks

A consensus mechanism is a rule-based protocol that ensures all participants in the blockchain gaming network adhere to agreed-upon rules [120]. However, these mechanisms are susceptible to several security risks, including 51% attacks, long-range attacks, distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks, and balance attacks. In a 51% attack, malicious actors gain control of over 51% of the network’s hashing power, enabling them to manipulate consensus protocols. Rather than attacking the current chain directly, they may exploit block information to alter network behavior.
Long-range attacks arise due to weak subjectivity in blockchain networks and, unlike 51% of attacks, typically rely on access to the genesis block rather than a few recent blocks. DDoS attacks aim to deny legitimate players access to gameplay services by leveraging a network of compromised nodes, often to monopolize rewards. Balance attacks target nodes with roughly equal mining power and are particularly relevant in proof-of-work consensus protocols that are vulnerable to double-spending exploits.

3.4.2. Smart Contract Risks

Smart contract risks in blockchain gaming arise when attackers inject malicious actions into contract execution. Common attack types include misuse of the tx.origin variable, integer overflow and underflow, use of predictable variables, denial of service (DoS), and re-entry vulnerabilities [121]. The tx.origin variable returns the address that initiated a transaction. Some game developers mistakenly use it for authentication. In such cases, a malicious actor may deceive a player into interacting with an intermediary contract, which then exploits the target contract’s trust in tx.origin to bypass authentication. Integer overflow and underflow are serious vulnerabilities where numerical values exceed their limits. For example, if a value surpasses the maximum allowable number, it resets to zero, which can be exploited to manipulate game states or balances.
Certain smart contracts depend on predictable variables, such as timestamps or block heights. These can be exploited to manipulate game outcomes. For instance, in blockchain casino games, an attacker might use timestamps to predict random number generation and increase their chances of winning. Denial of service attacks often exploit fallback functions or revert mechanisms. An attacker may introduce infinite loops or force repeated reverts, thereby disrupting gameplay or halting core operations of the gaming network. Re-entry is another critical vulnerability, where an external contract repeatedly calls back into the original contract before previous operations are completed. This can allow an attacker to drain assets or interfere with game logic. While the specifics vary between gaming models, any external call during contract execution poses a potential risk and requires robust mitigation strategies.

3.4.3. Web Risks

Web-related security vulnerabilities in blockchain gaming primarily target player wallets and centralized game servers. These include cookie replay, injection attacks, cross-site scripting (XSS), and authentication broking [122]. A comparative analysis of these web risks alongside consensus and smart contract risks is summarized in Table 7.
In cookie replay attacks, malicious actors generate cookies without security flags, exploiting HTTP response timing to hijack sessions. While players can enable security flags within game applications, this is often optional, leaving systems exposed. Injection attacks are another major threat. Due to numerous input fields and complex user interaction paths in blockchain games, attackers can inject malicious payloads, such as environment variables or parameters targeting internal or external web services.
XSS remains one of the most common vulnerabilities in web applications. Despite the existence of filters, many sites still fail to fully protect against these attacks. Successful XSS exploits can be used to access users’ private keys and compromise wallet security. Authentication broking involves gaining unauthorized access through brute force or social engineering. Poor session management and weak password policies further increase the risk of broken authentication in blockchain-based games.

3.5. Solutions and Research Directions for Blockchain Adoption in Gaming

Blockchain technology holds transformative potential for the gaming industry through enhanced security, increased transparency, and innovative models of digital ownership. To facilitate wider adoption, current solutions and future research directions primarily target persistent challenges related to scalability, security, and regulatory compliance. Addressing these barriers involves the development of novel or optimized consensus mechanisms, the design of secure and auditable smart contracts, and the promotion of interoperability across platforms and networks. These initiatives are central to enabling efficient, transparent, and user-friendly blockchain-based gaming environments capable of supporting large-scale adoption. The following sections outline key solutions and research directions aimed at overcoming these challenges and advancing the integration of blockchain into mainstream gaming ecosystems.

3.5.1. Multi-Currency Wallet Design

Blockchain-driven gaming platforms commonly support multiple cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Litecoin, to manage in-game assets and player wallets [123]. However, the development and maintenance of multi-currency wallets introduce significant technical and user experience challenges. It is essential to define the project scope clearly, taking into account the needs of players and the specific cryptocurrencies most relevant to their gaming experience. Multi-currency wallets should prioritize convenience, usability, and robust security. The selected cryptocurrencies must align with player expectations and be intuitive for mainstream adoption.

3.5.2. Player–Industry Interactions

Effective interaction between players and the gaming industry is crucial for enhancing engagement and financial outcomes. User-friendly interfaces and responsive feedback mechanisms can significantly improve player participation and foster collaborative experiences [124]. Game designs that promote interaction, such as community-driven challenges or cooperative modes, can enhance the value exchange between users and developers. Strategic planning during the design phase, including feedback loops and interaction incentives, can strengthen trust and expand the user base.

3.5.3. Asset Ownership and Payments

Blockchain enables verifiable ownership of in-game assets and supports decentralized payment mechanisms. However, implementing these features across diverse game models introduces design and operational complexities. Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) offer a compelling solution for enabling unique asset ownership in gaming environments [125]. Additionally, play-to-earn (P2E) models provide players with real-world financial rewards for participation, creating further incentives. Ensuring immutable asset ownership also enhances the reliability and traceability of payments [126]. Future directions should focus on integrating incentive systems with secure, scalable payment mechanisms to ensure sustainability.

3.5.4. Security and Privacy

Although blockchain provides inherent security advantages, threats related to smart contracts, consensus algorithms, and interface design persist. Enhancing security and privacy mechanisms is essential for protecting players and in-game assets [127]. Practical strategies include implementing monitoring tools for real-time asset tracking, using secure multi-wallet infrastructure, and preventing leaks of unreleased gaming content. For example, the National Audiovisual Gaming Regulatory Authority (NAGRA) offers NextGuard tools that help gaming studios safeguard digital content. These industry-grade protection strategies can mitigate piracy and data leakage risks during asset distribution and game launches.

3.5.5. Regulatory Challenges in Blockchain Gaming

Regulatory uncertainty continues to hinder the mass adoption of blockchain in gaming. Jurisdictions such as the United States and the European Union have introduced varying and often complex regulatory frameworks that cover securities, commodities, and anti-money laundering (AML) practices [128]. Educating players and developers on these legal dimensions is vital to ensure compliance and reduce institutional risk. Key areas of regulatory focus include smart contract enforceability, crypto asset classification, player protection, and AML controls. Future regulatory frameworks should aim to establish clarity while supporting innovation, thus enabling sustainable growth of the blockchain gaming sector.

4. Blockchain-Driven Revolutions in Data Analytics

Transformative blockchain technology is reshaping data analytics by offering enhanced security, decentralization, and transparency. With tamper-proof records, blockchain ensures data integrity, enabling more accurate and reliable analysis. By supporting real-time data sharing and coordination across multiple stakeholders, blockchain helps break down data silos and enhances collaborative decision-making. Its decentralized nature also reinforces data privacy and security, reducing the vulnerabilities inherent in centralized analytics systems. As the technology evolves, blockchain continues to drive innovation in data analytics, enabling more trustworthy and robust solutions across diverse sectors. With increasing adoption by organizations, the potential for blockchain to transform data management and analytical practices is expanding rapidly.
Blockchain-based data analytics models hold significant promise for addressing real-world challenges [129]. In response, both governments and private enterprises are investing heavily in blockchain-enabled analytics. The rise of smart cities, along with increased digital transactions, is contributing to a surge in data generation. This exponential growth in digital data creates valuable opportunities for modern industries to refine their strategies. For instance, businesses can gain deeper insights into customer preferences and purchasing behaviors by analyzing blockchain-verified transaction patterns [130]. These models combine blockchain technology with data mining and statistical techniques to extract actionable insights from massive datasets.
However, the proliferation of decentralized applications has also introduced new data analytics challenges, including concerns about data security, user privacy, data reliability, and effective exchange mechanisms. Blockchain’s core attributes (decentralization, transparency, immutability, and consensus-based validation) help mitigate these challenges by enhancing trust and reliability in the data pipeline [131].
High-volume blockchain applications such as decentralized finance (DeFi) and gaming generate extensive, real-time data that can be leveraged for analytics. In the financial sector, blockchain integration enhances the security and traceability of cashless transactions. Banks and financial institutions rely on extensive data reports to assess DeFi user activity, monitor for fraud, and support risk management. Blockchain not only automates data verification and compliance but also ensures the integrity of these reports before execution.
Efficient fund transfer and secure data management are fundamental needs across many industries. Blockchain-based analytics systems enable the secure storage, tracking, and retrieval of critical business data. For example, in the banking sector, such systems help reduce operational costs and mitigate risks. Similarly, blockchain analytics is increasingly used by lending platforms to assess borrower reliability by leveraging transparent, tamper-proof data. This capability ensures fairer loan evaluations and promotes financial trust without introducing undue risk [132].

4.1. Strategies and Tools of Blockchain Data Analytics

Recent advancements in blockchain data analytics have focused on developing robust strategies for analyzing large-scale datasets and enhancing blockchain’s utility in real-time data processing. One common approach involves the use of single nodes to construct graph-based representations of unspent transaction output (UTXO) data. Traditional methods in this context typically employ either transaction graph or address graph strategies. The transaction graph approach, for example, forms edges directly between transaction nodes while disregarding associated addresses [133,134]. Although effective, this method often produces acyclic graphs that limit the possibility of generating new connections in future transactions. In contrast, the address graph approach bypasses transaction nodes and connects addresses directly [135], offering a different perspective for analyzing user behavior and network topology.
Given Bitcoin’s widespread adoption, many studies have examined its network characteristics for financial modeling, particularly in predicting price movements. For instance, Greaves and Au [136] proposed a model using features such as account balances, new edge counts, and clustering coefficients to enhance predictive accuracy. Similarly, Yang et al. [137] and Kondor et al. [138] explored alternative network flow metrics and temporal behavioral patterns to improve forecasting models.
From a tooling perspective, one of the main criticisms of blockchain systems is the way they store data. In Ethereum, for example, data blocks are saved using LevelDB, while Bitcoin stores data in `.dat` files. These formats pose challenges for efficient data querying and can significantly increase processing time. To address these issues, various blockchain-specific query languages have been proposed [139], though their adoption remains limited.
BlockSci [140] is one of the most widely adopted tools for Bitcoin data analytics. It supports efficient querying and graph-based exploration of blockchain data. Similarly, the visual analytics platform Biva.1 provides graphical representations tailored for Bitcoin network analysis. As blockchain technology evolves, especially with the emergence of Ethereum 2.0, the scope of data analytics has shifted to include smart contract behavior. This introduces a new layer of complexity as software code becomes an integral part of blockchain blocks. Tools such as SmartAnvil [141] have been developed for smart contract analysis, though current research in this area remains heavily reliant on static code analysis. Overall, there is a growing need for advanced, publicly accessible tools that support dynamic and scalable blockchain data analytics. Such tools will be essential for understanding the expanding scope of blockchain applications and for enabling real-time insights into increasingly complex decentralized ecosystems.

4.2. Blockchain Data Analytics Projects

Blockchain-powered data analytics strategies extract valuable insights from massive datasets by leveraging the unique attributes of blockchain, such as transparency, immutability, and decentralized control. As a rapidly expanding field, blockchain-based analytics is increasingly adopted to meet the growing demands of global digital data traffic. These approaches enhance security in data acquisition, storage, analysis, and privacy preservation [142]. Table 8 presents a comparative analysis of major blockchain-based data analytics projects, illustrating their varied focus areas, features, and use cases across domains such as data marketplaces, decentralized identity, oracle networks, and predictive modeling.
As shown in Table 8, each blockchain-based data analytics project operates within a distinct ecosystem and addresses specific needs across sectors. For example, Ocean Protocol focuses on data tokenization and sharing, while The Graph supports efficient DApp data indexing. Chainlink enables secure access to off-chain data, and Streamr supports real-time analytics for IoT environments. These projects also vary in terms of strengths and limitations. For instance, Graph benefits from a strong developer community, whereas Ocean faces trust and data quality issues. Fetch.ai introduces autonomous agents for machine learning tasks yet struggles with scalability challenges. Similarly, Numeraire supports predictive analytics through data science competitions but is impacted by token volatility.
Despite their diversity, most of these projects face common barriers including regulatory uncertainty, integration complexity, and competition with traditional centralized systems. However, they also demonstrate the transformative potential of blockchain to enhance transparency, enable real-time data insights, and create decentralized analytics infrastructures. As blockchain technology continues to evolve, these projects are expected to contribute significantly to shaping the future of secure, scalable, and equitable data analytics.

4.3. Mass Adoption Impact of Blockchain in Data Analytics

With the development of smart technologies, the rapid growth in global data traffic has intensified interest in blockchain-based data analytics. This approach leverages blockchain’s core attributes to examine large-scale datasets and extract meaningful patterns, thereby enhancing the efficiency, transparency, and security of application services [129]. For instance, enterprise resource planning often requires secure user data access across multiple applications. Blockchain’s decentralized architecture supports this by enabling tamper-resistant data, verifiable provenance, and real-time data sharing, removing the need for third-party intermediaries.
The increasing prevalence of data-intensive applications in sectors such as decentralized finance (DeFi) and gaming further amplifies the demand for real-time analytics. Blockchain infrastructure facilitates high-throughput data processing through decentralized mining and consensus mechanisms while ensuring data integrity. These features position blockchain as a powerful enabler of scalable, transparent, and secure data analytics across modern industries [143,144,145]. The core benefits of blockchain integration in data analytics are illustrated in Figure 8 and described below.

4.3.1. High Data Traceability

Blockchain’s transparent and immutable ledger enables users to trace data with high precision, an essential capability for integrating and analyzing datasets across decentralized environments. This traceability fosters trust in data integrity, making blockchain-based analytics more reliable and secure for a range of industry applications [129].

4.3.2. Real-Time Data Analysis

Blockchain records transactions in real time, enabling the early detection of anomalies and security threats [146]. This is particularly critical for financial institutions requiring fast and secure cross-border processing. Blockchain enhances the robustness of analytics systems by allowing continuous, real-time data monitoring, thereby supporting fraud prevention, compliance, and user-centric service improvements [129].

4.3.3. Data Accuracy Assurance

Data entries on a blockchain are validated across distributed nodes, reducing error rates and improving confidence in the analytical process. The immutability of records ensures that once data are verified, they remains tamper-proof and verifiable, strengthening data accuracy and trustworthiness in analytics workflows [147].

4.3.4. Seamless Data Transactions

Blockchain facilitates secure, large-scale data transactions through hash-based validation and encryption protocols. These features ensure data confidentiality and enable traceable and auditable analytics workflows, especially when training AI models or sharing sensitive information [37].

4.3.5. Enhanced Data Integrity

While targeted attacks are not entirely avoidable, blockchain’s consensus mechanisms and immutable design make data manipulation highly improbable. This resilience ensures that analytical insights are derived from accurate, untampered datasets, reinforcing integrity in critical data environments [69].

4.4. Challenges of Blockchain Adoption in Data Analytics

Blockchain integration into data analytics offers notable advantages, including real-time processing, enhanced accuracy, and secure data management [147]. However, several critical challenges persist [148], particularly in the domains of security, system scalability, real-time responsiveness, data cleaning, and infrastructure integration. While blockchain’s inherent properties, such as transparency, immutability, and decentralization, hold promise for addressing these issues, their practical application in complex analytics environments remains limited. Addressing these challenges is imperative to fully realize the transformative potential of blockchain-enabled data analytics.

4.4.1. Technical Challenges

The volume and heterogeneity of decentralized data present substantial obstacles for pattern detection and analytical inference. Blockchain analytics systems must accommodate a wide range of data types, sources, and formats, placing a heavy computational load on the processing architecture. Scalability constraints, including limited throughput, network latency, and restricted on-chain storage, further complicate these demands. Such limitations undermine blockchain’s suitability for data-intensive analytic workloads. As Zhou et al. emphasize, scalability bottlenecks severely impair blockchain’s capacity for executing real-time analytical tasks [114], while Arachchige et al. highlight how these performance limits reduce network responsiveness and reliability [149].

4.4.2. Security Challenges

Although blockchain is inherently resistant to tampering, it is not impervious to vulnerabilities. Design flaws or coding errors, particularly in smart contracts or user interfaces, can be exploited by malicious actors. These risks must be proactively assessed and mitigated to maintain trust in blockchain-based analytics ecosystems.

4.4.3. Complexities in Data Cleaning

Effective data analytics depend heavily on structured, high-quality datasets. In decentralized systems, data cleaning remains particularly complex due to inconsistent formats and limited mechanisms for automatic validation. While blockchain’s ledger can assist with provenance tracking, its role in large-scale data preprocessing remains underdeveloped.

4.5. Factors Impacting the Mass Adoption of Blockchain in Data Analytics

Despite growing interest, several systemic and technical barriers continue to limit the widespread adoption of blockchain in data analytics. These include constraints in data access, challenges stemming from immutability, inconsistent ledger states, centralized points of failure in some deployments, and limitations in current blockchain infrastructures [147]. Addressing these factors is essential to enable scalable, compliant, and performant blockchain analytics systems.

4.5.1. Data Availability Limitations

In globally distributed systems, data availability is often restricted by heterogeneous access policies, regulatory boundaries, and institutional silos [150]. While consortium blockchains support enterprise collaboration, they may limit broader access and interoperability, reducing the reach of analytics applications. Addressing this requires improved access control and permissions frameworks across networks.

4.5.2. Immutable Data Vulnerabilities

Blockchain’s immutability, while a strength for data integrity, poses challenges for applications involving sensitive or regulatory-bound data. Once stored, information cannot be altered or deleted, even if it is encrypted, raising privacy and compliance concerns [151]. Implementing off-chain storage or conditional mutability frameworks may be necessary in such contexts.

4.5.3. Lack of Ledger Consistency Guarantees

In trustless blockchain systems, data validity depends on consensus rather than centralized verification. Without consistent peer validation, data inconsistencies can emerge, especially in permissioned or semi-decentralized environments [150]. Reinforcing validation policies and incorporating redundancy checks can improve ledger integrity.

4.5.4. Single Point of Failure Risks

Some private blockchain architectures still depend on centralized components for user authentication or data validation. These elements introduce potential single points of failure, which contradict the decentralization principle and compromise system resilience [152]. A shift toward distributed identity management and federated control is necessary to mitigate this risk.

4.5.5. Infrastructure and Protocol Limitations

Many existing blockchain protocols suffer from limited throughput, latency issues, and lack of interoperability with mainstream analytics tools [45]. Upgrading blockchain infrastructures to support real-time processing and standardized interfaces is vital for broad integration into analytics ecosystems.

4.5.6. Accuracy of Smart Contract Verification

Designing and verifying smart contracts for data-related operations requires specialized expertise. Errors in contract logic can significantly disrupt analytics workflows or compromise data validity. To support mass adoption, improved contract development tools, formal verification methods, and secure execution environments are essential [54].

4.6. Evaluation of Adoption Risks in Blockchain-Based Data Analytics

The mass adoption of blockchain technology in data analytics offers a promising alternative to centralized data management, enabling secure, decentralized analysis across distributed systems [129]. However, this architectural shift introduces a range of risks related to technical scalability, data governance, smart contract automation, and regulatory compliance. These adoption risks, particularly in the context of large-scale, heterogeneous datasets and real-time analytics needs, are summarized in Table 9.
The decentralized structure of blockchain introduces coordination challenges between spatially distributed nodes, negatively impacting scalability and network continuity [48]. Addressing these issues requires optimized node communication protocols and cooperative consensus mechanisms.
Data management presents another critical risk, as analytics systems generate vast and often sensitive datasets. Ensuring the accuracy of these data and protecting privacy are essential to maintaining trust and system utility. This can be achieved through advanced validation techniques and the integration of privacy-preserving methods.
Current smart contract implementations are typically semi-automated, requiring manual triggers or oversight. Transitioning to fully autonomous smart contracts will streamline execution, reduce latency, and enable more scalable analytics operations.
The complexity of consensus algorithms, particularly those involving high computational overhead, can strain system resources. Streamlining these mechanisms will improve throughput and reduce latency in analytics workflows.
Key management is also a pressing concern, especially in large-scale deployments where users or devices require numerous cryptographic credentials. Robust, scalable key management frameworks are essential to support secure, distributed access.
Additionally, regulatory uncertainty remains a barrier in highly regulated sectors. Developing blockchain frameworks that comply with relevant laws and standards is crucial for adoption in industries such as healthcare, finance, and public administration.
Finally, blockchain systems must accommodate the diverse needs of specific data analytics applications. Customizable architectures that align with the functional and regulatory demands of different sectors will be essential to achieving widespread, effective adoption [153].

4.7. Solutions and Research Directions for Blockchain Adoption in Data Analytics

The decentralized and immutable nature of blockchain provides substantial benefits for secure and transparent data exchange and analysis, especially in contexts involving large-scale datasets [129]. However, integrating blockchain into data analytics also introduces computational, architectural, and interoperability challenges that can hinder performance. Addressing these issues requires innovative solutions and forward-looking research to develop adaptable blockchain infrastructures that support efficient and scalable analytics workflows.

4.7.1. Adaptive and Scalable Blockchain Design

Traditional blockchain systems append blocks sequentially, leading to ever-expanding ledgers and increasing computational overhead. In high-volume data environments, this growth can result in significant performance bottlenecks. Future research should prioritize the development of adaptive blockchain architectures that optimize resource usage while maintaining data integrity. These models must be energy-efficient, reduce validation time, and enable fast query execution even as chain size scales [154]. Projects such as BigchainDB and HBasechainDB illustrate the potential for lightweight, query-optimized blockchains tailored to data analytics applications.

4.7.2. Technology Diversity

The rise of smart technologies, including IoT devices, edge computing, and decentralized applications, has led to the generation of heterogeneous data across diverse systems [145]. Integrating blockchain into such environments requires flexible and interoperable platforms capable of supporting varied data formats, protocols, and infrastructure standards. Although blockchain’s core architecture may remain stable, successful integration depends on its ability to support interoperability, identity management, and governance in complex ecosystems. Future research should focus on designing blockchain-enabled analytics frameworks that facilitate seamless integration across diverse technological domains.

4.7.3. Security and Privacy

Most contemporary smart systems rely on centralized cloud storage, posing security and privacy risks, especially when managing encrypted or sensitive datasets. Blockchain’s decentralized architecture offers enhanced protection, but scaling these benefits to heterogeneous data environments requires robust security models. Challenges include managing encrypted formats and avoiding centralized key dependencies [151]. To support secure, privacy-preserving analytics, future solutions should focus on distributed security frameworks and lightweight encryption schemes that safeguard data without compromising system performance.

4.7.4. Data Analytic Tools Innovation

Blockchain analytics tools play a vital role in tracking, categorizing, and interpreting blockchain transactions, offering insights into usage patterns, risk exposure, and network activity [155]. As blockchain adoption expands, there is a growing need for advanced analytics tools that align with emerging business models and evolving user requirements. While many current tools are proprietary and restricted to internal use, promoting transparency and adoption calls for the development of open-source, community-driven platforms. Such tools would democratize access to blockchain analytics, enabling wider participation and innovation in this field.

5. Converging Pathways: Cross-Industry Analysis of Blockchain’s Impact on DeFi, Gaming, and Data Analytics

Blockchain technology has emerged as a foundational infrastructure supporting secure, transparent, and decentralized operations across a range of industries. In decentralized finance (DeFi), as discussed in Section 2, blockchain enables peer-to-peer transactions, automates processes through smart contracts, and eliminates traditional intermediaries. Within digital gaming, as examined in Section 3, blockchain facilitates asset tokenization, decentralized in-game economies, and play-to-earn (P2E) models that enhance user engagement and introduce new monetization strategies for developers and players alike. In the realm of data analytics, as explored in Section 4, blockchain offers an immutable, decentralized infrastructure for managing and analyzing large-scale datasets, which is particularly valuable in distributed environments where data provenance, auditability, and real-time insights are critical [129].
The convergence of blockchain across finance, gaming, and analytics illustrates how innovations in one domain can catalyze growth in others. Despite their distinct characteristics, these sectors share foundational needs, including interoperability, real-time processing, and scalable security, that benefit from cross-sector insights and shared technological solutions. This section explores the intersecting pathways among these industries, highlighting their interdependencies and reciprocal influences. Understanding these connections provides a basis for integrated innovation, where advances in one domain inform adoption strategies and system design in others [156]. As blockchain technology continues to evolve, stakeholders must remain attuned to cross-sector developments to foster collaborative progress and unlock the full potential of decentralized digital ecosystems.

5.1. Similarities

All three industries are fundamentally driven by digital innovation and operate within highly networked environments that seek to empower users by removing traditional intermediaries. They share common challenges, including regulatory compliance, ethical considerations, rapid adaptation to evolving platforms, and the need for seamless interoperability [41,152]. Scalability remains a significant concern across all sectors, as each must ensure growth without sacrificing performance. Moreover, these domains face ongoing issues related to security, privacy, asset ownership, community-driven governance, global accessibility, and the creation of sustainable revenue models.
Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12 provide a detailed comparative overview of convergence across DeFi, gaming, and data analytics. Table 10 highlights how financial applications, including decentralized exchanges (DEXs), flash loans, and NFT markets, leverage blockchain for liquidity, automation, and transparency while grappling with regulation and security risks. Table 11 demonstrates the fusion of entertainment and finance in blockchain gaming, showcasing innovations like play-to-earn (P2E), metaverses, and decentralized markets that face high complexity and evolving player expectations. Table 12 reflects how analytics intersects with blockchain to support real-time insights and trustworthy data processing, particularly in finance, gaming behavior, and fraud detection.
Although concepts like asset trading and lending appear in both DeFi and gaming, their purposes vary. In DeFi, they are primarily oriented toward financial returns and token utility, whereas in gaming, the emphasis is on user engagement and incentive mechanisms. Despite sectoral differences, all three industries increasingly require interoperable and scalable solutions, highlighting the value of unified blockchain frameworks that can support diverse, cross-industry demands.

5.2. Key Dissimilarities Across Sectors

Despite some convergence in blockchain use cases, each sector (DeFi, gaming, and data analytics) retains distinct goals and technical priorities. The infrastructures they rely on are shaped by different operational needs, and they diverge in how they apply blockchain in real time, plan for innovation, and manage regulatory and security risks. Other sector-specific differences include user engagement patterns, required skill levels, and the market value they deliver [41].
Blockchain technology serves as a common foundation across the three domains. In DeFi, it powers smart contracts and asset transfers, in gaming, it enables transparent in-game ownership, and in data analytics, it supports the secure handling and processing of distributed data. However, these shared components are adapted to meet the specific goals of each field. For example, DeFi tools are increasingly used in gaming to manage in-game assets as tradable NFTs [125,127], while data analytics provides insights into user activity and market behavior in both DeFi and gaming environments [129]. In gaming, analytics helps refine player engagement strategies and optimize in-game experiences. As DeFi adoption grows, it produces valuable data that feeds into analytics, while trends in blockchain gaming have begun to drive the uptake of DeFi features like token rewards and digital ownership models [126].
These sectoral overlaps introduce shared regulatory and ethical concerns, particularly regarding user privacy and data governance. When assets and identities move across platforms, risks such as noncompliance or data breaches can undermine user trust. At the same time, tech-savvy communities that span multiple sectors enable the exploration of integrated experiences and joint value creation. Table 13 summarizes these relationships by grouping key adoption factors under technological, economic, and regulatory categories. It highlights how certain blockchain functionalities are consistently used across all three sectors while others are more narrowly applied based on domain needs.
From a technological perspective, smart contracts serve as a foundational element across all three sectors. They automate financial transactions in DeFi, enable verifiable ownership in gaming, and support secure data operations in analytics. Cross-platform interoperability is another common priority, although the implementation differs. DeFi platforms aim for seamless asset transfers across chains, gaming seeks multi-device and ecosystem compatibility, and analytics emphasizes integration with diverse data sources. NFT involvement, however, is sector-specific. It is central to gaming for representing in-game assets but less utilized in DeFi and largely absent in data analytics applications.
In the economic dimension, token-based incentive models are prominent in both DeFi and gaming. DeFi leverages tokens for yield farming and governance, while gaming uses them for player rewards and marketplace transactions. In contrast, data analytics emphasize operational efficiency and business-driven outcomes over user-facing token incentives. Similarly, user engagement is a core focus in DeFi and gaming, where user retention and interaction directly influence platform success. Analytics, by contrast, tend to serve enterprise-level decision-making rather than direct user involvement. Business optimization emerges as a distinctive goal for data analytics, which employs blockchain to enhance transparency, data traceability, and predictive insights rather than to deliver direct economic benefits to individual users.
From a regulatory standpoint, all three sectors face compliance challenges, although the nature and severity differ. DeFi must meet stringent financial regulations and KYC/AML requirements. Gaming contends with digital asset ownership and jurisdictional intellectual property laws. Data analytics must comply with privacy legislation such as the GDPR. Data transparency is highly emphasized in both DeFi and analytics for auditability and trust, but it is less integral to gaming, which focuses more on entertainment and reward structures. Finally, user privacy is critical in DeFi, where pseudonymous transactions require protection, and in analytics, which often involves sensitive behavioral data. In gaming, privacy is currently less emphasized, although it may grow in importance as data integration increases. Recognizing these differences is essential for developing governance models and ethical frameworks that support innovation while addressing security, privacy, and regulatory challenges.

6. Research Contributions, Limitations, and Future Directions

This survey contributes to both scholarship and practice by comparing blockchain adoption in three domains: decentralized finance (DeFi), gaming, and data analytics. Academically, it unifies themes, i.e., regulatory uncertainty, scalability, and security, which are usually examined in isolation, encouraging the design of flexible, interoperable frameworks that meet diverse industry needs. For practitioners, it highlights design choices that enhance user experience, platform security, and operational scale.
The study has limits. Regulatory maturity, adoption speed, and infrastructure complexity differ across sectors, so some findings may not transfer directly from one domain to another. Use cases in gaming and analytics remain relatively young, making it hard to generalise trends or set firm benchmarks. In addition, the depth and quality of available research vary by domain, constraining cross-sector comparisons.
Several avenues merit closer investigation. Sector-specific studies should test the technical and organizational feasibility of cross-chain interoperability. In particular, developing and standardising secure cross-chain communication protocols would mitigate liquidity fragmentation and data silos, especially in DeFi. Future work should also track evolving regulations, improve blockchain-based analytics tools, and lower entry barriers for non-technical users. Combining blockchain with emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, cloud computing, and edge computing may address persistent issues of scale, latency, and security; these hybrid approaches deserve systematic evaluation. Finally, research on governance models and privacy-preserving mechanisms is essential for responsible, sustainable innovation across interconnected sectors.

7. Conclusions

Blockchain technology is driving a broad digital transformation, although adoption pathways differ by sector. This survey reviewed three rapidly evolving domains, decentralized finance (DeFi), gaming, and data analytics, and synthesized recent literature and industry developments to identify key drivers, obstacles, and cross-sector synergies.
In these fields, the core attributes of blockchain decentralization, transparency, and immutability enable trustless transactions, secure asset ownership, and data management resistant to manipulation. Economically, they promise lower settlement costs, new revenue streams, and data monetization models. However, adoption remains constrained by limited throughput, fragmented regulation, security exposures, and difficult user interfaces. Modular scaling techniques, clearer policy guidance, and human-centered design remain, therefore, priority areas.
The cross-sector comparison reveals shared technical patterns such as token incentives, verifiable digital ownership, and durable data records, while also showing distinct priorities: capital efficiency in DeFi, player engagement in gaming, and large-scale querying in analytics. Convergence is already visible: DeFi protocols are used to manage in-game economies, and analytics tools are improving risk monitoring and user insight across blockchain platforms. This convergence expands innovation opportunities but also raises new challenges in compliance, interoperability, and privacy.
Sustained progress will depend on adaptive regulation, open standards, and close collaboration among researchers, developers, industry stakeholders, and policymakers. Future work should focus on high-performance consensus mechanisms, privacy-preserving analytics, robust cross-chain interoperability solutions, and inclusive governance models to ensure that blockchain evolves responsibly and equitably.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.S.M.A.; methodology, S.S.M.A.; formal analysis, S.S.M.A.; investigation, S.S.M.A.; writing—original draft preparation, S.S.M.A.; writing—review and editing, S.S.M.A., A.S. and J.Y.; validation, A.S. and J.Y.; supervision, A.S. and J.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) scholarship.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Zou, Y.; Meng, T.; Zhang, P.; Zhang, W.; Li, H. Focus on Blockchain: A Comprehensive Survey on Academic and Application. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 187182–187201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Underwood, S. Blockchain beyond bitcoin. Commun. ACM 2016, 59, 15–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kajla, T.; Sood, K.; Gupta, S.; Raj, S.; Singh, H. Identification and Prioritization of the Factors Influencing Blockchain Adoption in the Banking Sector: Integrating Fuzzy AHP with TOE Framework. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2023, 41, 2004–2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sharma, J. Blockchain Technology Adoption in Financial Services: Opportunities and Challenges. In Revolutionizing Financial Services and Markets Through FinTech and Blockchain; Mehta, K., Sharma, R., Yu, P., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2023; pp. 99–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sanka, A.I.; Irfan, M.; Huang, I.; Cheung, R.C. A survey of breakthrough in blockchain technology: Adoptions, applications, challenges and future research. Comput. Commun. 2021, 169, 179–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yang, J.; Ma, C.; Li, D.; Liu, J. Mapping the Knowledge on Blockchain Technology in the Field of Business and Management: A Bibliometric Analysis. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 60585–60596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Javaid, M.; Haleem, A.; Singh, R.P.; Suman, R.; Khan, S. A review of Blockchain Technology applications for financial services. Benchcouncil Trans. Benchmarks Stand. Eval. 2022, 2, 100073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Taherdoost, H. A Critical Review of Blockchain Acceptance Models—Blockchain Technology Adoption Frameworks and Applications. Computers 2022, 11, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Waqas, A.; Mahessar, A.W.; Mahmood, N.; Bhatti, Z.; Karbasi, M.; Shah, A. Transaction management techniques and practices in current cloud computing environments: A survey. Int. J. Database Manag. Syst. 2015, 7, 41–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, L.; Lin, K.; Huang, X.; Wu, W.; Lin, Z. Research on cloud-edge integration service architecture for edge computing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Power Electronics Technology and Grid Systems (PETGS 2025), Guangzhou, China, 28 February–2 March 2025; Volume 13641, p. 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wu, Y.; Dai, H.; Wang, H. Convergence of blockchain and edge computing for secure and scalable IIoT critical infrastructures in Industry 4.0. IEEE Internet Things J. 2021, 8, 2300–2317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Coutinho, K.; Khairwal, N.; Wongthongtham, P. Towards a Truly Decentralized Blockchain Framework for Remittance. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2023, 16, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ozili, P.K. Decentralized finance research and developments around the world. J. Bank. Financ. Technol. 2022, 6, 117–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fortune Business Insights. Blockchain Technology Market Size, Share & Industry Analysis, 2025–2032. 2025. Available online: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/blockchain-market-100072 (accessed on 10 June 2025).
  15. Wang, Z.; Li, M.; Lu, J.; Cheng, X. Business Innovation based on artificial intelligence and Blockchain technology. Inf. Process. Manag. 2022, 59, 102759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Stepanova, V.; Eriņš, I. Review of Decentralized Finance Applications and Their Total Value Locked. TEM J. 2021, 10, 327–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Precedence Research. Decentralized Finance Market-Industry Trends, Size, Share, Forecast to 2034. 2024. Available online: https://www.precedenceresearch.com/decentralized-finance-market (accessed on 16 April 2025).
  18. Mohan, V. Automated Market Makers and Decentralized Exchanges: A DeFi Primer. Financ. Innov. 2022, 8, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, D.; Wu, S.; Lin, Z.; Wu, L.; Yuan, X.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, H.; Ren, K. Towards a First Step to Understand Flash Loan and Its Applications in DeFi Ecosystem. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Security in Blockchain and Cloud Computing (SBC ’21), Hong Kong, China, 7–11 June 2021; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Li, H.; Dang, R.; Yao, Y.; Wang, H. A Review of Approaches for Detecting Vulnerabilities in Smart Contracts within Web 3.0 Applications. Blockchains 2023, 1, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Schär, F. Decentralized Finance: On Blockchain- and Smart Contract-Based Financial Markets. Fed. Reserve Bank St. Louis Rev. 2021, 103, 153–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Caldarelli, G. Wrapping Trust for Interoperability: A Preliminary Study of Wrapped Tokens. Information 2022, 13, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Weingärtner, T.; Fasser, F.; Costa, P.; Farkas, W. Deciphering DeFi: A Comprehensive Analysis and Visualization of Risks in Decentralized Finance. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2023, 16, 454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Paajala, I.; Nyyssölä, J.; Mattila, J.; Karppinen, P. Users’ Perceptions of Key Blockchain Features in Games. Future Internet 2022, 14, 321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Stamatakis, D.; Kogias, D.G.; Papadopoulos, P.; Karkazis, P.A.; Leligou, H.C. Blockchain-Powered Gaming: Bridging Entertainment with Serious Game Objectives. Computers 2024, 13, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nadini, M.; Alessandretti, L.; Di Giacinto, F.; Martino, M.; Aiello, L.M.; Baronchelli, A. Mapping the NFT Revolution: Market Trends, Trade Networks, and Visual Features. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 20902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Newzoo. Global Games Market Report 2023 Update. 2023. Available online: https://newzoo.com/games-market-reports-and-forecasts (accessed on 5 June 2025).
  28. Research and Markets. Blockchain Gaming Business Research Report 2024–2030. 2024. Available online: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/10/18/2965370/0/en/Blockchain-Gaming-Business-Research-Report-2024-2030-Global-Market-to-Grow-by-Over-305-Billion-Rising-Popularity-of-Play-to-Earn-Models-Drives-Growth-NFTs-Expands-Opportunities.html (accessed on 5 June 2025).
  29. Bao, H.; Roubaud, D. Non-Fungible Token: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2022, 15, 215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. IMARC Group. Blockchain Gaming Market Outlook. 2025. Available online: https://www.imarcgroup.com/blockchain-gaming-market-statistics, (accessed on 10 April 2025).
  31. Jiang, Y.; Min, T.; Fan, S.; Tao, R.; Cai, W. Towards Understanding Player Behavior in Blockchain Games: A Case Study of Aavegotchi. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG ’22), Athens, Greece, 5–8 September 2022; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022. Article 21. 12p. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liu, Y.; Lu, Y.; Nayak, K.; Zhang, F.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, Y. Empirical Analysis of EIP-1559: Transaction Fees, Waiting Time, and Consensus Security. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2201.05574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Shi, S.; He, D.; Li, L.; Kumar, N.; Khan, M.K.; Choo, K.K.R. Applications of Blockchain in Ensuring the Security and Privacy of Electronic Health Record Systems: A Survey. Comput. Secur. 2020, 97, 101966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Mafrur, R. Blockchain Data Analytics: Review and Challenges (Version 1). arXiv 2025, arXiv:2503.09165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Market Research Intellect. Global Blockchain Analysis Software Market Size and Forecast. 2024. Available online: https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/product/global-blockchain-analysis-software-market-size-and-forecast/ (accessed on 10 March 2025).
  36. Muheidat, F.; Patel, D.; Tammisetty, S.; Tawalbeh, L.A.; Tawalbeh, M. Emerging Concepts Using Blockchain and Big Data. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2022, 198, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Xu, Q.; Aung, K.M.M.; Zhu, Y.; Yong, K.L. A Blockchain-Based Storage System for Data Analytics in the Internet of Things. In New Advances in the Internet of Things; Yager, R., Espada, J.P., Eds.; Studies in Computational Intelligence; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ballandies, M.C.; Dapp, M.M.; Pournaras, E. Decrypting Distributed Ledger Design—Taxonomy, Classification and Blockchain Community Evaluation. Clust. Comput. 2022, 25, 1817–1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Agbo, C.C.; Mahmoud, Q.H.; Eklund, J.M. Blockchain Technology in Healthcare: A Systematic Review. Healthcare 2019, 7, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bhutta, M.N.M.; Khwaja, A.A.; Nadeem, A.; Ahmad, H.F.; Khan, M.K.; Hanif, M.A.; Song, H.; Alshamari, M.; Cao, Y. A Survey on Blockchain Technology: Evolution, Architecture and Security. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 61048–61073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Akram, S.V.; Malik, P.K.; Singh, R.; Anita, G.; Tanwar, S. Adoption of blockchain technology in various realms: Opportunities and challenges. Secur. Priv. 2020, 3, e109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Krichen, M.; Ammi, M.; Mihoub, A.; Almutiq, M. Blockchain for Modern Applications: A Survey. Sensors 2022, 22, 5274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Waseem, M.; Adnan Khan, M.; Goudarzi, A.; Fahad, S.; Sajjad, I.A.; Siano, P. Incorporation of Blockchain Technology for Different Smart Grid Applications: Architecture, Prospects, and Challenges. Energies 2023, 16, 820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zeadally, S.; Abdo, J.B. Blockchain: Trends and Future Opportunities. Internet Technol. Lett. 2019, 2, e130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Alam, S.; Shuaib, M.; Khan, W.Z.; Garg, S.; Kaddoum, G.; Hossain, M.S.; Zikria, Y.B. Blockchain-based Initiatives: Current state and challenges. Comput. Netw. 2021, 198, 108395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ko, K.; Jeong, T.; Woo, J.; Hong, J.W.-K. Survey on blockchain-based non-fungible tokens: History, technologies, standards, and open challenges. Int. J. Netw. Manag. 2024, 34, e2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Khan, D.; Jung, L.T.; Hashmani, M.A. Systematic Literature Review of Challenges in Blockchain Scalability. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Upadhyay, N. Demystifying blockchain: A critical analysis of challenges, applications and opportunities. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 54, 102120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. AlShamsi, M.; Al-Emran, M.; Shaalan, K. A Systematic Review on Blockchain Adoption. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Angelis, J.; da Silva, E.R. Blockchain adoption: A value driver perspective. Bus. Horiz. 2019, 62, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Austin, A.A.; Williams, L.T. Evaluating company adoptions of blockchain technology: How do management and auditor communications affect nonprofessional investor judgments? J. Account. Public Policy 2021, 40, 106882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Woodside, J.M.; Augustine, F.K., Jr.; Giberson, W. Blockchain Technology Adoption Status and Strategies. J. Int. Technol. Inf. Manag. 2017, 26, 65–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Xiao, Y.; Zhang, N.; Lou, W.; Hou, Y.T. A Survey of Distributed Consensus Protocols for Blockchain Networks. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2020, 22, 1432–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kannengiesser, N.; Lins, S.; Sander, C.; Winter, K.; Frey, H.; Sunyaev, A. Challenges and Common Solutions in Smart Contract Development. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 2022, 48, 4291–4318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gervais, A.; Karame, G.O.; Wüst, K.; Glykantzis, V.; Ritzdorf, H.; Capkun, S. On the Security and Performance of Proof of Work Blockchains. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS ’16), Vienna, Austria, 24–28 October 2016; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chen, J.; Xia, X.; Lo, D.; Grundy, J.; Luo, X.; Chen, T. Defining Smart Contract Defects on Ethereum. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 2022, 48, 327–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Atzei, N.; Bartoletti, M.; Cimoli, T. A Survey of Attacks on Ethereum Smart Contracts (SoK). In Proceedings of the Principles of Security and Trust; Maffei, M., Ryan, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; Volume 10204, pp. 164–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Guru, A.; Mohanta, B.K.; Mohapatra, H.; Al-Turjman, F.; Altrjman, C.; Yadav, A. A Survey on Consensus Protocols and Attacks on Blockchain Technology. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kannengießer, N.; Lins, S.; Dehling, T.; Sunyaev, A. Trade-offs between Distributed Ledger Technology Characteristics. ACM Comput. Surv. 2020, 53, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Belchior, R.; Vasconcelos, A.; Guerreiro, S.; Correia, M. A Survey on Blockchain Interoperability: Past, Present, and Future Trends. ACM Comput. Surv. 2021, 54, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Toufaily, E.; Zalan, T.; Dhaou, S.B. A Framework of Blockchain Technology Adoption: An Investigation of Challenges and Expected Value. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 103444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chowdhury, S.; Rodriguez-Espindola, O.; Dey, P.; Budhwar, P. Blockchain technology adoption for managing risks in operations and supply chain management: Evidence from the UK. Ann. Oper. Res. 2023, 327, 539–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Viriyasitavat, W.; Anuphaptrirong, T.; Hoonsopon, D. When blockchain meets Internet of Things: Characteristics, challenges, and business opportunities. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2019, 15, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chang, V.; Baudier, P.; Zhang, H.; Xu, Q.; Zhang, J.; Arami, M. How Blockchain can impact financial services – The overview, challenges and recommendations from expert interviewees. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 158, 120166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Ali, O.; Ally, M.; Dwivedi, Y. The state of play of blockchain technology in the financial services sector: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 54, 102199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Serada, A.; Sihvonen, T.; Harviainen, J.T. CryptoKitties and the New Ludic Economy: How Blockchain Introduces Value, Ownership, and Scarcity in Digital Gaming. Games Cult. 2020, 16, 155541201989830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Li, W.; Bu, J.; Li, X.; Peng, H.; Niu, Y.; Zhang, Y. A survey of DeFi security: Challenges and opportunities. J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inf. Sci. 2022, 34, 10378–10404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Min, T.; Wang, H.; Guo, Y.; Cai, W. Blockchain Games: A Survey. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG), London, UK, 20–23 August 2019; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Deepa, N.; Pham, Q.V.; Nguyen, D.C.; Bhattacharya, S.; Prabadevi, B.; Gadekallu, T.R.; Maddikunta, P.K.R.; Fang, F.; Pathirana, P.N. A survey on blockchain for big data: Approaches, opportunities, and future directions. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2022, 131, 209–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Jardim, L.; Pranto, S.; Ruivo, P.; Oliveira, T. What are the main drivers of Blockchain Adoption within Supply Chain? Explor. Res. 2021, 181, 495–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Prewett, K.W.; Prescott, G.L.; Phillips, K. Blockchain adoption is inevitable—Barriers and risks remain. J. Corp. Account. Financ. 2020, 31, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Singh, D.; Monga, S.; Tanwar, S.; Hong, W.C.; Sharma, R.; He, Y.L. Adoption of blockchain technology in healthcare: Challenges, solutions, and comparisons. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Janssen, M.; Weerakkody, V.; Ismagilova, E.; Sivarajah, U.; Irani, Z. A framework for analysing blockchain technology adoption: Integrating institutional, market and technical factors. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 50, 302–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hannan, A.; Hussain, A.; Tab, M.A. Towards a more general theory of blockchain technology adoption—Investigating the role of mass media, social media and technophilia. Technol. Soc. 2023, 73, 102225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Rao, I.S.; Kiah, M.L.M.; Hameed, M.M.; Khan, M.K.; Anuar, N.B. Scalability of Blockchain: A Comprehensive Review and Future Research Direction. Clust. Comput. 2024, 27, 5547–5570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zhuk, A. Beyond the Blockchain Hype: Addressing Legal and Regulatory Challenges. SN Soc. Sci. 2025, 5, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kang, I.; Gupta, A.; Seneviratne, O. Blockchain Interoperability Landscape. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), Osaka, Japan, 17–20 December 2022; pp. 3191–3200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Shah, K.; Lathiya, D.; Lukhi, N.; Parmar, K.; Sanghvi, H. A systematic review of decentralized finance protocols. Int. J. Intell. Netw. 2023, 4, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Amler, H.; Eckey, L.; Faust, S.; Kaiser, M.; Sandner, P.; Schlosser, B. DeFi-ning DeFi: Challenges & Pathway. In Proceedings of the 2021 3rd Conference on Blockchain Research & Applications for Innovative Networks and Services (BRAINS), Paris, France, 27–30 September 2021; pp. 181–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Benedetti, H.; Labbé, S. A Closer Look Into Decentralized Finance. In The Emerald Handbook on Cryptoassets: Investment Opportunities and Challenges; Baker, H.K., Benedetti, H., Nikbakht, E., Smith, S.S., Eds.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Leeds, UK, 2023; pp. 327–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Miah, A.; Rahouti, M.; Jagatheesaperumal, S.K.; Ayyash, M.; Xiong, K.; Fernandez, F.; Lekena, M. Blockchain in Financial Services: Current Status, Adoption Challenges, and Future Vision. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 2023, 20, 2330004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Chung, K.H.Y.; Li, D.; Adriaens, P. Technology-enabled financing of sustainable infrastructure: A case for blockchains and decentralized oracle networks. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2023, 187, 122258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Yang, D.; Long, C.; Xu, H.; Peng, S. A Review on Scalability of Blockchain. In Proceedings of the 2020 2nd International Conference on Blockchain Technology (ICBCT ’20), Hilo, HI, USA, 12–14 March 2020; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Pacheco, M.; Oliva, G.A.; Rajbahadur, G.K.; Hassan, A.E. What Makes Ethereum Blockchain Transactions Be Processed Fast or Slow? An Empirical Study. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2206.08905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Donmez, A.; Karaivanov, A. Transaction Fee Economics in the Ethereum Blockchain. Econ. Inq. 2021, 60, 265–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wankhade, S. Smart Lock System Using IoT and Solana Blockchain. Int. J. Sci. Res. Eng. Manag. 2024, 8, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kaur, M.; Khan, M.Z.; Gupta, S.; Noorwali, A.; Chakraborty, C.; Pani, S.K. MBCP: Performance Analysis of Large Scale Mainstream Blockchain Consensus Protocols. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 80931–80944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Liu, J.; Wu, J. A Comprehensive Survey on Blockchain Technology and Its Applications. Highlights Sci. Eng. Technol. 2024, 85, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bartoletti, M.; Chiang, J.H.; Lafuente, A.L. A Theory of Automated Market Makers in DeFi. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 2022, 18, 4–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Schuetz, S.; Venkatesh, V. Blockchain, adoption, and financial inclusion in India: Research opportunities. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 52, 101936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Spanò, R.; Massaro, M.; Ferri, L.; Dumay, J.; Schmitz, J. Blockchain in accounting, accountability and assurance: An overview. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2022, 35, 1493–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Mohanta, B.K.; Jena, D.; Ramasubbareddy, S.; Daneshmand, M.; Gandomi, A.H. Addressing Security and Privacy Issues of IoT using Blockchain Technology. IEEE Internet Things J. 2020, 8, 881–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ellul, J.; Galea, J.; Ganado, M.; Mccarthy, S.; Pace, G.J. Regulating Blockchain, DLT and Smart Contracts: A Technology Regulator’s Perspective. ERA Forum 2020, 21, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Mohammed Abdul, S.S. Navigating Blockchain’s Twin Challenges: Scalability and Regulatory Compliance. Blockchains 2024, 2, 265–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ampountolas, A.; Nyarko Nde, T.; Date, P.; Constantinescu, C. A Machine Learning Approach for Micro-Credit Scoring. Risks 2021, 9, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Häfner, M.; Luze, R.d.; Greber, N.D.; Beccuti, J.; Biondi, B.; Katten, G.; Arrigoni, A. DeFi Lending Platform Liquidity Risk: The Example of Folks Finance. J. Br. Blockchain Assoc. 2023, 6, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Chiu, J.; Kahn, C.M.; Koeppl, T.V. Grasping Decentralized Finance through the Lens of Economic Theory. Can. J. Econ. Can. D’éConomique 2022, 55, 1702–1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Darlin, M.; Tassiulas, L. Debt-Financed Collateral and Stability Risks in the DeFi Ecosystem. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2204.11107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Davydov, V.A.; Kruglik, S.A.; Yanovich, Y.A. Comparison of Banking and Peer-to-Peer Lending Risks. Autom. Remote Control 2021, 82, 2155–2168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Chaleenutthawut, Y.; Davydov, V.; Evdokimov, M.; Kasemsuk, S.; Kruglik, S.; Melnikov, G.; Yanovich, Y. Loan Portfolio Dataset from MakerDAO Blockchain Project. IEEE Access 2024, 12, 24843–24854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Salami, I. Challenges and Approaches to Regulating Decentralized Finance. AJIL Unbound 2021, 115, 425–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Treleaven, P.; Brown, R.G.; Yang, D. Blockchain Technology in Finance. Computer 2017, 50, 14–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. di Angelo, M.; Salzer, G. Tokens, Types, and Standards: Identification and Utilization in Ethereum. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Decentralized Applications and Infrastructures (DAPPS), Oxford, UK, 3–6 August 2020; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Ullah, N.; Al-Rahmi, W.M.; Alzahrani, A.I.; Alfarraj, O.; Alblehai, F. Blockchain Technology Adoption in Smart Learning Environments. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Weingärtner, T.; Batista, D.A.; Köchli, S.; Voutat, G. Prototyping a Smart Contract Based Public Procurement to Fight Corruption. Computers 2021, 10, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Valeonti, F.; Bikakis, A.; Terras, M.; Speed, C.; Hudson-Smith, A.; Chalkias, K.K. Crypto Collectibles, Museum Funding and OpenGLAM: Challenges, Opportunities and the Potential of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Akkaya, R.; Ünal, M.; Abri, R. Integrating Technologies for a Seamless Play-to-Earn Experience: A Case Study on a Hyper-Casual Mobile Game with a Decentralized Ecosystem. Proc. Int. Conf. Pioneer Innov. Stud. 2023, 1, 362–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Wikhamn, B.R.; Styhre, A. Innovation Approaches and Innovation Logics: An Empirical Study on Developing Entertaining Digital Games. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2023, 32, 568–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Savolainen, I.; Sirola, A.; Vuorinen, I.; Mantere, E.; Oksanen, A. Online Communities and Gambling Behaviors—A Systematic Review. Curr. Addict. Rep. 2022, 9, 400–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Egliston, B.; Carter, M. Cryptogames: The Promises of Blockchain for the Future of the Videogame Industry. New Media Soc. 2023, 26, 6756–6778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Gao, S.; Li, Y. An Empirical Study on the Adoption of Blockchain-Based Games from Users’ Perspectives. Electron. Libr. 2021, 39, 596–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Al-Amri, R.; Zakaria, N.H.; Habbal, A.; Hassan, S. Cryptocurrency Adoption: Current Stage, Opportunities, and Open Challenges. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Res. 2019, 9, 293–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Augustin, N.; Durani, K.; Kollmer, T.; Eckhardt, A. Examining the Use of Blockchain Technology in Virtual Worlds: A Socio-Technical Systems Perspective. In Proceedings of the 56th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Maui, HI, USA, 3–6 January 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Zhou, Q.; Huang, H.; Zheng, Z.; Bian, J. Solutions to Scalability of Blockchain: A Survey. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 16440–16455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Razi, Q.; Devrani, A.; Abhyankar, H.; Chalapathi, G.S.S.; Hassija, V.; Guizani, M. Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)—Survey of Current Applications, Evolution, and Future Directions. IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc. 2024, 5, 2765–2791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Wang, G.; Chen, C.; Jiang, Z.; Li, G.; Wu, C.; Li, S. Efficient Use of Biological Data in the Web 3.0 Era by Applying Nonfungible Token Technology. J. Med. Internet Res. 2024, 26, e46160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Trojanowska, N.; Kedziora, M.; Hanif, M.; Song, H. Secure Decentralized Application Development of Blockchain-based Games. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 39th International Performance Computing and Communications Conference (IPCCC), Austin, TX, USA, 6–8 November 2020; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Min, T.; Cai, W. A Security Case Study for Blockchain Games. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Games, Entertainment, Media Conference (GEM), New Haven, CT, USA, 18–21 June 2019; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Liao, D.Y.; Wang, X. Applications of Blockchain Technology to Logistics Management in Integrated Casinos and Entertainment. Informatics 2018, 5, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Lashkari, B.; Musilek, P. A Comprehensive Review of Blockchain Consensus Mechanisms. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 43620–43652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Sharma, M.; Singh, P.; Akula, N.; Kasthuri, K. Smart Contract Vulnerabilities, Attacks and Auditing Considerations. In CRC Press eBooks; Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2022; pp. 245–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Alsaffar, M.; Aljaloud, S.; Mohammed, B.A.; Al-Mekhlafi, Z.G.; Almurayziq, T.S.; Alshammari, G.; Alshammari, A. Detection of Web Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) Attacks. Electronics 2022, 11, 2212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Almadani, M.S.; Hussain, F.K. Implementing a Secure Blockchain-Based Wallet System with Multi-Factor Authentication. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE), Sydney, Australia, 4–6 November 2023; pp. 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Kanchanaratanakorn, N.; Chutima, P. Opportunities and Barriers to the Adoption of Blockchain-Based Games in an Online Gaming Company in Thailand. Eng. J. 2022, 26, 55–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Muthe, K.B.; Sharma, K.; Sri, K.E.N. A Blockchain Based Decentralized Computing and NFT Infrastructure for Game Networks. In Proceedings of the 2020 Second International Conference on Blockchain Computing and Applications (BCCA), Antalya, Turkey, 2–5 November 2020; pp. 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Raut, P.; Jagdale, B.; Sugave, S.; Jagdale, R.; Kolhe, K. A Comprehensive Assessment and Review of Blockchain Integration in Online Gaming. In Proceedings of the 2024 MIT Art, Design and Technology School of Computing International Conference (MITADTSoCiCon), Pune, India, 25–27 April 2024; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Raman, R.; Raj, B.E. The World of NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens): The Future of Blockchain and Asset Ownership. In Enabling Blockchain Technology for Secure Networking and Communications; Ben Mnaouer, A., Chaari Fourati, L., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 89–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Bastos, N. A Change on the Horizon for the Gaming Industry: Trends, Blockchain Technology, and Cryptocurrency. UNLV Gaming Law J. 2020, 10, 117–140. Available online: https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/glj/vol10/iss1/7 (accessed on 10 March 2025).
  129. Akcora, C.G.; Kantarcioglu, M.; Gel, Y.R. Blockchain Data Analytics. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), Singapore, 17–20 November 2018; p. 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Vo, H.T.; Kundu, A.; Mohania, M. Research Directions in Blockchain Data Management and Analytics. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT), Vienna, Austria, 26–29 March 2018; pp. 445–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Dave, D.; Parikh, S.; Patel, R.; Doshi, N. A Survey on Blockchain Technology and its Proposed Solutions. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019, 160, 740–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Hasan, M.M.; Popp, J.; Oláh, J. Current landscape and influence of big data on finance. J. Big Data 2020, 7, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Delgado-Segura, S.; Pérez-Solà, C.; Navarro-Arribas, G.; Herrera-Joancomartí, J. Analysis of the Bitcoin UTXO Set. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security. FC 2018; Zohar, A., Ed.; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; Volume 10958, pp. 78–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Ron, D.; Shamir, A. Quantitative Analysis of the Full Bitcoin Transaction Graph. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; Volume 7859, pp. 6–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Spagnuolo, M.; Maggi, F.; Zanero, S. BitIodine: Extracting Intelligence from the Bitcoin Network. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security; Christin, N., Safavi-Naini, R., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; Volume 8437, pp. 457–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Greaves, A.; Au, B. Using the Bitcoin Transaction Graph to Predict the Price of Bitcoin. 2015. Available online: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:18038866 (accessed on 10 January 2025).
  137. Yang, S.Y.; Kim, J. Bitcoin Market Return and Volatility Forecasting Using Transaction Network Flow Properties. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence, Cape Town, South Africa, 7–10 December 2015; pp. 1778–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Kondor, D.; Csabai, I.; Szüle, J.; Pósfai, M.; Vattay, G. Inferring the interplay between network structure and market effects in Bitcoin. New J. Phys. 2014, 16, 125003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Bragagnolo, S.; Rocha, H.; Denker, M.; Ducasse, S. Ethereum query language. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Engineering for Blockchain, Gothenburg, Sweden, 27 May 2018; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Kalodner, H.; Möser, M.; Lee, K.; Goldfeder, S.; Plattner, M.; Chator, A.; Narayanan, A. BlockSci: Design and Applications of a Blockchain Analysis Platform. In Proceedings of the 29th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 20), Boston, MA, USA, 12–14 August 2020; pp. 2721–2738. Available online: https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity20/presentation/kalodner (accessed on 10 January 2025).
  141. Ducasse, S.; Rocha, H.; Bragagnolo, S.; Denker, M.; Francomme, C. SmartAnvil: Open-Source Tool Suite for Smart Contract Analysis. In Blockchain and Web 3.0: Social, Economic, and Technological Challenges; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2019; Available online: https://inria.hal.science/hal-01940287 (accessed on 10 January 2025).
  142. Ahmed, E.; Yaqoob, I.; Hashem, I.A.T.; Khan, I.; Ahmed, A.I.A.; Imran, M.; Vasilakos, A.V. The Role of Big Data Analytics in Internet of Things. Comput. Netw. 2017, 129, 459–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Sharma, A.; Agrawal, A.; Bhatia, A.; Tiwari, K. Graph Theoretic Analysis of Bitcoin’s Blockchain Data. In Advanced Information Networking and Applications; Barolli, L., Hussain, F., Enokido, T., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 449, pp. 459–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Khan, S.A.R.; Godil, D.I.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Shujaat, S.; Razzaq, A.; Yu, Z. Green data analytics, blockchain technology for sustainable development, and sustainable supply chain practices: Evidence from small and medium enterprises. Ann. Oper. Res. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Vo, H.T.; Mohania, M.; Verma, D.; Mehedy, L. Blockchain-powered big data analytics platform. In Proceedings of the Big Data Analytics: 6th International Conference (BDA 2018), Warangal, India, 18–21 December 2018; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 18–21. [Google Scholar]
  146. Mohindru, G.; Mondal, K.; Banka, H. Internet of Things and Data Analytics: A Current Review. WIley Interdiscip. Rev. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 2020, 10, e1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Heister, S.; Kaufmann, M.; Yuthas, K. Blockchain and the Future of Business Data Analytics. J. Emerg. Technol. Account. 2021, 18, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Chen, W.; Zheng, Z. Blockchain Data Analysis: A Review of Status, Trends and Challenges. Jisuanji Yanjiu Fazhan/Computer Res. Dev. 2018, 55, 1853–1870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Arachchige, K.G.; Branch, P.; But, J. Evaluation of Blockchain Networks’ Scalability Limitations in Low-Powered Internet of Things (IoT) Sensor Networks. Future Internet 2023, 15, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Kushwaha, S.S.; Joshi, S.; Singh, D.; Kaur, M.; Lee, H.N. Systematic Review of Security Vulnerabilities in Ethereum Blockchain Smart Contract. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 6605–6621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Hasanova, H.; Baek, U.; Shin, M.; Cho, K.; Kim, M.S. A survey on blockchain cybersecurity vulnerabilities and possible countermeasures. Int. J. Netw. Manag. 2019, 29, e2060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Tripathi, G.; Ahad, M.A.; Casalino, G. A Comprehensive Review of Blockchain Technology: Underlying Principles and Historical Background with Future Challenges. Decis. Anal. J. 2023, 9, 100344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Song, J.; Zhang, P.; Alkubati, M.; Bao, Y.; Yu, G. Research advances on blockchain-as-a-service: Architectures, applications and challenges. Digit. Commun. Netw. 2021, 8, 466–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Bartoletti, M.; Lande, S.; Pompianu, L.; Bracciali, A. A General Framework for Blockchain Analytics. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Scalable and Resilient Infrastructures for Distributed Ledgers (SERIAL ’17), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 11–15 December 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Sapountzi, A.; Psannis, K.E. Social networking data analysis tools & challenges. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018, 86, 893–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Senthilkumar, D. Cross-Industry Use of Blockchain Technology and Opportunities for the Future: Blockchain Technology and Artificial Intelligence. In Cross-Industry Use of Blockchain Technology and Opportunities for the Future; Williams, I., Ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Survey methodology for blockchain in DeFi, gaming, and analytics.
Figure 1. Survey methodology for blockchain in DeFi, gaming, and analytics.
Bdcc 09 00178 g001
Figure 2. Distribution of the 117 selected studies by thematic area.
Figure 2. Distribution of the 117 selected studies by thematic area.
Bdcc 09 00178 g002
Figure 3. Structural organization of the review.
Figure 3. Structural organization of the review.
Bdcc 09 00178 g003
Figure 4. Multi-layered architecture of a DeFi system.
Figure 4. Multi-layered architecture of a DeFi system.
Bdcc 09 00178 g004
Figure 5. Challenges of blockchain adoption in DeFi.
Figure 5. Challenges of blockchain adoption in DeFi.
Bdcc 09 00178 g005
Figure 6. Classification of blockchain game types.
Figure 6. Classification of blockchain game types.
Bdcc 09 00178 g006
Figure 7. Key benefits of blockchain adoption in the gaming industry.
Figure 7. Key benefits of blockchain adoption in the gaming industry.
Bdcc 09 00178 g007
Figure 8. Impact of blockchain technology on data analytics.
Figure 8. Impact of blockchain technology on data analytics.
Bdcc 09 00178 g008
Table 1. Comparison of focus areas in existing blockchain adoption surveys.
Table 1. Comparison of focus areas in existing blockchain adoption surveys.
Focus AreaScalabilityRegulatoryUser
Experience
Inter-OperabilitySecurity and
Privacy
Cross-Industry AnalysisConsensusSmart
Contracts
Future
Directions
Financial Services, DeFi [67]YesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYes
Gaming [68]YesNoYesYesYesNoNoNoNo
Data Analytics [69]YesNoNoYesNoYesNoNoNo
Supply Chain [70]YesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYes
Regulatory Compliance [71]YesYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNo
Healthcare [72]YesYesYesYesYesNoNoNoNo
Infrastructure [73]NoYesYesNoYesYesNoNoNo
Social and Community [74]YesNoYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
Proposed (DeFi, Gaming, and Data Analytics)YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
InclusionExclusion
Blockchain studies on adoption or applicationsStudies unrelated to blockchain adoption
English-language publicationsNon-English publications
Sector-specific or cross-sector insights into DeFi, gaming, or analyticsStudies outside the selected domains
Peer-reviewed sources from major databasesDuplicates or redundant papers
Table 3. Comparison of DeFi projects by key features, strengths, challenges, and use cases.
Table 3. Comparison of DeFi projects by key features, strengths, challenges, and use cases.
ProjectsProtocol TypeKey FeaturesStrengthsChallengesUse Cases
UniswapDEXAMM and liquidity poolsUser-friendly interface and high liquidityIncreased gas fees during congestion and impermanent lossToken swaps and provision of liquidity
SushiSwapDEXMulti-chain support and yield farmingEnhanced features over Uniswap with high community supportPotential governance problems and competition from UniswapToken swaps, yield farming, and staking
PancakeSwapDEXYield farming, lottery, and lower gas feesFewer transaction fees and high robustnessLower liquidity and minimum flexibilityNFT features, token swaps, and staking
BalancerDEXMulti-token pools and weighting customizationHigh liquidity flexibility and offers portfolio diversityLiquidity pool setup complexity is very highCustomized liquidity pool services
AaveLending and BorrowingFlash loans and variable/stable interest ratesOffers asset diversity and novel lending solutionsFlash loan’s complexity and high market volatilityYield farming and lending/borrowing of assets
CompoundLending and BorrowingCollateral-based loans and algorithmic interest ratesSimple UI and well-established platformHigh liquidation risks and fluctuations in interest rateDeposit-based interest earning and asset borrowing
Yearn FinanceYield AggregatorAutomated yield farming and vaultsEscalates yield across protocols with strong community supportIncreased complexity for new users and need for other protocol supportAsset management and yield optimization
Maker DAOStablecoin ProtocolCreation of DAI stablecoin and MKR-based governanceStrong stability and first mover advantageGovernance risks and reliance on collateral price stabilityCollateralized loans and stablecoin issuance
Curve FinanceStablecoin DEXStablecoin swaps optimization and low slippageHigh efficiency over stable assets with low feesStablecoin constraints and pool dependencyLiquidity provision and stablecoin trading
AnchorSavings and BorrowingHigh-yield stablecoin savings with low interest rateAttractive interest rates and easy integrationRegulatory risks and high stablecoin dependencySavings and asset borrowing
SynthetixSynthetic AssetsSynthetic asset trading with real-world price feedsLiquidity pool customization and community governanceHigh pool creation complexity and increased gas feesYield farming and synthetic asset trading
Table 4. Key factors influencing the mass adoption of DeFi.
Table 4. Key factors influencing the mass adoption of DeFi.
CategoryKey FactorAssociated Challenges
Institutional factorsGovernanceLoss of government control; unfair practices; market manipulation risks; need for legal frameworks
RegulationsDealing with fraudulent activities; policymakers’ confusion regarding cryptocurrencies; taxation improvements; need for blockchain DeFi-based legal frameworks
PartnershipsIntegration of DeFi solutions with banks and financial services
InvestmentsParticipation of institutional investors, providing liquidity and legitimacy
Reputation and trustBuilding trust through security audits, partnerships, and transparent practices
Market factorsMarket structureMinimizing market volatility due to high computation; interconnectedness
Smart contractsTransitioning existing contracts to DeFi models; lack of clarity in applications; confusion with e-contracts
Finance processesHigh adoption and implementation costs
User demandGrowing demand for alternative financial products among users and businesses
AccessibilityNeed for intuitive and user-friendly interface design
CompetitionIntense competition across platforms influencing user decisions
Crypto asset and data transactionsReducing processing time and block size; eliminating extraneous data; standardization needs
Technical factorsDistributed ledgersScalability; DeFi design clarity; cybercrime threats; innovations
Infrastructure sharingDeveloping standardized DeFi infrastructure components
Security measuresImplementing robust solutions to protect user assets from hacking
Table 5. Evaluation of adoption risks in DeFi.
Table 5. Evaluation of adoption risks in DeFi.
RiskDefinitionRecommendations
Smart contractVulnerability to fund drain and protocol instability in DeFi contractsDevelop efficient smart contract frameworks
Consensus mechanismRules that validate transactions within the networkBalance consensus for scalability and security
User growthScalability issues due to large user transactionsImplement mechanisms with validation history for scalability
Security keyKey storage and maintenance pose security risks in DeFiAdopt multi-signature-based schemes for key security
DependencyHigh dependency issues due to DeFi’s interoperabilityEnhance openness with minimum dependencies
Transaction scalabilityScaling issues due to high volume of decentralized transactionsImprove block sequence length and other scalability solutions
GovernanceRisk of malicious users gaining protocol controlIntroduce secure token management schemes
Oracle-relatedProtocol dependency on oracles regulating DeFi functionsEnhance high-resilience oracle systems
DEX risksImpermanent loss and contract risks due to liquidity fluctuationsDevelop advanced architectures to mitigate DEX risks
Default risksLoan repayment and collateral volatility issuesDevelop solutions to mitigate default risk in P2P lending
Table 6. Comparative analysis of blockchain-powered gaming projects.
Table 6. Comparative analysis of blockchain-powered gaming projects.
ProjectsTypeBlockchain TypeKey FeaturesStrengthsChallengesUse Cases
Axie InfinityP2EEthereumLand ownership, digital pet battles, and breeding strategiesStrengthen community and engaged player baseMarket volatility and high entry costsNFT trading, P2E gaming, and breeding pets
DecentralandVirtual RealityEthereumUser-contributed content and virtual land ownershipHigh robustness for creators and social experiencesScalability problems and competition with other platformsSocial interactions, virtual real estate, and events
The SandboxMetaverse/Game CreationEthereumVoxel-based assets and user-generated gamesHigh customizability for creators and strong partnershipsCreation depends on user content and market fluctuationsNFT asset trading, game construction, and social experiences
Gods UnchainedTCGEthereumP2E mechanisms and cards for digital ownershipCompetitive gameplay and high liquidity depthRegulatory problems and card-balance issuesNFT trading, TCG gaming, and tournaments
IlluviumRPG/Adventure GameEthereumExploring the open world and capturing creationImmersive gameplay and high-quality graphicsTimeline delays and RPG competitionP2E gaming and creature battling
My Neighbour AliceSocial/Construction GameEthereumLand ownership and community-powered gameplayArt style engaging and potential for cross-platformEconomy balancing and attracting a large user baseLand trading, community construction, and virtual farming
Zed RunHorse Racing SimulationEthereumDigital horse ownership and events for racingDigital racing uniqueness and community engagementsRegulatory problems and market speculationBreeding, horse racing, and NFT trading
CryptoBladesRPG/Combat GameBinance Smart ChainCustomization of characters and P2E rewardsSimplicity and low entry barrierEconomic sustainabilityCharacter trading and combat strategies
SplinterlandsTCGHiveCard battle gameplay decentralization with blockchainReduced transaction fees and fast-paced matchesLimited reach in the market and player interest in maintenanceTournaments and TCG gaming
Star AtlasSpace Exploration/RPGSolanaReal-time solution and interstellar economyAmbitious scope and high production valuesLong development timelines and competitionSpace exploration and resource management
Table 7. Evaluation of blockchain gaming risks and potential mitigation strategies.
Table 7. Evaluation of blockchain gaming risks and potential mitigation strategies.
Risk TypeDescriptionKnown VulnerabilitiesMitigation Strategies
ConsensusAttacks on consensus operations.51% attack (where a single entity gains majority control), long range attack (altering the genesis block), DDoS (disrupting network service), balanced attack (exploiting balanced conditions in mining).Implement layered security protocols and use decentralized consensus algorithms that require multiple validations to enhance resilience against attacks.
Smart ContractsAttempts to inject malicious code into contracts.TX origin (manipulation of contract execution), overflow/underflow (integer storage issues), predictable variable (exploiting predictable outcomes), DoS (denial of service), re-entry (recursive calling vulnerabilities).Adopt coding standards that prevent known vulnerabilities, conduct regular audits, and use smart contract development frameworks that emphasize security.
Web-RelatedAttacks against players’ wallets and game server.Cookie replay (reuse of session data for malicious purposes), injection (introducing harmful code), XSS (cross-site scripting attacks), authentication broking (bypassing authentication processes).Strengthen web application firewalls, implement rigorous input validation, and ensure secure session management practices to protect against web-based attacks.
Table 8. Comparison of blockchain-based data analytics projects.
Table 8. Comparison of blockchain-based data analytics projects.
ProjectsProject TypeUnderlying BlockchainKey FeaturesStrengthsChallengesPrimary Use Cases
Ocean ProtocolData MarketplaceEthereumData sharing and tokenizationDecentralized data exchange and strong analytics capabilitiesData quality, trust issues, and regulatory complianceData monetization, AI training, and analytics
The GraphData Indexing ProtocolEthereumSubgraph creation and data indexingSimplifies DApp data access; strong developer communityHigh competition from similar indexing protocolsBlockchain data querying and DApp enhancement
ChainlinkOracle NetworkEthereumDecentralized oracles for off-chain data accessHigh security and blockchain interoperabilityLatency and external data dependencyReal-time data integration and smart contract execution
Data VaultData Security and SharingEthereumSecure data exchange with user-defined accessStrong privacy control and data ownershipRegulatory and scalability challengesCompliance reporting and secure data sharing
CivicIdentity VerificationEthereumDecentralized identity and data privacyEnhanced personal data protection and user controlRegulatory hurdles and adoption barriersDecentralized KYC and ID verification
StreamrReal-Time Data StreamingEthereumMarketplace for live data and decentralized streamingReal-time monetization of IoT dataData quality concerns and market competitionIoT data streaming and real-time analytics
NumeraireData Science and PredictionEthereumData science competitions and token rewardsInnovative predictive modeling for financeToken value volatility and speculative risksHedge fund modeling and data-driven prediction
BlocksterSocial Media and AnalyticsEthereumData monetization and user-generated contentMerges blockchain with social media analyticsStrong competition with established platformsContent monetization and social data analytics
BigchainDBDistributed DatabaseTendermint-based custom protocolDecentralized database with blockchain featuresCombines blockchain with traditional database performanceLimited adoption and integration complexityData provenance and scalable data storage
Fetch.aiAutonomous Agents PlatformFetch.ai native blockchainMachine learning-based autonomous agent frameworkHigh automation and adaptive agent economyScalability and integration hurdlesIoT data analytics and decentralized AI systems
Table 9. Adoption risks and mitigation strategies in blockchain-based data analytics.
Table 9. Adoption risks and mitigation strategies in blockchain-based data analytics.
Adoption RisksDescriptionProposed Solutions
ScalabilityDelays in achieving consensus across geographically distributed nodesImprove node synchronization and optimize communication protocols
Data managementRisks arising from high-volume data generation and sensitive applicationsStrengthen data accuracy checks and implement privacy-preserving analytics
Smart contract automationLimited automation in current smart contract implementationsDevelop and deploy fully automated smart contract systems
Consensus complexityHigh computational costs due to complex mathematical operations and coordinationSimplify consensus mechanisms and reduce overhead through protocol optimization
Key managementBurden of generating and maintaining large sets of cryptographic keysEnhance key lifecycle management, authentication, and access control systems
Regulatory complianceCompliance issues due to evolving or unclear legal frameworksIntegrate regulatory standards into protocol design and promote legal clarity
Application-specific requirementsDiverse requirements across analytics use cases and sectorsCustomize blockchain solutions for domain-specific performance and compliance
Table 10. Cross-industry convergence analysis: decentralized finance (DeFi) interactions.
Table 10. Cross-industry convergence analysis: decentralized finance (DeFi) interactions.
Use CasesAdvantagesChallengesRisksSolutionsTrends
NFT MarketsDecentralization, Wallet tradingHacking, Regulatory issuesContract failures, Compliance concernsSecure contracts, Advanced security measuresMarket expansion, Regulation updates
Cryptocurrency TradingEnhanced liquidity, Global market access, Lower feesRegulatory challenges, Scalability, Asset price volatilityHacking, Regulatory crackdowns, Price manipulationDEXs, Secure contracts, Layer 2 scalable solutionsAutomated trading, Integration with DeFi, Stablecoins
Flash LoansInstant borrowing opportunities, Permissionless accessHigh complexity, Vulnerability, Pool dependencyPrice manipulation, Smart contract risksAdvanced risk management, Improved auditingCross-chain solutions, Financial derivatives, New products
CrowdlendingDirect access, Lower borrowing cost, TransparencyRegulation, Verifications, Risk managementRepayment issues, Smart contract failuresCollateral management, Oracle servicesHybrid lending, Tokenized assets
PaymentsDecentralization, Lower fees, AccessibilityRegulatory issues, Security concernsTechnical issues, Security vulnerabilitiesDevelopment of interoperable DApps, Enhanced security measuresGrowth in decentralized insurance, Expansion of prediction markets
CreditsLow fees, Trustlessness, High transaction speedChallenges with flash loans, Low liquidity, Regulatory hurdlesRisk of contract failures, Security concernsScalable blockchain solutions, Enhanced regulatory frameworksTrends towards democratized lending, Improvements in security protocols
Asset ManagementEnables systematic trading, Increases liquiditySecurity risks, Regulatory complianceMarket fluctuations, Technical challengesImplementation of automated risk management systems, Development of comprehensive policiesIncrease in NFT tokenization, Growth of prediction markets
DEXsDirect wallet trading, Liquidity rewardsSusceptibility to hacking, Regulatory challengesContract failures, Regulatory non-complianceUse of robust smart contracts, Adherence to regulatory standardsExpansion of NFT trading, Development of new liquidity models
DerivativesTrustless lending, High liquidityRegulatory and technical challengesContract failures, Market volatilityEfficient contract development, Market management techniquesInnovations in contract solutions, Enhanced security measures
Table 11. Cross-Industry convergence analysis: gaming industry interactions.
Table 11. Cross-Industry convergence analysis: gaming industry interactions.
Use CasesAdvantagesChallengesRisksSolutionsTrends
Play to EarnCommunity building, Blockchain integration, Earning potentialEngagement challenges, High entry costs, Cheating risksRegulatory uncertainties, Contract vulnerabilities, Market volatilityReducing costs, Enhancing engagement, Strengthening securityGrowth of decentralized gaming platforms, Rise of streaming services, Expansion of social gaming platforms
NFT GamingEnhanced decentralization, Better asset handling, Compatibility with different platformsNeed for better user knowledge, Risks from cyber-attacks, Focus on financial outcomesRegulatory challenges, Contract vulnerabilities, Market fluctuationsImproving security measures, Making games fun, Enhancing awareness and education on asset ownershipIntegration with cross-platform technologies, Development of metaverse environments, Growth of in-game economies
Digital CollectiblesUniqueness of NFTs, Facilitated trading mechanismsIssues with pricing models, Diversity of offerings, Need for better user understandingMarket uncertainties, Lack of clarity in NFT standardsIncreasing user awareness, Developing fair pricing modelsExpansion of virtual exchanges, Integration into gaming, Rise of digital museums
MetaverseExperiences in Multi-platform, Real-life brand integrationsTechnical complexity, High costs, ScalabilityPrivacy, Cybersecurity, Digital identity risksPrivacy solutions, Identity verification, Layered security solutionsCollaborative entertainment, Open metaverse standards
Decentralized MarketsTransparent and fair transactions, Reduced intermediary costs, Verifiable transactionsLiquidity issues, Regulatory challenges, Market fragmentationAsset devaluation, Legal risks, Fraudulent listingsCross-chain strategies, Verification mechanisms, Regulatory measuresMulti-chain markets, Asset pricing, Decentralized governance
DeFi-integrated GamingIntegration of staking, lending, and yield farming in games for new revenue streamsHigh complexity, Frequent updates, Smart contract dependencySmart contract vulnerabilities, Regulatory complianceSmart contract auditing, Diversified reward mechanismsInsurance protocols for gaming assets, User-friendly gaming interfaces
Table 12. Cross-industry convergence analysis: data analytics industry interactions.
Table 12. Cross-industry convergence analysis: data analytics industry interactions.
Use CasesAdvantagesChallengesRisksSolutionsTrends
Banking and paymentsDecentralized control, efficient data handling, real-time monitoring and trackingDeficit in specialized analytic tools, system complexity, frequent data inconsistenciesSecurity vulnerabilities, interoperability issues, scalability limitationsDevelopment of advanced analytic tools, improved technology management, promotion of analytics educationImproved customer insights, advanced credit modeling, enhanced risk monitoring, AI-driven fraud detection
Finance and tradingReal-time monitoring, reliable transaction tracking, efficient data processingShortage of specialized knowledge, high error rates, system complexitySecurity risks, fragmented tech stacks, scalability limitationsDevelopment of robust analytic tools, improved technology management, enhanced analytics educationAI-assisted product recommendations, advancements in predictive analytics
Player behavior analyticsPersonalized gaming experience, targeted promotions, increased engagementHigh data volume, lack of standardized behavior formatsMisuse of player profiles, algorithmic bias in engagement strategiesPlayer segmentation models, pattern recognition algorithmsHyper-personalization, gamification of analytics, real-time engagement prediction
In-game economy optimizationEfficient virtual asset pricing, controlled inflation/deflation, balanced gameplayDynamic in-game economies, high volume of microtransactionsMarket manipulation, pay-to-win backlashVirtual economy analytics, tokenomics monitoring systemsBlockchain-backed economies, NFT pricing strategies
Cheating and fraud detectionFair play enforcement, bot detection, competitive integrityReal-time detection latency, evasion by sophisticated cheatsFalse positives, risk of banning legitimate usersBehavioral anomaly detection, anti-bot ML classifiersReinforcement learning-based anti-cheat, cheat pattern intelligence databases
Retention and churn predictionExtended player lifetime, targeted marketing, revenue stabilizationData sparsity, noise in short user sessionsMisinterpreted churn indicators, over-engagement risksPredictive churn models, cohort-based behavior analysisReal-time churn dashboards, AI-driven re-engagement notifications
Table 13. Cross-industry analysis of blockchain adoption factors in DeFi, gaming, and data analytics.
Table 13. Cross-industry analysis of blockchain adoption factors in DeFi, gaming, and data analytics.
CategoryFactorDeFiGamingData Analytics
TechnologicalSmart contract exploitationYesYesYes
Cross-platform interoperabilityYesYesYes
NFT involvementNoYesNo
EconomicIncentives based on tokensYesYesNo
Focus on user engagementYesYesNo
Business optimizationNoNoYes
RegulatoryRegulatory complianceYesYesYes
Data transparencyYesNoYes
User privacyYesNoYes
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mohammed Abdul, S.S.; Shrestha, A.; Yong, J. Toward the Mass Adoption of Blockchain: Cross-Industry Insights from DeFi, Gaming, and Data Analytics. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2025, 9, 178. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc9070178

AMA Style

Mohammed Abdul SS, Shrestha A, Yong J. Toward the Mass Adoption of Blockchain: Cross-Industry Insights from DeFi, Gaming, and Data Analytics. Big Data and Cognitive Computing. 2025; 9(7):178. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc9070178

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mohammed Abdul, Shezon Saleem, Anup Shrestha, and Jianming Yong. 2025. "Toward the Mass Adoption of Blockchain: Cross-Industry Insights from DeFi, Gaming, and Data Analytics" Big Data and Cognitive Computing 9, no. 7: 178. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc9070178

APA Style

Mohammed Abdul, S. S., Shrestha, A., & Yong, J. (2025). Toward the Mass Adoption of Blockchain: Cross-Industry Insights from DeFi, Gaming, and Data Analytics. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 9(7), 178. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc9070178

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop