MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408891798 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2023.00969

The Impact of Cryptocurrency on Cybersecurity

2025· article· en· W4408891798 on OpenAlexaff
Terrence August, Duy Dao, Marius Florin Niculescu

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryptocurrencyComputer securityBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cryptocurrencies have prompted a shift away from classic security attacks toward ransomware-based extortion. To better understand the impact of cryptocurrencies on the cybersecurity landscape, we conduct a comparative analysis of cybersecurity metrics prior to and after the adoption of cryptocurrency using a series of connected software-use models in the presence of security externalities. In this framework, we endogenize the actions of both heterogeneous consumers and attackers, with entry of the latter being driven by both the size of the unpatched consumer population and, as a subset of it, the size of the ransom-paying consumer population. We first examine users’ adoption and patching behavior under both security scenarios. We explore how changes in attacker entry costs impact outcomes under both conventional and post-crypto ransomware threat landscapes. We show that ransomware scenarios may be more desirable than conventional ones when attacker entry costs are low, provided that the gains from entering with standard attacks under the ransomware scenario are not too high. However, under such scenarios, social welfare can increase under the same conditions that lead to larger ransoms being demanded and a higher expected total ransom being paid, which presents a conundrum to policymakers. We also examine the impact of market parameters associated with security losses from conventional attacks and residual losses when victims pay in ransomware attacks. This paper was accepted by Kay Giesecke, finance. Funding: This work was partially supported by Insung Research Grant of KUBS, the LG Yonam Foundation (of Korea), and an award from the Georgia Institute of Technology Center of International Business Education and Research as part of its funded research program. Supplemental Material: The online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.00969 .

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement ScienceSame topicBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityFrench-language works237,207