Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM67856
Volume:
10 |
10 |
Oct 2026
Pages:
1-15
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
Bachelor of Business Administration
Koneru Lakshmaiah Educational Foundation
Bachelor of Business Administration
Koneru Lakshmaiah Educational Foundation
While blockchain is increasingly touted as a solution to increase transparency and traceability in charitable giving, little is known about whether donors have confidence in such platforms to be used to give. This study investigates the relationship between perceived transparency/traceability and perceived trust, perceived security/immutability and perceived trust, perceived usefulness/ease of use and perceived trust, as well as perceived risk and perceived trust, and explores the relationship between perceived trust and willingness to use blockchain based donation platforms. The data were collected by a structured questionnaire on Google Forms and 14 responses were received, the majority of which were from students aged 18-20 years. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha, Pearson chi-square tests, one-way ANOVA, and linear regression were used to analyse the data. The one factor that did not show a significant difference among the women and men was donor trust or willingness to adopt, as indicated by the chi-square and ANOVA.The one factor that did not show a significant difference among the women and men was prior donation, blockchain awareness and donation frequency, respectively, determined by chi-square and ANOVA. A positive regression was found for perceived transparency (β = .63, p = .016), perceived security (β = .73, p = .003), perceived usefulness and ease of use (β = .69, p = .014) with donor trust, but not with perceived risk (β = −.06, p = .802). Donor trust was strongly associated with willingness to adopt (β = .79, p = < .001, R² = .63). Removing one inconsistent response did not improve the transparency and usefulness results, but did for the security and trust–adoption results. The results are exploratory and suggest areas for a larger study, because of the very small sample.
KEYWORDS
In this study, the authors investigated the relationships between perceptions of transparency and traceability, security and immutability, usefulness and ease of use, and risk with the level of trust in blockchain-based donation platforms, and whether trust is linked to willingness to use blockchain-based donation platforms. Transparency, security and usefulness were all positively related to trust, whereas perceived risk was not, and trust was highly correlated with willingness to adopt, in a small exploratory sample of 14 young respondents. There were no significant differences between characteristics of respondents or prior awareness of their respondents in terms of trust nor willingness. The security and trust–adoption results were the most reliable. The results indicate that donors' trust in blockchain is the key to understanding their intention to use it and can serve as a foundation for a more comprehensive confirmatory study.
1. Han, H., Wang, M., Yang, F., Jia, L., Sun, Y., & Zhang, R. (2025). A Layer-2 expansion shared sequencer model for blockchain scalability. Blockchain: Research and Applications. Elsevier. 2. Migliorini, S., Gambini, M., & Belussi, A. (2025). A blockchain-based platform for ensuring provenance and traceability of donations for cultural heritage. Blockchain: Research and Applications. Elsevier. 3. Wang, X., Wang, C., Yang, J., Chen, J., Chen, X., Li, G., Huang, B., & Peng, S. (2025). A blockchain-based trusted sharing method for railway transportation BIM data. Blockchain: Research and Applications. Elsevier. 4. Feng, P., Cao, W., Lu, S., Wang, Y., Xue, H., & Yang, R. (2025). ACOFuzz: An ant colony algorithm-based fuzzer for smart contracts. Blockchain: Research and Applications. Elsevier. 5. Notland, J. S., Li, J., & Nowostawski, M. (2025). An empirical study on deployment in cross-chain decentralised autonomous organisations. Blockchain: Research and Applications. Elsevier. 6. Liu, C. G., Bodorik, P., & Jutla, D. (2025). Automated mechanism to support trade transactions in smart contracts with upgrade and repair. Blockchain: Research and Applications. Elsevier. 7. Kositwattanarerk, W. (2025). Corrigendum to “Dynamic exponent market maker: Personalized portfolio manager and one pool to trade them all” [Corrigendum]. Blockchain: Research and Applications. Elsevier. 8. Hasnain, M., Ghani, I., Smith, D., Daud, A., & Jeong, S. R. (2025). Cybersecurity challenges in blockchain-based social media networks: A comprehensive review. Blockchain: Research and Applications. Elsevier. 9. Kositwattanarerk, W. (2025). Dynamic exponent market maker: Personalized portfolio manager and one pool to trade them all. Blockchain: Research and Applications. Elsevier. 10. Strnad, J. (2025). Economic DAO governance: A contestable control approach. Blockchain: Research and Applications. Elsevier.
Publication Date
10/12/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
1
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
9
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...