Accepting Cryptocurrency as a Form of Payment and Its Impact on Firm Value

Abstract

With the emergence of blockchain technology, many firms have approached cryptocurrency by allowing their customers to use it as a form of payment. However, little research has examined firms’ acceptance of cryptocurrency, the unique strategies that have been undertaken, or the impact on firm-level outcomes. Drawing on signaling theory, the author applies the event study methodology to learn how firm value (i.e., stock price) is impacted by firms’ announcement of cryptocurrency acceptance. The author finds that, on average, firms have lost 2.73% in firm value as a result of announcing cryptocurrency acceptance. However, a moderation analysis reveals that firms that have chosen to accept Bitcoin (as opposed to focusing exclusively on alternative cryptocurrencies) and firms that have approached cryptocurrency acceptance in more recent years experience financial gains. The geographical location (i.e., domestic or international) of cryptocurrency acceptance is not found to have a moderating impact.

Keywords

cryptocurrency acceptance Bitcoin blockchain event study firm value marketing–finance interface marketing strategy

Blockchain technology (Stallone et al. 2024) is altering the way consumers make financial transactions (Soilen and Benhayoun 2022), as cryptocurrency has emerged as a new store of value and medium of exchange. Since Bitcoin's introduction in 2009, the cryptocurrency market has grown tremendously, with a market capitalization exceeding $3 trillion (CoinMarketCap 2025). Over 562 million people own cryptocurrency (Helms 2024), with millions of daily transactions (Sangari and Mashatan 2024).

Cryptocurrency presents firms with an opportunity to achieve financial service innovation by leveraging blockchain technology to allow their customers to pay with this digital currency. Such innovation can reduce firms’ costs and address customers’ needs in unique ways. Firms such as Google, Ralph Lauren, and Chipotle have announced their acceptance of cryptocurrency as a payment method. By doing so, they can improve customer centricity as they enhance their interactions with customers (Stallone et al. 2024). Customers shopping in-store and online can benefit from a faster, more convenient, and more secure checkout process (Pasirayi and Fennell 2023) as they access their cryptocurrency through their existing mobile devices, while customers shopping through newer, immersive channels (e.g., metaverse) can purchase new (e.g., NFTs) and existing digital products seamlessly.

While some firms that have approached cryptocurrency acceptance (CA) have experienced positive outcomes (Deloitte 2021), this may not be the case for all firms; Expedia ended CA in 2018 with little explanation, and Dell ended CA in 2017 due to low demand (Whateley 2021). The market has continued to operate without an accurate understanding of the value of CA and how firms should approach CA strategically. Cryptocurrency research in marketing (see Table 1) has mostly focused on consumer-level outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, behavioral intention) rather than firm-level outcomes, although calls for such research have been raised (Hakkarainen and Colicev 2023).

Table 1.

Cryptocurrency Literature in Marketing.

Research Article	Description of Research	Findings
Caviggioli et al. (2020)	Studies five U.S. retailers that have decided to adopt Bitcoin as a payment method, and how this news affects social media activity.	Adoption news positively affects volume of tech-related tweets and the sentiment expressed in the tweets, but this decreases after a few days.
Kim (2021)	Studies the antecedents and consequences of consumers’ attitudes toward money.	Behavioral intention to use Bitcoin is significantly influenced by power prestige, retention time, and distrust.
Nazifi et al. (2021)	Examines the impact of offering cryptocurrency (as compensation following a failure) on customer satisfaction.	Crypto compensation is more effective than vouchers and cash, with consumer innovativeness and consumer choice moderating its effectiveness. Certain communication strategies of cryptocurrency's benefits, and familiar cryptocurrencies, can enhance recovery satisfaction, with compensation message framing moderating this relationship.
Wei and Dukes (2021)	Explores how stochastic bubbles (raised by speculation) are formed and accelerate cryptocurrency adoption/diffusion.	Reinforcing interactions between speculative investors and regular users of currency make it easier for bubbles to form, which may unravel under certain conditions.
Zhao and Zhang (2021)	Investigates how financial literacy and investment experience affect individuals’ cryptocurrency investment behavior.	While both financial literacy and investment experience are positively associated with investing in cryptocurrencies, the latter is more influential. Investment experience (especially risky asset holding) mediates the relationship between subjective financial knowledge and cryptocurrency investment behavior.
Ullah et al. (2022)	Examines the relationship between celebrity and government endorsements and Bitcoin price volatility.	Positive celebrity tweets and positive government sentiments toward Bitcoin are associated with positive changes in its prices
Loh et al. (2023)	Studies the antecedents of consumers’ resistance to pay with cryptocurrency in the sharing economy.	Complexity, skepticism, habit, and inertia are found to affect consumers’ resistance to pay with cryptocurrency.
Park and Banker (2023)	Looks at the effect of denominating prices in Bitcoin (rather than dollars) on purchasing behavior, and how the purchase of nonessential vice items is affected.	When prices are denominated in Bitcoin (rather than dollars), people are less inclined to purchase unhealthy vice food products while equally inclined to purchase virtue food products. This effect is due to consumers’ anticipation of greater regret.
Zhang (2023)	Provides a review of pricing issues related to cryptocurrency and discusses how its value is affected.	Cryptocurrency value depends on collective beliefs in the marketplace regarding its survival as a store of value and unit of exchange.
Babu et al. (2024)	Investigates the ability of sponsorships to foster trust and reduce barriers in cryptoassets.	Positive image of sponsorship influences favorability and interest, and trust of the sponsor's product which reduces psychological barriers to adoption.
Friederich et al. (2024)	Assesses how fear of missing out (FOMO) appeals affect consumers’ cryptocurrency investment decisions.	FOMO appeals influence consumers’ investment decisions, with affective processes as a mediator and impulsivity as a moderator. These appeals lead consumers to repeated investment decisions, even if prior losses have been incurred. Communication strategies can mitigate the effects of FOMO.
Gil-Cordero et al. (2024)	Applies technology acceptance models to examine which factors affect individuals’ intention to adopt the Coinbase Wallet in Spain.	Electronic word of mouth, web/app quality, and perceived risk affect trust in Coinbase Wallets; trust and performance expectations affect intention to use Coinbase Wallets.
Nyhus et al. (2024)	Explores how consumer gender and other factors affect cryptocurrency investment intentions.	Big Five personality traits and gender predict consumers’ cryptocurrency investment intentions, with gender's effect being mediated by financial overconfidence, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.
Sangari and Mashatan (2024)	Explores how characteristics of the current cryptocurrency landscape contribute to different factors associated with crypto payment rejection.	Ecosystem volatility and lack of structural assurances are factors that foster negative consumer perceptions of cryptocurrencies, leading to usage resistance.
Nim et al. (2025)	Examines the nature of customers’ payment method choices in virtual reality and metaverse retail settings.	Customers are more likely to choose digital wallets and credit cards over cryptocurrency across both virtual reality (VR) and non-VR retail settings. Security assurance as an educational nudge positively impacts customer willingness to choose cryptocurrency, with trust in cryptocurrency providers and perceived volatility of cryptocurrency as mediators.

To this end, the current research applies the event study methodology (Pasirayi and Fennell 2023) to assess the implications that CA has for firm value (i.e., stock price). Firms’ investors represent one of the first external stakeholder groups to assess the implications of innovations that firms announce to the public, and they either reward or penalize firms by buying or selling their stock (Sorescu, Warren, and Ertekin 2017). This feedback can provide strategic guidance to firms and allow managers to understand the conditions under which investors are receptive to CA. The current study's comprehensive dataset consists of all publicly traded U.S. firms that have announced CA, spanning from 2013 through 2023. The main effect of CA announcements on firm value is investigated, followed by a moderation analysis that explores the impact of unique firm decisions (i.e., which cryptocurrencies to accept, where to accept cryptocurrency, and when to accept cryptocurrency).

Conceptual Framework

With blockchain technology growing amid the fourth industrial revolution, which consists of additional new technologies such as the Internet of Things, virtual reality, and digital assistants (Krafft, Sajtos, and Haenlein 2020), CA has emerged as a new financial service innovation opportunity. Innovation is “the process of bringing new products and services to market” (Hauser et al. 2006), and its application to financial services can reduce firms’ costs, better address consumers’ needs, and allow firms to differentiate themselves (Nejad 2016, 2022). It can also enhance customer loyalty and advocacy, as consumers and their changing preferences are addressed (Nejad 2022; Sharma, Saboo, and Kumar 2018).

After innovations are conceptualized, tested, and refined, firms often announce them to the public, to share (previously) private information and generate interest. According to signaling theory, these announcements allow firms to convey credible information about unobservable product/service quality (Shin et al. 2024). One of firms’ initial external stakeholder groups to collect this information is their investors, who consistently monitor firms’ ability to effectively provide value to consumers (Bahmani, Bhatnagar, and Gauri 2022). Firms’ announcements reduce the informational asymmetry that investors experience (Bhagwat et al. 2020) by allowing them to better understand firms’ innovations and their implications for both consumers and firms themselves. In turn, investors’ perceptions may lead them to buy or sell stock, thereby affecting firm value (Bahmani, Bhatnagar, and Gauri 2022).

While firms explicitly reveal financial service innovation through their CA announcements, the implicit signal being transmitted to investors is firms’ strategic interest in blockchain technology. Although this technology was developed in 2009, firms gradually (and privately) took their time to assess how it could be properly leveraged. In the meantime, investors experienced informational asymmetry, as they waited to see if (and how) firms would recognize the value of this technology and ultimately adopt it. CA announcements therefore reduce this informational asymmetry and allow investors to more accurately evaluate blockchain technology (i.e., through a specific marketing application) and its accompanying characteristics—an evaluation that investors may shift onto the announcing firms (Caviggioli et al. 2020; Hou et al. 2018).

Firms’ CA announcements may be positively received by investors for a few reasons. First, investors may be receptive to the fact that firms can reach new customers, especially those with an innovative mindset who enjoy trying new things and tolerate uncertainty (Nazifi et al. 2021). This includes consumers who are becoming digitally connected with the metaverse (Hakkarainen and Colicev 2023) and are increasing the need for cryptocurrency as a transactional infrastructure for the purchase of virtual assets (e.g., property, apparel, NFTs) (Ooi et al. 2023). Over 80% of metaverse consumers pay primarily with cryptocurrency (Nim et al. 2025). Second, investors may recognize the cost savings that CA can produce for firms, which can also be passed down to consumers. Since cryptocurrency transactions are verified on the blockchain through predefined decentralized protocols, intermediaries (e.g., credit card companies, banks) are cut out (Komulainen and Natti 2023), which greatly reduces fees. Processing fees for credit cards can reach 3.5% (Forbes 2024), which can be reduced by 40% to 80% when cryptocurrency is used instead (Hakkarainen and Colicev 2023). Consumers may feel empowered when experiencing fewer fees (Nejad 2022), thus enhancing their usage likelihood (Gleim and Stevens 2021). Third, engagement with the blockchain may produce reputational benefits for firms, which investors value. Caviggioli et al. (2020) found that firms that added Bitcoin as a payment option experienced increases in volume (and positivity) of online word of mouth, as consumers perceive these firms as innovative. This could improve brand image and lead to enhanced sales, loyalty, and market share (Caviggioli et al. 2020). Finally, consumers may spend more when using cryptocurrency, which could further enhance firms’ cash flows. Noncash payment methods have been found to reduce consumers’ pain of payment, which can improve the shopping experience as consumers focus on the benefits afforded to them (Nim et al. 2025; Xu, Ghose, and Xiao 2023). In summary,

H_1a: CA announcements have an overall positive impact on firm value.

At the same time, investors may respond negatively to CA announcements. First, investors may worry that consumers may resist cryptocurrency adoption due to skepticism (i.e., doubting the benefits), complexity (i.e., usage difficulty), and habit (i.e., preferring existing payment options) (Loh et al. 2023). Effective firm-driven communication is needed to overcome these barriers (Babu et al. 2024), in addition to education regarding how to obtain cryptocurrency—an unfamiliar process that could result in errors (Ooi et al. 2023). Second, due to blockchain decentralization, regulation is limited and assurances cannot be provided. Consumers are not safeguarded if they make transactional mistakes or forget their blockchain passwords (Hakkarainen and Colicev 2023), which has cost them billions (Soilen and Benhayoun 2022). Malicious events (e.g., hacker theft) have also contributed to these losses (Komulainen and Natti 2023). The associated perceived risks may negatively affect consumers’ trust perceptions and likelihood of engaging with cryptocurrency (Babu et al. 2024; Sangari and Mashatan 2024; Zhao and Zhang 2021). Finally, cryptocurrency values are volatile (Belk, Humayun, and Brouard 2022), since demand factors affect them (Zhang 2023). This volatility poses two issues for firms. The first relates to the fact that the cryptocurrency market has been dominated by opportunists who seek cryptocurrency as a get-rich-quick opportunity (Anaza et al. 2022) rather than an alternative medium of exchange (Nazifi et al. 2021; Soilen and Benhayoun 2022). These speculators greatly impact cryptocurrency values (Wei and Dukes 2021), which could damage other individuals’ likelihood of regularly using cryptocurrency as a form of payment (Sangari and Mashatan 2024). The second issue relates to the fact that after customers’ cryptocurrency transactions take place, firms must monitor exchange rates and decide whether to exchange cryptocurrency for dollars right away (Wei and Dukes 2021) or retain it as a longer-term investment. Firms must recalculate prices regularly, which could become complicated and costly (Mkedder and Das 2024), thereby complicating investors’ expectations of positive cash flows. Thus,

H_1b: CA announcements have an overall negative impact on firm value.

Although CA is expected to affect firm value, firms’ strategies do not follow a uniform path. As these strategies are revealed through firms’ CA announcements, additional signaling cues may lead investors to scrutinize firms for suboptimal decisions, thereby producing varying financial effects (Bhagwat et al. 2020). Next, these cues are explored more specifically, to understand how they may moderate firm value. The conceptual model is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Conceptual Model.

Cryptocurrency Type

A key decision relates to which types of cryptocurrency firms will accept, thereby signaling which ones they believe consumers are more likely to engage with. Currently, there are over 9,000 cryptocurrencies available (Statista 2024). Firms have taken one of three possible approaches thus far. Firms such as AT&T have chosen to exclusively accept Bitcoin (the original cryptocurrency), Fleetcor (now Corpay) has decided to focus exclusively on newer alternative cryptocurrencies (e.g., XRP), and AutoNation has chosen to accept both Bitcoin and alternative cryptocurrencies.

Although cryptocurrencies do not differ much in terms of volatility, they differ greatly in price (Flitter 2022). For example, at the time of this writing, one Bitcoin costs over $100,000, while alternatives such as Dogecoin cost less than $.50 (CoinMarketCap 2025). Because of this, firms may perceive alternative cryptocurrencies as more accessible, which could increase usage. However, cryptocurrency exchanges allow consumers to purchase any fraction of a cryptocurrency they desire (e.g., .05 units of Ether, equivalent to $100). Furthermore, when consumers connect their cryptocurrency wallets, product/service prices are displayed in fractional values (i.e., a $100 item is listed as .05 Ether). Therefore, consumers are unlikely to experience true accessibility concerns.

Since the primary difference between cryptocurrencies (i.e., price) is resolved through fractional purchasing, firms that avoid Bitcoin and decide to accept only alternative cryptocurrencies may be penalized by investors. First, alternative cryptocurrencies have made the market larger and more complex, which can complicate consumer adoption (Zhao and Zhang 2021). In addition, the increasing number of cryptocurrencies has diverted from the possibility of having an ideal, universal option that could better enrich consumers’ experiences (Mkedder and Das 2024). Second, consumer research has long posited that familiarity (i.e., the amount of exposure an individual has had to a stimulus) positively affects attitudes and preferences and allows consumers to better handle new product information (Nazifi et al. 2021). Consumers’ higher levels of familiarity with Bitcoin can aid their perceptions of its value and use cases, enhance perceptions of trustworthiness, and increase satisfaction (Nazifi et al. 2021), leading to positive word of mouth and repurchase—drivers of future cash flow that investors value (Luo, Homburg, and Wieseke 2010). In addition, Bitcoin has consistently remained the most popular cryptocurrency since its inception in 2009 (Zhang 2023), presenting an uphill battle for less popular alternatives.

In summary, avoiding Bitcoin and focusing exclusively on alternative cryptocurrencies may be a poor choice for firms, as this could signal a lack of properly understanding factors that guide consumers’ cryptocurrency preferences. As a result, these firms may witness negative financial effects as compared with firms that accept both Bitcoin and alternative cryptocurrencies. However, firms that focus exclusively on Bitcoin are expected to witness similar financial effects as firms that accept both Bitcoin and alternative cryptocurrencies, as offering both options is not likely to have negative consumer effects. Thus,

H_2a: Firms that focus exclusively on alternative cryptocurrencies (as compared with firms that accept both Bitcoin and alternative cryptocurrencies) witness a negative moderating impact on firm value.

H_2b: Firms that focus exclusively on Bitcoin (as compared with firms that accept both Bitcoin and alternative cryptocurrencies) do not witness a moderating impact on firm value.

Acceptance Location

Next, firms have decided where to accept cryptocurrency. While many firms have decided to accept it primarily in the United States, nearly 20% have focused on other countries. For example, Pizza Hut announced CA in Venezuela, Burger King did so in Russia, and McDonald's did so in El Salvador. After all, cryptocurrency is a global currency that can facilitate cross-border transactions (Soilen and Benhayoun 2022).

By revealing this information, firms signal where they believe CA will initially be most beneficial and well-received. Investors may reward CA outside of the United States for a few reasons. First, non-Western financial markets are growing quickly, offering firms more robust financial returns (Nejad 2022). Such markets are highly interested in digital payment systems, with the average nation's share of cash transactions expected to decrease from 29% to just 17% by 2026 (Anaza et al. 2022). Finland is even planning to become completely cashless (Anaza et al. 2022), while El Salvador and the Central African Republic have adopted cryptocurrency as their national currency (Belk, Humayun, and Brouard 2022; Park and Banker 2023). Second, investors are becoming increasingly interested in developing economies due to an absence of legacy systems and young, growing populations (Nejad 2022). Some even have favorable government policies toward firms aiming to assist unbanked and underbanked consumers (Nejad 2016, 2022). Therefore,

H₃: Choosing to accept cryptocurrency in countries outside of the United States positively moderates the impact of CA announcements on firm value.

Acceptance Timing

Finally, firms have decided when to begin CA. Overstock announced CA as early as 2013, while Honda waited until 2023 to do so. Through their CA announcements, firms implicitly signal their belief in when an entry into the cryptocurrency market will be most beneficial.

Firms that enter early can enjoy expansion effects and resulting consumer demand, with investors rewarding them as they establish first-mover advantages (Geyskens, Gielens, and Dekimpe 2002). These firms mainly target innovators (Babu et al. 2024), who may spread positive word of mouth and attract more consumers. However, following this, firms may experience high (and unexpected) time and monetary costs, as new technologies such as blockchain present a challenging learning curve (Geyskens, Gielens, and Dekimpe 2002) and the potential for failure (Komulainen and Natti 2023). Moreover, these firms must work to boost consumer adoption through marketing activities (e.g., advertising, sales promotion) whose effectiveness can take time to develop (Nejad 2016). In summary, firms in early stages of the market may experience positive, then negative, financial effects.

However, firms that enter later may again reap rewards, for two reasons. First, consumers’ benefit of adopting cryptocurrency increases as the number of firms accepting cryptocurrency rises (Wei and Dukes 2021), which could lead to a larger base of adopting consumers and greater usage. Thus, firms that announce CA in later periods of time are presented with more experienced consumers. Second, due to social pressures, consumers who hesitate to adopt cryptocurrency may decide to adopt it only after receiving approval from their peers (Kim 2021). Since individuals assess whether certain behaviors are socially and culturally approved (Kim 2021), they may wait for others to validate cryptocurrency before adopting it themselves.

In summary, investors’ response to CA is expected to follow a U-shaped pattern, as the benefits of CA shift over time.

H₄: Firms’ cryptocurrency acceptance timing has a nonlinear (U-shaped) moderating effect on firm value.

Methodology

Collection of Data

Business news databases and other newswire services were used to search for and collect all CA announcements made by publicly traded U.S. firms (consisting of 4,000+ firms). Verification of whether any announcements were made in close time proximity to major firm events (e.g., quarterly earnings announcements, leadership changes) was conducted, since such events can produce confounding financial effects (Sorescu, Warren, and Ertekin 2017). None were found. The final dataset consists of 50 CA announcements occurring between 2013 and 2023—a sample size similar to prior event studies (e.g., Boyd, Chandy, and Cunha 2010).

Event Study Methodology

To assess the impact of CA announcements on firm value (i.e., stock price), this research incorporates an event study (Pasirayi and Fennell 2023). According to financial theory, the current price of a firm's stock reflects investors’ expectations regarding the discounted value of all future flows of cash that are expected to be amassed by the firm (Bahmani, Bhatnagar, and Gauri 2022), and reflects all information that is currently available. Since CA announcements reveal new information to the public on the day they are made (i.e., the event day), investors collect this information, recalibrate their perceptions of firms and their activities, and respond by buying or selling stock. This process can result in a novel effect on firms’ stock prices (i.e., abnormal return), which is commonly estimated with the market-adjusted model (Sorescu, Warren, and Ertekin 2017). Since an event's effects may manifest before the event day due to informational leakage, or afterwards due to media coverage delays or persistence effects (Bahmani, Bhatnagar, and Gauri 2022), abnormal returns are typically aggregated over several days (an event window) and termed cumulative abnormal return (CAR). CAR is estimated across a variety of event windows, with the most statistically significant window selected for analysis (Sorescu, Warren, and Ertekin 2017).

Independent and Control Variables

Values for several independent variables were assigned. First, AltCryptos (1 = a firm mentions that it is exclusively accepting cryptocurrencies that serve as alternatives to Bitcoin) and OnlyBitcoin (1 = a firm mentions that it is exclusively accepting Bitcoin) were created. Next, NonUSA (1 = a firm mentions that it is accepting cryptocurrency in a specific country outside of the United States) was developed. Finally, Timing (an index variable beginning with 1) tracks CA announcements chronologically. A quadratic term, Timing², was also created.

Several control variables were developed as well. FirmSize is calculated as the natural log of a firm's assets (Sorescu, Warren, and Ertekin 2017). Volatility represents the 30-day value (in %) of the cryptocurrency market's volatility (Newhedge 2025) at the time of a firm's CA announcement. CompetitorCA (a dummy variable) identifies whether a competitor within a firm's Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) industry has already announced CA. R&D is measured as the average five-year ratio of research and development expense to sales revenue for a firm's SIC industry (Hanson and Yun 2018). Advertising is estimated as the average five-year ratio of advertising expense to sales revenue for a firm's SIC industry (Bahmani, Bhatnagar, and Gauri 2022). Financial data were gathered from Compustat and the Center for Research in Security Prices database. Correlations and descriptive statistics are detailed in Table 2.

Table 2.

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics.

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. AltCryptos	.18	.38	1
2. BitcoinOnly	.42	.49	−.29	1
3. NonUSA	.20	.40	−.23	.28	1
4. Timing	25.50	14.57	.21	−.59	−.04	1
5. FirmSize	9.20	1.87	.10	−.02	.14	.32	1
6. Volatility	3.74	1.64	.03	.22	.02	−.40	−.36	1
7. CompetitorCA	.34	.47	−.11	−.09	.06	.28	.32	−.19	1
8. R&D	.01	.03	.07	.02	−.24	.19	.26	−.12	.20	1
9. Advertising	.01	.00	−.07	−.04	−.06	−.07	−.31	.16	.27	.00	1

Accounting for Endogeneity

As this dataset consists of firms that have engaged in a similar type of activity, selection bias may be present (Pasirayi and Fennell 2023). In other words, unobserved factors may implicitly impact a firm's propensity to announce CA. This would signify systematic differences between announcing and nonannouncing firms and confound analyses of abnormal returns (Sorescu, Warren, and Ertekin 2017). Therefore, the Heckman procedure was employed (Bhagwat et al. 2020), which is explained in Web Appendix A. This procedure models a firm's likelihood of announcing CA and produces the inverse Mills ratio, which controls for selection bias. The current study's main model includes this variable and the independent and control variables to assess their joint impact on firm i's abnormal return as a result of CA announcement j, as follows:

\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} {CAR}_{j, i} = & β_{0} + β_{1} {AltCryptos}_{j, i} + β_{2} {BitcoinOnly}_{j, i} \\ + β_{3} {NonUSA}_{j, i} + β_{4} {Timing}_{j, i} + β_{5} {Timing}_{j, i}^{2} \\ + β_{6} {FirmSize}_{i} + β_{7} {Volatility}_{i} + β_{8} {CompetitorCA}_{j, i} \\ + β_{9} {R & D}_{i} + β_{10} {Advertising}_{i} \\ + β_{11} {InverseMills}_{i} + ε_{1} . \end{aligned} \end{aligned} (1)

(1)

Results

Event Study and Main Model

CAR was calculated over several event windows (see Table 3). Following Sorescu, Warren, and Ertekin (2017), the most statistically significant event window was selected for subsequent analysis, which spans one day before the event day through two days after [i.e., (−1, 2)]. This window reveals that, on average, firms have experienced a 2.73% decrease in firm value from announcing CA (t = −2.95, p = .004), in support of H_1b. However, while 60% of the CA announcements in the dataset produced negative firm value effects, the remainder (40%) resulted in positive ones. Firms that made these announcements experienced, on average, a 2.01% increase in firm value. This stresses the importance of moderation analysis (i.e., the main model), which uncovers the strategic factors that lead certain firms to experience financial gains rather than losses.

Table 3.

Results of the Event Study.

Event Window	CAR	t-Statistic
(−2, 0)	.22%	.28 (p = .778)
(−1, 0)	−.42%	−.91 (p = .368)
0	−.00%	−.01 (p = .995)
(0, 1)	−1.21%	−2.15 (p = .036)
(0, 2)	−2.31%	−2.53 (p = .014)
(−1, 1)	−1.63%	−2.61 (p = .011)
(−1, 2)	−2.73%	−2.95 (p = .004)
(−2, 1)	−.99%	−1.18 (p = .241)
(−2, 2)	−2.08%	−1.83 (p = .073)

Next, Equation 1 was estimated to assess H_2a through H₄. The model fit is statistically significant (F = 3.45, p = .002), and multicollinearity tests reveal no concerns (variance inflation factors < 2). The results are provided in the third column of Table 4, with control-free evidence available in the second column. In support of H_2a, AltCryptos has a significant, negative moderating impact on firm value (t = −2.77, p = .008). Investors penalize firms for exclusively focusing on alternative cryptocurrencies and not accepting Bitcoin. Regarding H_2b, BitcoinOnly does not have a significant moderating impact on firm value (t = −.95, p = .350). Thus, firms that exclusively focus on Bitcoin are not treated differently than firms that accept both Bitcoin and alternative cryptocurrencies. In evaluation of H₃, NonUSA is not found to have a significant moderating impact on firm value (t = −.08, p = .938). This suggests that investors are not concerned with whether firms choose to accept cryptocurrency domestically or in specific countries outside of the United States. Finally, in support of H₄, the timing of firms’ CA has a nonlinear impact on firm value. With Timing carrying a significant negative coefficient (t = −3.40, p = .001) and Timing² carrying a significant positive coefficient (t = 3.04, p = .004), a U-shaped relationship exists between announcement timing and firm value. In other words, investors’ response to firms’ CA began positive, then declined before improving again in recent years.

Table 4.

Results of Main Model.

Variable	Control-Free Model Estimate (SE)	Control-Rich Model Estimate (SE)
Intercept	.063 (.034)	−.045 (.051)
Intercept	p = .071	p = .381
AltCryptos	−.051 (.023)	−.046 (.016)
AltCryptos	p = .034	p = .008
BitcoinOnly	−.025 (.022)	−.015 (.016)
BitcoinOnly	p = .272	p = .350
NonUSA	.020 (.022)	−.001 (.016)
NonUSA	p = .362	p = .938
Timing	−.006 (.002)	−.006 (.001)
Timing	p = .014	p = .001
Timing²	.000 (.000)	.000 (.000)
Timing²	p = .031	p = .004
FirmSize	—	.010 (.004)
FirmSize	—	p = .017
Volatility	—	.008 (.004)
Volatility	—	p = .039
CompetitorCA	—	.016 (.015)
CompetitorCA	—	p = .287
R&D	—	−.325 (.199)
R&D	—	p = .111
Advertising	—	−2.303 (.896)
Advertising	—	p = .014
InverseMills	—	.013 (.007)
InverseMills	—	p = .080
F-statistic	3.032 (p = .019)	3.456 (p = .002)
R-squared (adj. R-squared)	.256 (.171)	.500 (.355)

Robustness Checks and Additional Analyses

The results are robust against outliers and across alternative event study calculation methods. Also, additional analyses revealed that (1) the effects of AltCryptos and Timing are unique and do not interact with each other, and (2) investors’ reactions to CA announcements are not industry dependent. Further details are available in Web Appendix B.

Discussion

With cryptocurrency promising consumers several benefits, many firms have approached CA. The current study's findings suggest that most firms have in fact been penalized by their investors for doing so. However, under certain conditions, firms are rewarded for CA. Next, the implications of this research and several avenues for future research are discussed.

Implications

From a theoretical perspective, this research supports signaling theory, as CA announcements stimulate significant reactions from firms’ investors. While these announcements explicitly reveal financial service innovation that firms have engaged in, they also implicitly signal firms’ strategic interest in blockchain technology. Thus, for the first time, investors are able to price their perceptions of both CA and blockchain technology into the market—perceptions that this event study reveals to be negative, on average.

Nevertheless, support is found for the notion that firms’ CA announcements carry multiple signaling cues, which investors closely assess to form more precise perceptions (Bhagwat et al. 2020) and treat firms differently based on the strategies they undertake. From a managerial perspective, this research presents a cautionary yet optimistic tale for firms. The moderation analysis reveals specific factors that lead investors to reward certain firms over others. First, it is found that the approach of exclusively accepting newer, alternative cryptocurrencies (e.g., Ether, Dogecoin) is negatively received by investors. In comparison, firms that accept Bitcoin (whether alone or in unison with alternative cryptocurrencies), the world's most popular cryptocurrency, experience firm value gains as a result. Second, the strategy of accepting cryptocurrency in countries outside of the United States is found to have no differential effect than accepting it domestically. This suggests that the firm value impact of CA is not improved or worsened by location strategy. Finally, as a U-shaped relationship between acceptance timing and firm value is discovered, firms can rest assured that the market is still ripe with opportunity. After an initially positive and then negative reception, in recent years, investors have again warmed up to CA and are willing to reward firms.

Avenues for Future Research

Several important avenues for future research are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5.

Future Research Avenues.

Topic	Research Avenue
Loyalty programs and financial incentives	Firms such as Walmart have recently offered the cryptocurrency equivalent of 4% cash back for customers’ in-store purchases (Hakkarainen and Colicev 2023). Unique loyalty programs and financial incentives may motivate consumers to use cryptocurrency (Sangari and Mashatan 2024) and could impact firms’ objectives and performance.
Firms’ virtual currencies	Certain firms have chosen to create their own virtual currencies (Scheidegger and Raghubir 2022; Vollero, Sardanelli, and Manoli 2025), which can only be used by their customers (e.g., Amazon Coins, Epic Games's V-Bucks), unlike cryptocurrency, which is universal. This strategy could have unique impacts on customer loyalty (Gleim and Stevens 2021) and, in turn, firm performance.
Shifting reactions to cryptocurrency and CA	Investors’ (and consumers’) reactions to CA could shift over time. For example, the regulatory environment surrounding cryptocurrency was largely stagnant since the Internal Revenue Service began classifying cryptocurrency as a taxable digital asset in 2014. However, in 2025, U.S. lawmakers began to pass new legislation aimed at making cryptocurrency more accessible and safer—but it is not without its critics (Nam 2025).
Other international factors	Researchers could explore the impact of CA announcements made by non-U.S. firms, to understand whether cultural or other factors affect investors’ and consumers’ perceptions. In addition, firms that engage in cross-listing (e.g., firms listed on both domestic and international stock exchanges) may witness unique effects.

Footnotes

Editor

Beth Fossen

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Navid Bahmani

References

Anaza

Nwamaka A.

Bennett

Delancy H.S.

Andonova

Yana

Anaza

Emeka

(2022), “DPS 2.0: On the Road to a Cashless Society,” Marketing Letters, 33, 693–704.

Babu

Mujahid Mohiuddin

Bason

Tom

Porreca

Rocco

Pettratos

Pythagoras

Akter

Shahriar

(2024), “Fostering Trust and Overcoming Psychological Resistance Towards Cryptocurrencies and Cryptoassets,” Psychology & Marketing, 41 (1), 45–68.

Bahmani

Navid

Bhatnagar

Amit

Gauri

Dinesh

(2022), “Hey, Alexa! What Attributes of Skills Affect Firm Value?” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50, 1219–35.

Belk

Russell

Humayun

Mariam

Brouard

Myriam

(2022), “Money, Possessions, and Ownership in the Metaverse: NFTs, Cryptocurrencies, Web3 and Wild Markets,” Journal of Business Research, 153, 198–205.

Bhagwat

Yashoda

Warren

Nooshin L.

Beck

Joshua T.

Watson IV

George F.

(2020), “Corporate Sociopolitical Activism and Firm Value,” Journal of Marketing, 84 (5), 1–21.

Boyd

D. Eric

Chandy

Rajesh K.

Cunha

Marcus

Jr. (2010), “When Do Chief Marketing Officers Affect Firm Value? A Customer Power Explanation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (6), 1162–76.

Caviggioli

Federico

Lamberti

Lucio

Landoni

Paolo

Meola

Paolo

(2020), “Technology Adoption News and Corporate Reputation: Sentiment Analysis About the Introduction of Bitcoin,” Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29 (7), 877–97.

CoinMarketCap (2025), “Today’s Cryptocurrency Prices by Market Cap,” (accessed July 24, 2025), https://coinmarketcap.com/.

Deloitte (2021), “Merchants Getting Ready for Crypto,” report (accessed February 1, 2025), https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/technology/us-cons-merchant-getting-ready-for-crypto.pdf.

10.

Flitter

Emily

(2022), “It’s Hard to Tell When the Crypto Bubble Will Burst, or If There Is One,” New York Times (January 27), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/27/business/crypto-price-bubble.html.

11.

Forbes (2024), “Credit Card Processing Fees [2024 Guide],” (accessed February 1, 2025), https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/credit-card-processing-fees/.

12.

Friederich

Felix

Meyer

Jan-Hinrich

Matute

Jorge

Palau-Saumell

Ramon

(2024), “CRYPTO-MANIA: How Fear-of-Missing-Out Drives Consumers’ (Risky) Investment Decisions,” Psychology & Marketing, 41 (1), 102–17.

13.

Geyskens

Inge

Gielens

Katrijn

Dekimpe

Marnik G.

(2002), “The Market Valuation of Internet Channel Additions,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (2), 102–19.

14.

Gil-Cordero

Eloy

Ledesma-Chaves

Pablo

Sanchez

Rocio Arteaga

Mariano

Ari Melo

(2024), “Crypto-Wallets Revolution! Key Factors Driving Behavioral Intention to Adopt the Coinbase Wallet Using Mixed PLS-SEM/fsQCA Methodology in the Spanish Environment,” International Journal of Bank Marketing, 42 (3), 536–70.

15.

Gleim

Mark R.

Stevens

Jennifer L.

(2021), “Blockchain: A Game Changer for Marketers?” Marketing Letters, 32, 123–128.

16.

Hakkarainen

Tuuli

Colicev

Anatoli

(2023), “Blockchain-Enabled Advances (BEAs): Implications for Consumers and Brands,” Journal of Business Research, 160, 113763.

17.

Hanson

Nicole

Yun

Wonjoo

(2018), “Should ‘Big Food’ Companies Introduce Healthier Options? The Effect of New Product Announcements on Shareholder Value,” Marketing Letters, 29 (1), 1–12.

18.

Helms

Kevin

(2024), “Global Crypto Ownership Reaches 562 Million: 6.8% of World Population Now Own and Use Digital Currencies,” Bitcoin.com (May 31), https://news.bitcoin.com/global-crypto-ownership-reaches-562-million-6-8-of-world-population-now-own-and-use-digital-currencies/.

19.

Hou

Yong

Velthof

Gerard L.

Case

Sean D.C.

Oelofse

Myles

Grignani

Carlo C.

Balsari

Paolo

Zavattaro

Laura

Gioelli

Fabrizio Stefano

Bernal

Maria Pilar

Fangueiro

David Paulo

Trindade

Henrique Manuel

Jensen

Lars Stoumann

Oenema

Oene

(2018), “Stakeholder Perceptions of Manure Treatment Technologies in Denmark, Italy, The Netherlands, and Spain,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 1620–30.

20.

Kim

Minseong

(2021), “A Psychological Approach to Bitcoin Usage Behavior in the Era of COVID-19: Focusing on the Role of Attitudes Toward Money,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 62, 102606.

21.

Komulainen

Ruey

Natti

Satu

(2023), “Barriers to Blockchain Adoption: Empirical Observations from Securities Services Value Network,” Journal of Business Research, 159, 113714.

22.

Krafft

Manfred

Sajtos

Laszlo

Haenlein

Michael

(2020), “Challenges and Opportunities for Marketing Scholars in Times of the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 51, 1–8.

23.

Loh

Xiu-Ming

Lee

Voon-Hsien

Leong

Lai-Ying

Eugene Cheng-Xi

Cham

Tat-Huei

Tang

Yun-Chia

Hew

Jun-Jie

(2023), “Understanding Consumers’ Resistance to Pay with Cryptocurrency in the Sharing Economy: A Hybrid SEM-fsQCA Approach,” Journal of Business Research, 159, 113726.

24.

Luo

Xueming

Homburg

Christian

Wieseke

Jan

(2010), “Customer Satisfaction, Analyst Stock Recommendations, and Firm Value,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (6), 1041–58.

25.

Mkedder

Nadjim

Das

Manish

(2024), “Metaverse Integration Challenges: An In-Depth ISM and MICMAC Analysis,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 77, 103684.

26.

Nam

Rafael

(2025), “A ‘Crypto Week’ Win: Congress Passes 1^st Major Crypto Legislation in the U.S.,” NPR (July 17), https://www.npr.org/2025/07/17/nx-s1-5451413/crypto-week-stablecoin-genius-act-trump.

27.

Nazifi

Amin

Murdy

Samantha

Marder

Ben

Gathke

Jana

Shabani

Bardia

(2021), “A Bit(Coin) of Happiness After a Failure: An Empirical Examination of the Effectiveness of Cryptocurrencies as an Innovative Recovery Tool,” Journal of Business Research, 124, 494–505.

28.

Nejad

Mohammad G.

(2016), “Research on Financial Services Innovations,” International Journal of Bank Marketing, 34 (7), 1042–68.

29.

Nejad

Mohammad G.

(2022), “Research on Financial Innovations: An Interdisciplinary Review,” International Journal of Bank Marketing, 40 (3), 578–612.

30.

Newhedge (2025), “Bitcoin Historic Volatility,” (accessed May 7, 2025), https://newhedge.io/bitcoin/volatility-index.

31.

Nim

Nandini

Jeong

Yoonsun

Martinez

Jessica Felix

Smith

Leah

(2025), “Retailing in Metaverse: Cryptocurrency and Consumer Payment Choices in Virtual Reality Environments,” Journal of Retailing (published online March 13), 10.1016/j.jretai.2025.03.001.

32.

Nyhus

Ellen Katrine

Frank

Darius-Aurel

Krol

Michal Krzysztof

Otterbring

Tobias

(2024), “Crypto Cravings: Gender Differences in Crypto Investment Intentions and the Mediating Roles of Financial Overconfidence and Personality,” Psychology & Marketing, 41 (3), 447–64.

33.

Ooi

Keng-Boon

Tan

Garry Wei-Han

Eugene Cheng-Xi

Cham

Tat-Huei

Dwivedi

Yogesh K.

Dwivedi

Rohita

Hughes

Laurie

Kar

Arpan Kumar

Loh

Xiu-Ming

Mogaji

Emmanuel

Phau

Ian

Sharma

Anshuman

(2023), “Banking in the Metaverse: A New Frontier for Financial Institutions,” International Journal of Bank Marketing, 41 (7), 1829–46.

34.

Park

Joowon

Banker

Sachin

(2023), “Bitcoin-Denominated Prices Can Reduce Preference for Vice Products,” Marketing Letters, 34, 309–19.

35.

Pasirayi

Simbarashe

Fennell

Patrick B.

(2023), “The Effect of Mobile Payments on Retailer Firm Value: The Moderating Role of Promotions, Customer Segment, and Rollout Strategy,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 58 (1), 90–107.

36.

Sangari

Mohamad Sadegh

Mashatan

Atefeh

(2024), “What is Driving Consumer Resistance to Crypto-Payment? A Multianalytical Investigation,” Psychology & Marketing, 41, 575–91.

37.

Scheidegger

Gianluca

Raghubir

Priya

(2022), “Virtual Currencies: Different Schemes and Research Opportunities,” Marketing Letters, 33, 351–60.

38.

Sharma

Amalesh

Saboo

Alok R.

Kumar

(2018), “Investigating the Influence of Characteristics of the New Product Introduction Process on Firm Value: The Case of the Pharmaceutical Industry,” Journal of Marketing, 82, 66–85.

39.

Shin

Soo Il

Kim

Joo Baek

Hall

Dianne

Lang

Teresa

Yang

Sung-Byung

(2024), “Extracting Informational Cues Between Initial Coin Offering Projects and the Public,” Psychology & Marketing, 41 (6), 1271–88.

40.

Soilen

Klaus Solberg

Benhayoun

Lamiae

(2022), “Household Acceptance of Central Bank Digital Currency: The Role of Institutional Trust,” International Journal of Bank Marketing, 40 (1), 172–96.

41.

Sorescu

Alina

Warren

Nooshin L.

Ertekin

Larisa

(2017), “Event Study Methodology in the Marketing Literature: An Overview,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 186–207.

42.

Stallone

Valerio

Wetzels

Martin

Mahr

Dominik

Klaas

Michael

(2024), “Enhancing Digital Advertising with Blockchain Technology,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 59 (1), 76–98.

43.

Statista (2024), “Number of Cryptocurrencies Worldwide from 2013 to June 2024,” (accessed February 4, 2025), https://www.statista.com/statistics/863917/number-crypto-coins-tokens/.

44.

Ullah

Subhan

Attah-Boakye

Rexford

Adams

Kweku

Zaefarian

Ghasem

(2022), “Assessing the Influence of Celebrity and Government Endorsements on Bitcoin’s Price Volatility,” Journal of Business Research, 145, 229–39.

45.

Vollero

Agostino

Sardanelli

Domenico

Manoli

Argyro Elisavet

(2025), “Exploring the Influence of Football Fan Tokens on Engagement: A Study on Fans’ Meaning, Team Brand Identification, and Cocreation Mechanisms,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 60 (4), 421–35.

46.

Wei

Yanhao

Dukes

Anthony

(2021), “Cryptocurrency Adoption with Speculative Price Bubbles,” Marketing Science, 40 (2), 241–60.

47.

Whateley

Dan

(2021), “Michael Dell Says Blockchain Technology Is ‘Underrated’,” Business Insider (October 9), https://www.businessinsider.com/michael-dell-blockchain-is-underrated-but-will-pass-on-bitcoin-2021-10.

48.

Yuqian

Ghose

Anindya

Xiao

Binqing

(2023), “Mobile Payment Adoption: An Empirical Investigation of Alipay,” Information Systems Research, 35 (2), 807–28.

49.

Zhang

Z. John

(2023), “Cryptopricing: Whence Comes the Value for Cryptocurrencies and NFTs?” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 40, 22–9.

50.

Zhao

Haidong

Zhang

Lini

(2021), “Financial Literacy or Investment Experience: Which is More Influential in Cryptocurrency Investment?” International Journal of Bank Marketing, 39 (7), 1208–26.