The performance of cryptocurrency stocks is essential in shaping the growth of digital assets, which have gained significant popularity in the modern era as they offer various benefits to the public, such as reduced fees and hassle-free staking. Therefore, it’s essential for companies to focus on key factors like durability, accessibility, speed, regulation, and efficient management. More investigation is necessary to truly unlock the potential of virtual staking. In order to address this question and conduct a comprehensive and insightful analysis of optimal digital equity, this study presents a ground-breaking, unified approach of entropy- Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking according to the Compromise Solution (MARCOS) approach implemented on comprehensive systems of picture fuzzy rough numbers. Picture fuzzy rough entropy technique is executed for the purpose of analyzing the worth of each crypto stake. Then, a picture fuzzy rough-MARCOS method is carried out for the alternatives prioritizing purposes. The estimation mechanism of digital shares involves the analysis of several famous crypto exchanges active in Türkiye depending upon seven crucial elements affecting the capability of each alternative. Further, the sensitivity and comparative analysis are performed for the purpose of assuring the versatility and durability of the proposed method. The shareholders may be able to follow the path built by the discoveries of the research in order to take suitable manoeuvres without enduring steep expenses.
AkramZ.AhmadU. (2023). A multi-criteria group decision-making method based on fuzzy rough number for optimal water supply strategy. Soft Computing1–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-08942-y
2.
AkramZ.AhmadU.AlcantudJ. C. (2024). Multi-criteria decision-making for the selection of best airport ground access mode with a new fuzzy rough-entropy based method. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 135, 108843.
3.
AkramM.HabibA.AlcantudJ. C. R. (2021). An optimization study based on Dijkstra algorithm for a network with trapezoidal picture fuzzy numbers. Neutral Computing and Applications, 33(4), 1329–1342.
4.
AkramM.KhanA.LuqmanA.SenapatiT.PamučarD. (2023). An extended MARCOS method for MCGDM under 2-tuple linguistic q-rung picture fuzzy environment. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 120, 105892.
5.
AkramM.UllahI.AllahviranlooT. (2022). A new method to solve linear programming problems in the environment of picture fuzzy sets. Iranian Journel of Fuzzy Systems, 19(6), 29–49.
6.
AkramM.ZahidS. (2024). Multi-criteria group decision-making for evaluating efficient and smart mobility sharing systems using Pythagorean fuzzy rough numbers. Granular Computing, 9(2), 50.
7.
AliJ. (2021). A novel score function based CRITIC-MARCOS method with spherical fuzzy information. Computational and Applied Mathematics, 40(8), 280.
8.
AlkanÖ.AlbayrakÖ. K. (2020). Ranking of renewable energy sources for regions in Turkey by fuzzy entropy based fuzzy COPRAS and fuzzy MULTIMOORA. Renewable Energy, 162, 712–726.
9.
AmanathullaS. K.MuhiuddinG.Al-KadiD.PalM. (2021). Multiple attribute decision making problem using picture fuzzy graph. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021, 9937828. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9937828
10.
AtanassovK. (2016). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. International Journal Bioautomation, 20, 1.
11.
AyyildizE.ErdoganM.Taskin GumusA. (2021). A Pythagorean fuzzy number-based integration of AHP and WASPAS methods for refugee camp location selection problem: A real case study for Istanbul, Turkey. Neural Computing and Applications, 33(22), 15751–15768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06195-0
12.
BadiI.PamučarD. (2020). Supplier selection for steelmaking company by using combined Grey-MARCOS methods. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 3(2), 37–48.
13.
BaoQ.YuxinZ.YuxiaoW.FengY. (2020). Can entropy weight method correctly reflect the distinction of water quality indices?Water Resources Management, 34, 3667–3674.
14.
BellmanR. E.ZadehL. A. (1970). Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Management Science, 17(4), 141–164.
15.
BulutM.UyarM. E.ÖzcanE. (2024). An integrated model for evaluating the risk factors of crypto-currencies under fuzzy environment. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 134, 108650.
16.
CuongB. C.KreinovichV. (2013). Picture Fuzzy Sets-a new concept for computational intelligence problems. In 2013 Third world congress on information and communication technologies (WICT 2013) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
17.
DavisonC.AkhavanP.JanT.AziziN.FathollahiS.TaheriN.HaassO.PrasadM. (2022). Evaluation of sustainable digital currency exchange platforms using analytic models. Sustainability, 14(10), 5822.
18.
Dos SantosB. M.GodoyL. P.CamposL. M. (2019). Performance evaluation of green suppliers using entropy-TOPSIS-F. Journal of Cleaner Production, 207, 498–509.
19.
DuboisD.PradeH. (1990). Rough fuzzy sets and fuzzy rough sets. International Journal of General System, 17, 191–209.
20.
Duc TrungD. (2022). Multi-criteria decision making under the MARCOS method and the weighting methods: Applied to milling, grinding and turning processes. Manufacturing Review, 9, 3.
21.
EcerF.BöyükaslanA.ZolfaniS. H. (2022). Evaluation of cryptocurrencies for investment decisions in the era of industry 4.0: A borda count-based intuitionistic fuzzy set extensions EDAS-MAIRCA-MARCOS multi-criteria methodology. Axioms, 11(8), 404. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11080404
22.
EcerF.MuratT.DinerH.YükselS. (2024). A fuzzy BWM and MARCOS integrated framework with Heronian function for evaluating cryptocurrency exchanges: A case study of Türkiye. Financial Innovation, 10, 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-023-00543-w.
23.
HwangC. L.YoonK. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making. In Multiple attribute decision making. Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems (vol. 186). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3
24.
MikhaylovA.YousifN. B. A.DincerH.YükselS.KarpynZ. (2025). Analysis of the knowledge and innovation-based customer expectations for the green crypto assets in investment strategies using artificial intelligence and facial expression-based fuzzy modelling. Quality & Quantity1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-025-02098-7
NagajothiN.MeyyappanT. (2024). Bitcoin price prediction using deep learning and fuzzy logic. In 5th International conference on electronics and sustainable communication systems (ICESC), Coimbatore, India (pp. 1330–1337). https://doi: 10.1109/ICESC60852.2024.10689927
27.
NawazM.AdeelA.AkramM. (2024). Risk evaluation in failure mode and effect analysis: AHP-VIKOR method with picture fuzzy rough number. Granular Computing, 9(3), 69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41066-024-00491-5
28.
OpricovicS. (1998). Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems (Ph.D. thesis), Faculty of Civil Engineering.
29.
ÖzkalI.ÖzkanI. A.BaşçiftçiF. (2024). Metaverse token price forecasting using artificial neural networks (ANNs) and adaptive neural fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). Neural Computing and Applications, 36(7), 3267–3290.
30.
PamučarD.EcerF.DeveciM. (2021). Assessment of alternative fuel vehicles for sustainable road transportation of United States using integrated fuzzy FUCOM and neutrosophic fuzzy MARCOS methodology. Science of the Total Environment, 788, 147763.
31.
ParkM. K.ChoiY.KimJ.OhK. J. (2021). An investment strategy to integrate the KOSDAQ150 index and bitcoin using the rough set theory. Quantitative Bio-Science, 40(1), 1–11.
32.
PawlakZ. (1982). Rough sets. International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, 11(5), 341–356.
33.
PuškaA.StojanovicI.MaksimovicA.OsmanovicN. (2020). Project management software evaluation by using the measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS) method. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 3(1), 89–102.
34.
RahimM.AminF.AlbaityM. (2023). Navigating the complexities of the crypto-market: An innovative approach with generalized Dombi aggregation operators in cubic Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Soft Computing, 27(22), 17121–17152.
35.
SahooB.DebnathB. K. (2024). A novel hybrid spherical fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach to select the best hydroelectric power plant source in India. Renewable Energy Focus, 51, 1755–0084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ref.2024.100650
36.
ShangD.YanZ.ZhangL.CuiZ. (2023d). Digital financial asset price fluctuation forecasting in digital economy era using blockchain information: A reconstructed dynamic-bound Levenberg-Marquardt neural. Expert Systems with Applications, 228, 120329.
37.
ShannonC. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423.
38.
StankovićM.StevicZ.DasD. K.SuboticM.PamucarD. (2020). A new fuzzy MARCOS method for road traffic risk analysis. Mathematics, 8(3), 457.
39.
StevićZ.PamucarD.PuskaA.ChatterjeeP. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106231.
40.
YangY. C.ShiehW. S.LinC. Y. (2023). Applying the fuzzy BWM to determine the cryptocurrency trading system under uncertain decision process. Axioms, 12(2), 209. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms12020209
41.
ZadehL. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and control, 8(3), 338–353.
42.
ZhaiL. Y.KhooL. P.ZhongZ. W. (2008). A rough set enhanced fuzzy approach to quality function deployment. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 37, 613–624.
43.
Zhi-HongZ.YiY.Jing-NanS. (2006). Entropy method for determination of weight of evaluating indicators in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water quality assessment. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 18(72), 1020–1023.
44.
ZhuG. N.HuJ.RenH. (2020a). A fuzzy rough number-based AHP-TOPSIS for design concept evaluation under uncertain environments. Applied Soft Computing, 91, 106228.
45.
ZhuY.TianD.YanF. (2020b). Effectiveness of entropy weight method in decision-making. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2020, 3564835.
