Why Bitcoin Users Stay: Trust, Security, and Usability

Buying Bitcoin has become easier. Understanding where it is held, how to protect it, and why to keep using it remains more complicated. That gap matters because a first purchase can reflect curiosity or speculation, while continued participation requires an experience people consider useful and manageable.

A new study, “Why Users Stay: Bridging Adoption and Continuance in Bitcoin Use through a Mixed-Methods Approach,” examines that relationship.¹ Its findings associate Bitcoin adoption intentions most strongly with perceived blockchain transparency, followed by information security and perceived advantages over alternatives.

The broader implication is that Bitcoin businesses have an opportunity beyond making transactions available. They can make those transactions understandable. However, the research also reveals why adoption claims require care: intending to continue using Bitcoin is different from demonstrating that someone actually does.

What the Bitcoin Adoption Study Found

The researchers combined 10 interviews with an online survey of 268 respondents familiar with Bitcoin, recruited through forums, social media groups, and professional networks in Spain. Data collection took place between January and July 2025.

Using partial least squares structural equation modeling, a statistical method for examining relationships among measured concepts, they evaluated how technological, personal, and institutional factors related to adoption intention.

Perceived blockchain transparency showed the strongest positive association. Information security and relative advantage also had significant positive relationships. Financial self-sufficiency showed a smaller positive association, while government support policy had a small negative relationship.

These coefficients describe relationships within the model. They are not percentage increases in adoption, estimates of investment returns, or proof that changing one factor would cause the corresponding behavioral change.

Adoption intention was also positively associated with reported satisfaction, willingness to continue using Bitcoin, and perceived system quality. Those relationships suggest that favorable expectations can extend across several aspects of the user experience.

Blockchain Transparency Must Become Understandable

Bitcoin makes transaction records publicly inspectable, but public information is not automatically useful information. A transaction identifier offers little reassurance to someone who cannot distinguish a pending payment from a completed one.

The study’s transparency questions concerned whether information was important, understandable, accurate, and reliable. That makes its strongest finding particularly relevant to product design. Respondents were evaluating perceived information quality, rather than independently auditing Bitcoin’s technical architecture.

A practical implication is that platforms should explain transaction status, fees, custody arrangements, and withdrawal conditions in language users can act on. An interface that displays a balance without clarifying who controls the underlying assets leaves an important question unanswered.

Transparency also has boundaries. An exchange’s customer balances and internal obligations are not fully visible simply because Bitcoin’s (BTC ) blockchain is public. Users need to understand both the network and the intermediary through which they access it.

Bitcoin Security Is Also a Usability Problem

Security can appear to compete with convenience. Additional checks create friction, while simplified access can leave users exposed if recovery procedures or authentication methods are weak.

Better design can reduce that conflict. Coinbase’s explanation of passkey authentication, for example, describes an approach that combines easier sign-in with resistance to phishing. Such protections address account access, although they do not eliminate fraudulent transfers, compromised recovery routes, or every other risk.

This distinction matters because users encounter Bitcoin through several layers: the network, their wallet, an exchange, and sometimes customer support. Confidence in one layer does not guarantee protection across the others.

For providers, the practical priorities include:

• Explain custody and recovery responsibilities before users deposit funds.
• Make fees and transaction status clear before and after approval.
• Build fraud prevention into routine actions rather than relying entirely on warnings.

These improvements could support confidence, but their impact should be tested against actual outcomes, including failed transactions, account compromises, and repeat usage.

Bitcoin Ownership and Everyday Use Need Different Measures

One limitation in cryptocurrency discussions is that “adoption” can describe several different activities. Holding Bitcoin for years, trading it frequently, and using it for payments create very different demands.

A long-term holder may prioritize secure storage and reliable withdrawals. A merchant needs settlement clarity and a predictable checkout experience. A frequent trader may care more about liquidity and execution costs.

Securities.io’s recent discussion of measuring crypto adoption beyond trading highlights why market activity and practical utility deserve separate attention. The same distinction applies within Bitcoin: rising ownership does not establish rising payment usage.

Scaling technology addresses part of that challenge. As outlined in Securities.io’s coverage of Bitcoin Layer 2 solutions, different systems pursue payments and other applications beyond base-layer transactions. Their usefulness still depends on how well the surrounding products handle costs, liquidity, and user expectations.

A faster payment network can improve an experience. It cannot, by itself, supply a compelling reason to change an existing habit.

Why the Regulation Finding Requires Caution

The negative association between government support policy and adoption intention is interesting because it challenges the assumption that official support always strengthens enthusiasm.

One possible explanation is that some experienced users value independence from institutions. However, this study does not establish that mechanism or demonstrate that reducing regulation would increase participation.

The survey questions included preferences for official backing and greater policy support. A negative coefficient within a multivariable model should therefore not become a sweeping claim that Bitcoin users oppose consumer protection.

There is also a selection issue. People already familiar with Bitcoin may respond differently from consumers who have avoided it because they lack confidence in providers or legal protections. Policies that fail to impress existing enthusiasts could still matter to prospective users outside the sample.

What the Study Cannot Prove About Bitcoin Retention

Despite its title, the paper does not track users over time. It captures responses at a single point, and several satisfaction and quality questions use hypothetical wording about what respondents would experience.

The sample was also recruited deliberately from Bitcoin-aware communities rather than selected randomly. More than four-fifths of respondents were younger than 35. Its findings cannot be treated as representative of all consumers or all Bitcoin holders.

There are measurement questions as well. The financial self-sufficiency items largely describe financial difficulties, so that result warrants particular care when translating the authors’ terminology into claims about financial independence.

The most useful next step would be longitudinal research linking initial expectations to later behavior. Did users return? Did they withdraw successfully? Did they make another payment after encountering a fee or security check? Those outcomes would provide stronger evidence of durable adoption.

Coinbase Offers Exposure to the Bitcoin User Experience

The commercial opportunity suggested by this analysis lies partly with businesses that make cryptocurrency easier to access and manage. Coinbase Global (COIN ) provides one publicly traded example through its consumer platform, institutional services, custody, and developer infrastructure.

Its second-quarter 2026 results reported $555 million in subscription and services revenue, representing 48% of net revenue. That diversification illustrates why exposure to a crypto service provider differs from owning Bitcoin directly.

The connection to the research is practical: providers compete partly on whether customers trust their systems and find them useful. The paper does not evaluate Coinbase, establish its competitive advantage, or predict its financial performance.

Execution remains important. Coinbase’s disclosure of a customer data theft incident in 2025 demonstrates that security extends beyond blockchain integrity to employees, support processes, and personal information. Investors should assess those operational risks alongside revenue growth and diversification.

Latest Coinbase Global (COIN) News and Developments

Bitcoin Adoption Depends on Experiences Worth Repeating

The study offers a useful starting point: transparency, security, and perceived usefulness are associated with favorable Bitcoin adoption intentions. Its strongest contribution is directing attention toward the experience surrounding the asset.

The next challenge is to translate those intentions into observable behavior. Products that clarify ownership, reduce avoidable errors, and deliver a useful service have a plausible route toward sustained participation. Measuring whether users actually return will show which improvements matter most.

References:

¹ Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Mutanov, G., Shaikh, A. A., Ussatova, O., Kistaubayev, Y., & Karyukin, V. (2026). Why users stay: Bridging adoption and continuance in Bitcoin use through a mixed-methods approach. International Journal of Innovation Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2026.100232