Mobile apps utilize the features of a mobile device to offer an ever-growing range of functionalities. These apps access our personal data, utilizing both the sensors on the device, and big data from several sources. Nowadays, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is enhancing the ability to utilize more data, and gain deeper insight. This increase in access and utilization of personal information offers benefits, but also challenges to trust. The reason we are re-evaluating trust in this scenario, is because we need to re-calibrate for the increasing role of AI.

This research explores the role of trust, from the consumer’s perspective, when purchasing mobile apps with enhanced AI. Models of trust from e-commerce are adapted to this specific context. The model developed was tested, and the results support it.

Figure 1. Consumer trust and privacy concerns in mobile apps with enhanced AI

The intention to use the mobile app is impacted by (1) propensity to trust, (2) institution-based trust, (3) trust in the mobile app, and (4) the perceived sensitivity of personal information, are found to impact

The first three of those four, are broken down further into their constituent parts. (1) Propensity to trust is based on a person’s (1a) trusting stance in general, and (1b) their general faith in technology. (2) Institution-based trust is strengthened firstly by (2a) structural assurance and (2b) situational normality. Structural assurance of the internet includes guarantees, regulation, promises and related laws. The users evaluation of situational normality can be formed by app reviews. Out of the whole model the institution based factors are the weakest.

Trust in the mobile app (3) is more complex, it is based on five variables. These are (3a) trust in vendor, (3b) trust in app functionality, (3c) trust in genuineness of app, (3d) how human the technology appears to be, and (3e) trust in personal data use.

Those are the main findings of this research. The model is helpful because it can guide the stakeholders involved in mobile apps in how to build trust. By using the model they can identify what they need to communicate better, and what they need to change in the apps, or somewhere else in the ecosystem.


Zarifis A. & Fu S. (2023) ‘Re-evaluating trust and privacy concern when purchasing a mobile app: Re-calibrating for the increasing role of Artificial Intelligence’, Digital, vol.3, no.4, pp.286-299. Available from (open access):

#trust #information privacy #artificial intelligence #mobile commerce #mobile apps #big data

Dr Alex Zarifis

This report offers a balanced analysis of the opportunities, and challenges, caused by the many moving parts of the cryptoasset ecosystem in Latin America and the Caribbean. I am happy to have contributed to this as one of the co-authors. I found it particularly interesting how some countries want to lead in the adoption of cryptoassets while others want to be more cautious. The countries that lead believe in their ability to regulate cryptoassets and manage any risks that emerge. They want to have first mover advantage. Other countries do not believe being an early, enthusiastic, adopter is worth the risks, and prefer to wait until the industry and the regulation mature. Both approaches are valid, but in both strategies it is important to follow developments closely. This is where this report can be helpful in gaining insights into this sector’s development, market trends, challenges and opportunities, as well as regulatory and policy issues.

The cryptoasset sector has grown across Latin America and the Caribbean in recent years and this expansion has led to increased employment opportunities. Many cryptoasset firms are now full-service fintech providers. The regulatory views on digital assets have shifted, with around a third of public sector respondents being more positive towards cryptoassets. The private sector participants are also more positive now, and they collaborate more with regulators through innovation hubs and sandboxes. The private sector respondents also see growth opportunities in DeFi services and onboarding corporate clients.

However, there are also challenges to address with the most important one being the lack of regulatory clarity. Public sector respondents believe they need more expertise in cryptoassets.


Proskalovich R., Jack C., Zarifis A., Serralde D.M., Vershinina P., Naidoo S., Njoki D., Pernice I., Herrera D. & Sarmiento J. (2023) ‘Cryptoasset ecosystem in Latin America and the Caribbean’, University of Cambridge – Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance (CCAF). Available from:

Dr Alex Zarifis

My new research developed a model of trust in making payments with the Ethereum (Zarifis, 2023). I published the first peer reviewed research on trust in payments with Bitcoin in 2014 (Zarifis et al. 2014), and I wanted to apply my experience from that to understanding the consumer’s perspective to making Ethereum payments.

Ethereum is being utilised in various ways, including smart contracts and payments. Despite some similarities with Bitcoin, Ethereum is a different technology, with different governance and support.

Ethereum payments require digital wallets and the process is different to paying in traditional fiat currencies like the Euro. When a person wants to take an action without controlling all the parameters, and some risk is unavoidable, trust is necessary.

Figure 1. Model of trust in making Ethereum payments, TRUSTEP

The model demystifies how trust is built in consumer payments with Ethereum. The model starts with the individual’s predisposition and then covers the factors from the specific context of Ethereum payments. From the person’s individual characteristics, their willingness to innovate in finance and technology have a role. There are then five variables from the contexts: Adoption and reputation, stable value and low transaction fees, effective regulation, payment intermediaries and trust in the seller. The personal and contextual factors together influence trust in the Ethereum payment process and making a payment with Ether.

While the model has similarities to previous models of trust, such as the role of each individual’s psychological predisposition and the role of reputation, the role of institutions such as regulators and the importance of trust in the retailer, the distinct characteristics of Ethereum also play a role. In fact, the factors related to the distinct characteristics of Ethereum have the strongest support based on the average of the responses. This research can be added to a growing body of research in trust that illustrates how users’ beliefs in each cryptocurrency need to be explored separately.

Furthermore, the role of the organizations involved in the payment process are shown. While trust in the retailer is usually a factor in retail payments, the regulators and payment intermediaries are not always a significant factor, so it is a useful contribution to show that this is the case here.

That is what I want to share with you here. If you have experiences related to what I am talking about, please let me know, I would love to hear from you.


Zarifis A. (2023) ‘A Model of Trust in Ethereum Token ‘Ether’ Payments, TRUSTEP’, Businesses, vol.3, no. 4: pp.534-547. Available from (open access):

Zarifis A., Efthymiou L., Cheng X. & Demetriou S. (2014) ‘Consumer trust in digital currency enabled transactions’, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing-Springer, vol.183, pp.241-254. Available from:

Please sign this petition for the editor to credit me for my work, by replying to this post or sending me a private message. This is a short overview of what happened to the best of my understanding:

I was given the task by a lecturer of UCLAN I had worked with in the past (I hired her for her first academic job) to turn a good student dissertation into a research paper. I am often given the task of turning research into a paper because my first language is English and I have a decent record at getting papers published.

It took many hours to turn it into a paper, I identified the most valuable parts and wrote several sections of the final paper. For example I strengthened the link to trust which is my specialist subject. The paper was published in a journal in 2018. The first author credited on the paper is the student, then the two supervisors from UCLAN and lastly me. I have an email from one of the co-authors from UCLAN expressing her gratitude for the publication and stating that based on the work I did, my name should not have been last on the list but further up.

In 2020 I came across the same paper published in a different journal, without my name as co-author. I contacted the editor and told him the paper is already published and not retracted when it was published a second time. Based on the ethics guidelines of the journal there were two options available to the editor as I understand it:

a) Based on the ethics guidelines of the journal, credit the author that was left out as he has the best evidence imaginable that he is a co-author, and the corresponding author belatedly acknowledged he should be credited. (I also have several emails, drafts etc. as evidence)

b) Based on the ethics guidelines of the journal, retract the paper the editor published in his journal because it was published before and not retracted.

He did not act on the evidence that the paper is already published, waited for the corresponding author to retract the original paper and then said he could not take into account the original version, despite it being published at the time it was published again, and only retracted when the co-author left out, used it as evidence. (the original paper has already been cited several times and is still widely available)

I contacted the corresponding author from UCLAN and he said in writing (I have the email) that he would ask the editor to add me and if the editor did not agree he would add me as co-author on another paper to make up for the mistake. Neither happened.

I have several emails, drafts and a published paper, that was not retracted when it was published a second time, that has been cited several times, proving irrefutably I am a co-author of that paper.

Neither the editor, the publisher or the co-authors have taken action to correct this. The action that has been taken so far is for some people to contact my work to try to make my life harder.

Please sign this petition for the editor to credit me for my work. You can sign the petition by replying to this article or sending me a private message with your name and if you want your affiliation.


I provide here a small subset of the evidence, the papers that cite the original publication with me as co-author. If anyone wants to see the emails that prove everything I have said, I can show them.

Here is the citation of the original paper:

Michael P., Dimitriou S., Glyptis L. & Zarifis A. (2018) ‘e-Government implementation challenges in developing countries: The project manager’s perspective’, International Journal of Public Administration and Management Research (IJPAMR), vol.4, no.3, pp.1-17. Available from:

The original publication was published and not retracted for over two years before this:

‘Glyptis L., Christofi M., Vrontis D., Del Giudice M., Dimitriou S, Michael P. (2020) ‘E-Government implementation challenges in small countries: The project manager’s perspective’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change’

Here are some people that cited the original paper with me as a co-author:

An e-government implementation framework: A developing country case study A Apleni, H Smuts – Responsible Design, Implementation and Use of …, 2020 – Springer The implementation of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is seen globally as a means to efficient and effective delivery of business and organisational mandates …

The role of political will in enhancing e-government: An empirical case in Indonesia SY Defitri – Probl. Perspect. Manag, 2022 – E-government is an issue that is widely discussed by several studies because it has an impact on improving government performance. Weak political will of the heads of state and …

Quality Evaluation of E-Government Services–The Case of Albania R Keco, I Tomorri, K Tomorri – Transylvanian Review of Administrative …, 2023 – QUALITY EVALUATION OF E-GOVERNMENT SERVICES – THE CASE OF ALBANIA Remzi KECO Ilir TOMORRI Kejsi TOMORRI Page 1 20 Abstract Albania has passed a period of three …

Analysis of Information System Audit Using Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology 5 Framework on Permata Hebat Application MS Muryantoro, DA Efrilianda – Journal of Advances in …, 2023 – Permata Hebat application is an application created as a service to develop micro businesses among housewifes in Semarang City. However, to fulfill this expectation, of …

Challenges in E-governments: A case study-based on Iraq NA Jasim, EM Hameed, SA Jasim – IOP Conference Series …, 2021 – An effective and competent way to deliver business and organizational mandates is via deploying Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Parts of a government’s job is …