A fuzzy BWM and MARCOS integrated framework with Heronian function for evaluating cryptocurrency exchanges: a case study of Türkiye

Abstract

Crypto assets have become increasingly popular in recent years due to their many advantages, such as low transaction costs and investment opportunities. The performance of crypto exchanges is an essential factor in developing crypto assets. Therefore, it is necessary to take adequate measures regarding the reliability, speed, user-friendliness, regulation, and supervision of crypto exchanges. However, each measure to be taken creates extra costs for businesses. Studies are needed to determine the factors that most affect the performance of crypto exchanges. This study develops an integrated framework, i.e., fuzzy best–worst method with the Heronian function—the fuzzy measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution with the Heronian function (FBWM’H–FMARCOS’H), to evaluate cryptocurrency exchanges. In this framework, the fuzzy best–worst method (FBWM) is used to decide the criteria’s importance, fuzzy measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (FMARCOS) is used to prioritize the alternatives, and the Heronian function is used to aggregate the results. Integrating a modified FBWM and FMARCOS with Heronian functions is particularly appealing for group decision-making under vagueness. Through case studies, some well-known cryptocurrency exchanges operating in Türkiye are assessed based on seven critical factors in the cryptocurrency exchange evaluation process. The main contribution of this study is generating new priority strategies to increase the performance of crypto exchanges with a novel decision-making methodology. “Perception of security,” “reputation,” and “commission rate” are found as the foremost factors in choosing an appropriate cryptocurrency exchange for investment. Further, the best score is achieved by Coinbase, followed by Binance. The solidity and flexibility of the methodology are also supported by sensitivity and comparative analyses. The findings may pave the way for investors to take appropriate actions without incurring high costs.

Uygulamali Gi̇ri̇şi̇mci̇li̇k Eği̇ti̇mleri̇ni̇n İl, Düzey-I Ve Düzey-Ii Bölgeleri̇ Bazinda Bulanik BWM Ve Aroman Yöntemleri̇yle Değerlendi̇ri̇lmesi̇

“…Author Subject Fuzzy BWM (Guo & Zhao, 2017) Selection of sustainable supplier (Amoozad Mahdiraji et al, 2018) Key Factors of Sustainable Architecture (Gan et al, 2019) Selection of resilient supplier (Ghoushchi et al, 2019) prioritization of failures (Ecer & Pamucar, 2020) Selection of sustainable supplier (Tu et al, 2020) Water Resources Security Evaluation (Amiri et al, 2021) Selection of sustainable supplier (Khan et al, 2021) Management of halal supply chain (Kurniawan & Puspitasari, 2021) Selection of sustainable supplier (Ghorabaee et al, 2021) Sustainable public transportation evaluation (Roy & Shaw, 2022) Credit rating model (Görçün & Doğan, 2023) Mobile crane selection (Ecer et al, 2024) Evaluation of cryptocurrency exchanges AROMAN (Bošković et al, 2023) Electric vehicle selection (Kara et al, 2024) Assessing Türkiye's sustainable competitiveness…”

A State-of-the-Art Review of the BWM Method and Future Research Agenda

“…■ China is the most prolific country in BWM research, followed by Iran, India, and Turkey. (Wu et al, 2022;Polat et al, 2023), COCOSO (Torkayesh et al, 2021;Ali et al, 2023), MARCOS (Yadav & Kumar, 2023;Ecer et al, 2024), VIKOR (Jain et al, 2023), QFD (Chang et al, 2023), WASPAS (Tavakoli Haji Abadi & Avakh Darestani, 2023), MOORA (Riahi et al, 2023), MULTIMOORA (Koppiahraj et al, 2023), SAW (Darvazeh et al, 2022), TODIM (Kumar et al, 2023), COPRAS (Sahraei et al, 2023), GRA (Hsu et al, 2023), MABAC (Chauhan et al, 2022), DEA (Eskandari et al, 2022), ARAS (Almutairi et al, 2023), and EDAS (Liang et al, 2023), weighting-based MCDM methods, including AHP (Koppiahraj et al, 2023), ANP (Nasiri Khiavi et al, 2023), DEMATEL (Bongo & Seva, 2023), FUCOM (Fazeli & Peng, 2023), and SWARA (Karakuş, 2023), some theories, including game theory (Fard et al, 2022), grey theory (Ulutaş et al, 2022), prospect theory (Zheng et al, 2023), and zero-sum game theory (Li et al, 2021), and mathematical programming, including goal programming (Do et al, 2023), and possibilistic programming (Shaw et al, 2023).…”