Public blockchain evaluation using entropy and TOPSIS

被引:118
|
作者
Tang, Huimin [1 ,5 ]
Shi, Yong [2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ]
Dong, Peiwu [1 ]
机构
[1] Beijing Inst Technol, Sch Management & Econ, Beijing 100081, Peoples R China
[2] Chinese Acad Sci, Res Ctr Fictitious Econ & Data Sci, Beijing 100190, Peoples R China
[3] Chinese Acad Sci, Key Lab Big Data Min & Knowledge Management, Beijing 100190, Peoples R China
[4] Univ Chinese Acad Sci, Sch Econ & Management, Beijing 100190, Peoples R China
[5] Univ Nebraska, Coll Informat Sci & Technol, Omaha, NE 68182 USA
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Public blockchain; Evaluation; Ranking; Entropy method; TOPSIS;
D O I
10.1016/j.eswa.2018.09.048
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Blockchains have attracted worldwide attention in recent years. With the increasing number of public blockchains, the evaluation of public blockchains becomes meaningful. This paper aims to make a comprehensive evaluation of public blockchains from multiple dimensions. Three first-level indicators and eleven second-level indicators are designed to evaluate the public blockchains. The technique for order preferences by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS) method is used to rank public blockchains. The entropy method is used to calculate the weights of different indicators objectively. Since Bitcoin has an absolute advantage, a let-the-first-out (LFO) strategy is proposed to reduce the criteria of the positive ideal solution and make a more reasonable evaluation. The evaluation indicators and the ranking results of public blockchains can provide related researchers and managers with references and support their decisions. The three first-level indicators are technology, recognition, and activity. Their weights are 16.80%, 59.00%, and 24.20% respectively. The evaluation result shows that Bitcoin, Ethereum, and EOS are ranked in the top three public blockchains. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:204 / 210
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Blockchain crowdfunding projects evaluation using GRA-TOPSIS
    Yu, Chunxia
    Leng, Yi
    Li, Jing
    Yu, Jiacheng
    [J]. KYBERNETES, 2021, 50 (11) : 3017 - 3036
  • [2] REGIONAL DISPARITIES EVALUATION USING ENTROPY AND TOPSIS METHODS
    Minarcikova, Eva
    [J]. HRADEC ECONOMIC DAYS, VOL 5(5), 2015, 5 : 23 - 30
  • [3] Evaluating the metropolitan public health preparedness for pandemics using entropy-TOPSIS-IF
    Liu, Jin
    Liu, Allen Wood
    Li, Xingye
    Li, Hui
    Luo, Wenwei
    Chen, Wei
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH, 2024, 12
  • [4] Performance evaluation of green suppliers using entropy-TOPSIS-F
    dos Santos, Bruno Miranda
    Godoy, Leoni Pentiado
    Campos, Lucila M. S.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2019, 207 : 498 - 509
  • [5] Evaluation of TPGU using entropy - improved TOPSIS - GRA method in China
    Dong, Hua
    Yang, Kun
    Bai, Guoqing
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2022, 17 (01):
  • [6] Evaluation of Credit Risk in Commercial Banks Using TOPSIS Model Based on Entropy Weight
    Zhu Jianhui
    Guan Shuxue
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INNOVATION & MANAGEMENT, VOLS I AND II, 2008, : 782 - 786
  • [7] Sustainability Evaluation of Cities in Northeastern China Using Dynamic TOPSIS-Entropy Methods
    Li, Weiwei
    Yi, Pingtao
    Zhang, Danning
    [J]. SUSTAINABILITY, 2018, 10 (12)
  • [8] Talent Competitiveness Evaluation of the Chongqing Intelligent Industry Based on Using the Entropy TOPSIS Method
    Xu, Xianhang
    Arshad, Mohd Anuar
    Mahmood, Arshad
    [J]. INFORMATION, 2021, 12 (08)
  • [9] Evaluation of Public Services of Urban Health Life in Pearl River Delta in China Based on Entropy Weight TOPSIS
    Wan, Guang-Sheng
    Qian, Zhi-Wang
    Shi, Yu-Feng
    Huang, Gang
    [J]. EKOLOJI, 2018, 27 (106): : 1065 - 1075
  • [10] Payment for Forest Ecosystem Services in the Northwest Region, Vietnam: The Evaluation Using TOPSIS and Fuzzy Entropy
    Duc, Nguyen Minh
    Thao, Nguyen Xuan
    Thanh, Tran Nguyen
    Diep, Do Thi
    Ha, Quyen Dinh
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FOREST ECONOMICS, 2024, 38 (04): : 359 - 373