These are my comments on the manuscript:

1. The first sentence in the intro need to be changed.

2. P3, L35-46 " Tax avoidance, money smuggling, illegal transfers, blackmail, and even stealing Bitcoins have been done using cryptocurrency (Bloomberg, 2017).

3. This sentence does not sound right.

4. The introduction talks too much on the history of crypto. No issues or statement related to user acceptance (except towards the end).

5. P5, L16-17 "Few empirical studies look at Muslims' intentions to adopt new financial technologies like blockchain-based cryptocurrencies"

6. when mentioned few studies, you must include citations.

7. The conceptual framework section does not have a proper flow. How does the explanation relate to the framework/model propose?

8. Section 2.1 should be hypothesis development.

9. The hypothesis should be revised. It sound very strange. For example H6 "H6: The perceived risk of utilizing cryptocurrencies has an adverse impact on users’ intent to use ". Compare author proposed hypothesis with other reputable papers on constructing the hypothesis.

10. H10 is too long and missing the essence of the independent and dependent variable.

11. The income level is monthly or yearly (table 2). Compare to the global GDP/capita. Readers will know the level of salary with this information.

12. P11, L49-50 "This research used (SmartPLS 3) for data examination to evaluate the surveyed data using Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (Al-Maroof & Al-Emran, 2018)"

13. This sentence require rephrase

14. P12, L8-10 " To be regarded as reliable, a measure should provide consistent results under consistent circumstances, and the value for each item’s loading must be equal to or higher than (0.7)"

15. For exploratory, the cutoff should be more than 0.6, not 0.7. Author need to refer this in any of Hair's paper/book.

16. The explanation of result in the measurement model is haywire, I suggest author to refer such flow in reputable studies applying the same PLS-SEM approach.

17. 4.1.2 is very brief. The square root of the AVE (table 4) are not bold. This should be explained. The statement is wrong "Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggest that own constructs’ loading should surpass those of other constructs in the model to attain discriminant validity"

18. Similarly the discussion of HTMT is wrong "The results satisfy the HTMT 1 (less than one) criteria, implying that discriminant validity has been established (Palacios, Kaspereit, & Kienle, 2011)"

19. It is not less than 1, it has 2 cutoff, HTMT0.85 and HTMT0.90. I suggest author to go back to the methodology book in using PLS-SEM.

20. Author conclude that H2 is significant. Whereas the result in table 7 shows otherwise. The t-value is 0.706 with p-value 0.480. This is not significant!

21. In subsection 4.2, first line "According to the findings, design has the highest explanatory power for an individual investor’s intention to use cryptocurrency, explaining 0.000 p values in the Intention to use."

22. This is wrong, you don't use p-value to explain the explanatory power

23. P16L17-20 "H2 (EE -> IN, B=- 0.058 , P values 0.480) defines the path between effort expectancy and intentions. In terms of Bitcoin fintech, EE has positively impacted cryptocurrency adoption and Bitcoin acceptance in China (Schaupp & Festa, 2018; Shahzad et al., 2018). The impact of effort expectation on crypto adoption is supported by our findings statistically."

24. This is totally wrong. It is not significant, but author claim to support.

25. This subsection 4.2 explanation is not up to standard. Please refer to many of PLS-SEM finding reporting. Author just list down based on hypothesis, with no academic writing skill.

26. The discussion and proposal for future work is not enough.

27. This manuscript require extensive English editing.