Identifying User Characteristics of the Top Three E-Wallet Services in Indonesia - IOPscience
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS
Identifying User Characteristics of the Top Three E-Wallet Services in
Indonesia
To cite this article: Anggraeni Dias Saputri and Ahmad R Pratama 2021 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 1077 012028
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
This content was downloaded from IP address 46.4.80.155 on 21/04/2021 at 18:00
ICITDA 2020 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1077 (2021) 012028 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1077/1/012028
Identifying User Characteristics of the Top Three E-Wallet
Services in Indonesia
Anggraeni Dias Saputri1, Ahmad R Pratama2
1
Master Program in Informatics, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Sleman, DIY, Indonesia
2
Department of Informatics, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Sleman, DIY, Indonesia
E-mail: 1anggraeni.saputri@students.uii.ac.id, 2ahmad.rafie@uii.ac.id
Abstract. Electronic wallet (e-wallet) services have been the most commonly used electronic
payment (e-payment) method in Indonesia within the past few years. By using survey data from
409 e-wallet users collected in the first half of 2020 and analyzed with descriptive statistics and
logistic regression models, this study explores the top three e-wallet services in this country (i.e.,
GoPay, OVO, and DANA) to identify the user characteristics of the top three e-wallet which
currently being used in Indonesia and to investigate which user groups, if any, tend to go with
one e-wallet service over another. The results show that GoPay has the largest user base but
OVO is the one with the most loyal user base while DANA has the most different user base of
them all. The findings in this study can complement and enrich the literature on the use of ICT
in the financial sector in Indonesia and shed light on the use of e-wallet and e-payment industry
in this country. Apart from laying out some ground work for further research, the insight from
this study can also be used by each e-wallet service to help make decisions as part of their
marketing strategy.
Keywords: Indonesia; E-Wallet; Users; GoPay; OVO; DANA; Marketing
1. Background
Technological developments have reached various aspects of life, including in financial aspects. One
good example is the development of payment instruments. Like in any other part of the world, payment
methods in Indonesia began with a barter system, followed by the discovery of coins and then paper-
based money. The first paper money owned by Indonesia was devised in 1946 after Indonesia’s
independence day [1]. Afterwards, payment systems continued to develop with more sophisticated
innovations. Nowadays, the technological development at play is in the form of the electronic payment
(e-payment) system, also known as the cashless payment system [2].
Many institutions were involved in the development and administration of payment systems in
Indonesia [3]. E-payment requires an Internet connection to work, similar to other electronic
environments such as electronic banking (e-banking), electronic shopping (e-shopping), or electronic
learning (e-learning) [4]. E-payment itself is categorized into several types, including credit cards,
electronic wallets (e-wallets), electronic cash, digital checking systems and wireless payment systems
[5]. As per Bank Indonesia, the use of paper checks as a traditional payment has dropped by 30% over
the last four years while the use of e-payment instruments has increased over the last ten years.
Additionally, the use of cash with denomination of smaller than IDR 50,000 has decreased. In 2018,
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
ICITDA 2020 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1077 (2021) 012028 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1077/1/012028
transaction values increased by 22% with 99% of them were related to the e-payment system while the
rest is about personal finance and business finance [6].
In China, the world's most populous country with the highest economic growth, e-wallets have
become the primary financial instrument. By 2018, 56.1% financial transactions made by Chinese
people were done through e-wallet services [7]. Meanwhile in Indonesia, e-wallets have also become
the most commonly adopted e-payment systems [8]. As shown in a previous study, university students
preferred e-wallets over e-money when paying for food, beverages, clothes and entertainment [9].
A physical wallet in general contains coins, paper money and some cards such as identity cards that
can help the transaction process. E-wallets were developed with the same function in mind in the form
of software modules, portable devices, or smart cards [10]. Another definition of e-wallet is the online
container that stores users 'payment information, along with the users' account and password. It also
allows users to make e-commerce transactions integrated into their mobile devices [11]. The e-wallet
service is a prepaid account so there is no denial of services and goods unlike in the case of credit cards
[12]. E-wallet has several advantages, are as follows the transaction of e-wallet is a secured payment
system, users need to be registered so any suspicious transaction can be tracked, all transactions will be
recorded therefore can be monitored to increase safety for purchasing activities, e-wallet payment
system is reliable, robust and user-friendly [13].
There are many e-wallet service providers in Indonesia ranging from large companies, bank
institutions, to digital start-ups. According to Bank Indonesia that issued on 27 May 2020, there are 48
e-wallet services in Indonesia with the official license [14]. In 2018, e-wallet transactions in Indonesia
have reached USD 1.5 billion and are predicted to continue rising to USD 25 billion by 2023. The
number of e-wallet users keeps increasing in line with the continued development of financial
technology in Indonesia. A previous study shows that most active users of e-wallet services in Indonesia
are in the age group of 20-30 years old (52.3%), followed by teenagers (33.3%), and the elderly at the
bottom of the list (13%) [15]. Based on their popularity, the top e-wallet services in Indonesia in Q4 of
2017 are GoPay, LinkAja and OVO. In Q1-Q3 of 2018, OVO and LinkAja were racing for the second
place while the first position was held strongly by GoPay. Between Q4 of 2018 and Q2 of 2019, the
order seemed to begin stabilizing with GoPay as the market leader, followed by OVO and LinkAja in
the second and third place [16]. However, based on the most recent data, the top three highest ranked e-
wallets in Indonesia based on active users are GoPay, OVO, and the newcomer, DANA that successfully
leapfrogged LinkAja in the process [17].
There are many factors behind every choice made by a person, including when deciding to use certain
e-wallet services. Each e-wallet service has certain features that might appeal to different groups of
users. In Malaysia, where approximately 81.9% respondents have some experience using e-wallet
services by 2020, the age of the users was found to significantly affect their e-wallet service preferences
[18-19]. In Thailand, another Southeast Asian country, both age and sex affect e-wallet preferences of
the users [20]. Furthermore, another study in Nigeria found out that the characteristics of e-wallet users
were also affected by their level of education in addition to their age [21].
Meanwhile, there is little to no research trying to identify the characteristics of e-wallet users in
Indonesia. Understanding users’ characteristics is important because this information is useful in helping
with the product development and marketing strategy. Each country has its own unique features and by
their extension, different challenges from other countries, even the neighbouring ones. In the case of e-
wallet services, there are different players in almost every country. Therefore, the objective of this study
is to identify users’ characteristics of e-wallet services specific to the Indonesian market. Specifically,
this study aims to answer two research questions, i.e. 1) what are the user characteristics of the top three
e-wallet currently being used in Indonesia? and 2) what user groups, if any, tend to go with one e-wallet
service over another? While there are more than five e-wallet services available in Indonesia, this study
will only focus on the top three based on their popularity.
2
ICITDA 2020 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1077 (2021) 012028 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1077/1/012028
2. Methods
An online survey was conducted in Indonesia within the first half of 2020. A total of 409 users (188
males, 45.97% and 221 females, 54.03%) participated in the study. Their age ranged between 17 and 59
years old (mean = 25.7, SD = 5.01). They came from different places of origin, simplified into Java
(n=284, 69.44%) and outside Java (n=125, 30.56%). The same simplified category was used for their
place of residency with 334 participants living in Java (81.66%) and 75 participants living outside Java
(18.33%). The participants also reported their education, profession and income. For their educational
attainment, 86 participants reported having secondary education (21.02%) while the remaining 323 had
some college degree (78.97%). The profession was categorized into Information, Communication and
Technology field (ICT) (n=113, 27.63%), Finance field (n=13, 3.18%), Students (n=42, 10.27%) and
the rest was put together as others (n=241, 58.92%). Based on their income, participants were
categorized into three groups, 232 low-income respondents (56.72%) earning equal or less than IDR
2,999,999 (approximately USD 200) per month, 73 middle-income respondents (17.85%) earning
between IDR 3,000,000 and IDR 4,999,999 (approximately USD 333) per month, and 104 high-income
participants (25.43%) earning IDR 5,000,000 or more per month.
Data analysis includes descriptive statistics, logistic regression, and multinomial logistic regression.
For the dependent variables in this study, participants were asked what e-wallet services they were using
and if there were more than one, which one they most frequently use was. Meanwhile, participants’
demographic information, including age, sex, origin, residency, profession, income, and education was
used as the independent variables. In terms of profession, three dummy variables were generated to
represent the three most relevant professions that were selected to be included in the model (i.e., ICT,
finance, and students) and to be compared with everything else. For the income variable, two dummy
variables were generated to represent the middle-income and the high-income individuals to be
compared with the low-income group used as a reference category.
Figure 1. User interface of GoPay, OVO and DANA mobile apps.
3. Results
As it turned out, the top three e-wallet services used by participants in this study are GoPay, OVO, and
DANA. Figure 1 shows the interface of the three e-wallet mobile applications on the Android platform.
3ICITDA 2020 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1077 (2021) 012028 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1077/1/012028
As mentioned earlier, a total of 409 e-wallet users participated in this study. Table 1 provides the
demographic information (i.e., age, sex, place of origin, place of residency, profession, income, and
educational attainment) of these e-wallet users. In addition, this demographic information is also
presented separately for each of the top three e-wallet services to see whether there are some differences
in the characteristics of their users.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of e-wallet users participating in this study
Variables Category E-Wallet Services
Any GoPay OVO DANA
(100%) (71.64%) (65.28%) (43.28%)
freq % freq % freq % freq %
Age 17-25 288 70.42% 208 70.99% 192 71.91% 135 76.27%
26-35 99 24.21% 68 23.21% 62 23.22% 36 20.34%
>35 22 5.38% 17 5.80% 13 4.87% 6 3.39%
Sex Male 188 45.97% 131 44.71% 124 46.44% 96 54.24%
Female 221 54.03% 162 55.29% 143 53.56% 81 45.76%
Origin Java 284 69.44% 200 68.26% 185 69.29% 119 67.23%
Non-Java 125 30.56% 93 31.74% 82 30.71% 58 32.77%
Residency Java 334 81.66% 242 82.59% 221 82.77% 139 78.53%
Non-Java 75 18.34% 51 17.41% 46 17.23% 38 21.47%
Profession ICT 113 27.63% 87 29.69% 84 31.46% 61 34.46%
Finance 13 3.18% 4 1.37% 6 2.25% 4 2.26%
Student 42 10.27% 31 10.58% 26 9.74% 19 10.73%
Others 241 58.92% 171 58.36% 151 56.55% 93 52.54%
Income Low 232 56.72% 145 49.49% 136 50.94% 98 55.37%
Medium 73 17.85% 61 20.82% 49 18.35% 28 15.82%
High 104 25.43% 87 29.69% 82 30.71% 51 28.81%
Education Secondary ed. 86 21.03% 57 19.45% 56 20.97% 44 24.86%
College degree 323 78.97% 236 80.55% 211 79.03% 133 75.14%
All Samples 409 100% 293 100% 267 100% 177 100%
The descriptive statistics presented in Table 1 may have suggested some differences in characteristics
of each e-wallet service across different groups of users. To see if those differences are statistically
significant, a multivariate approach, which in this case is a logistic regression analysis, is needed. The
results of logistic regression analysis for each of the top three e-wallet services are summarized in Table
2. Each model shows the likelihood of participants to use the respective e-wallet service based on their
demographic information used as the predictors.
Despite having the largest user base among all other e-wallet services, it turned out that GoPay was
not the most frequently used e-wallet among all participants. That title went to OVO, instead. As shown
in Table 3, more than 40% participants in this study picked OVO as their most frequently used e-wallet,
beating GoPay at slightly more than 30%. Just like in the previous case, DANA ranked the third as it
was the most frequently used e-wallet by just shy of 11% participants.
4ICITDA 2020 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1077 (2021) 012028 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1077/1/012028
Table 2. Logistic Regression results of E-wallet Services
Variables E-wallet Services
GoPay OVO DANA
Age 1.022 0.976 0.918 **
(0.027) 0.021 (0.025)
Sex
(Female) 1.326 1.078 0.564 **
(0.321) 0.241 (0.123)
Origin & Domicile
(Not from Java, currently in Java) 2.550 * 1.844 0.418 *
(1.161) (0.736) (0.159)
(From Java, not currently in Java) 1.976 3.453 0.448
(1.696) (2.883) (0.313)
(From Java, currently in Java) 1.246 1.326 0.632
(0.399) (0.396) (0.189)
Profession
(ICT) 1.176 1.506 1.503
(0.337) (0.404) (0.372)
(Finance) 0.139 ** 0.492 0.636
(0.092) (0.293) (0.405)
(Student) 1.500 0.850 0.983
(0.651) (0.336) (0.384)
Income
(Medium) 3.230 *** 1.488 0.991
(1.184) (0.443) (0.295)
(High) 3.098 *** 2.603 *** 1.582
(1.024) (0.779) (0.431)
Education
(College) 1.043 0.758 0.699
(0.328) (0.230) (0.212)
Constant 0.585 2.191 15.015 ***
(0.447) (1.485) (11.582)
χ2 42.62 *** 25.44 ** 35.89 ***
df 9 9 9
Observations 409 409 409
Note: The numbers reported were odds ratios with standard errors between parentheses.
Signif. cosdes: ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05
Again, the descriptive statistics presented in Table 3 may have suggested some differences in
characteristics of users who choose one e-wallet service over another. However, a multivariate approach
in the form of multinomial logistic regression analysis can help uncover some significant factors behind
that decision. The results of multinomial logistic regression analysis are summarized in Table 4. The
model shows the likelihood of participants to choose one of the three most frequently used e-wallet
services compared to any other e-wallet services used by the participants in this study combined,
5ICITDA 2020 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1077 (2021) 012028 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1077/1/012028
including but not limited to ShopeePay and LinkAja. In this multinomial logistic regression model, only
ICT and students are included as dummy variables for professions since in DANA’s case, nobody from
the financial sector picked it as their most frequently used e-wallet service.
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics the most frequently used e-wallet in this study
E-wallet Services
Variables Category Any GoPay OVO DANA
(100%) (31.30%) (40.10%) (10.76%)
freq % freq % freq % freq %
Age 17-25 288 70.42% 87 67.97% 123 75.00% 34 77.27%
26-35 99 24.21% 31 24.22% 36 21.95% 9 20.45%
>35 22 5.38% 10 7.81% 5 3.05% 1 2.27%
Sex Male 188 45.97% 56 43.75% 71 43.29% 29 65.91%
Female 221 54.03% 72 56.25% 93 56.71% 15 34.09%
Origin Java 284 69.44% 91 71.09% 112 68.29% 26 59.09%
Non-Java 125 30.56% 37 28.91% 52 31.71% 18 40.91%
Residency Java 334 81.66% 105 82.03% 141 85.98% 31 70.45%
Non-Java 75 18.34% 23 17.97% 23 14.02% 13 29.55%
Profession ICT 113 27.63% 33 25.78% 54 32.93% 13 29.55%
Finance 13 3.18% 2 1.56% 5 3.05% 0 0.00%
Student 42 10.27% 17 13.28% 14 8.54% 5 11.36%
Others 241 58.92% 76 59.38% 91 55.49% 26 59.09%
Income Low 232 56.72% 68 53.13% 84 51.22% 34 77.27%
Medium 73 17.85% 28 21.88% 28 17.07% 4 9.09%
High 104 25.43% 32 25.00% 52 31.71% 6 13.64%
Education Secondary ed. 86 21.03% 25 19.53% 36 21.95% 12 27.27%
College degree 323 78.97% 103 80.47% 125 78.05% 32 72.73%
All Samples 409 100% 128 100% 164 100% 44 100%
4. Discussion
Based on the descriptive statistics in Table 1, the number of participants who have some experience
using e-wallet services is consistent with the market share discussed earlier in the introduction. GoPay
led the market with 293 users (71.64%), OVO came in second place with 267 users (65.28%), and
DANA ranked third with 177 users (43.28%). However, it turns out that OVO has the most loyal user
base where 164 of 267 (61.42%) users picked it as their most frequently used e-wallet service, far more
than 128 of 293 (43.69%) users in GoPay’s case and 44 of 177 (23.86%) users in DANA’s case.
In terms of age, most e-wallet users came from the younger group between the age of 17 and 25
(70.42%). However, DANA is much more popular among the younger users compared to all other e-
wallet services as confirmed in the logistic regression model in Table 2 and the multinomial logistic
regression model in Table 4. It is also discovered that DANA is much more popular among male users
than any other e-wallet services. In fact, it is the only e-wallet service that is used by more males (n =
96, 54.24%) than females (n = 81, 45.76%) in this study, almost the opposite of the general landscape
6ICITDA 2020 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1077 (2021) 012028 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1077/1/012028
of e-wallet users in this study with 54.03% females (n = 221) and 45,97% males (n = 188). The difference
is even higher among those who picked DANA as their most frequently used e-wallet where the male
users (n = 29, 65.91%) are almost twice as many as the female users (n = 15, 34.09%).
Table 4. Multinomial Logistic Regression results of Most Frequently Used E-wallet Services
Variables E-wallet Services
GoPay OVO DANA
Age .999 0.946 0.871 *
(0.026) 0.028 (0.056)
Sex
(Female) 1.084 1.258 0.423 *
(0.335) 0.381 (0.178)
Origin & Domicile
(Not from Java, currently in Java) 2.478 3.509 * 1.444
(1.559) (2.139) (0.849)
(From Java, not currently in Java) 1.147 0.621 0.434
(0.962) (0.574) (0.554)
(From Java, currently in Java) 1.224 1.306 0.599
(0.506) (0.532) (0.297)
Profession
(ICT) 1.176 1.855 1.742
(0.337) (0.689) (0.850)
(Student) 1.885 0.832 0.975
(1.082) (0.486) (0.721)
Income
(Medium) 1.487 1.268 0.445
(0.599) (0.511) (0.287)
(High) 1.551 2.217 * 0.581
(0.630) (0.865) (0.337)
Education
(College) 0.910 0.620 0.939
(0.402) (0.262) (0.531)
Constant 1.038 5.864 43.453 *
(0.944) (5.523) (69.767)
χ2 55.37 **
df 30
Observations 409
Note: The numbers reported were relative-risk ratios with standard errors between parentheses.
Other e-wallet services (combined) were used as the reference category.
Signif. codes: ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05
Regarding the user's geographical location, more e-wallet users are originated from Java (69.44%)
and currently reside in Java (81.66%). Nonetheless, it is interesting to see that compared to those who
are both originated from and currently living outside Java, participants who are originated from outside
Java but currently living in Java are much more likely to be GoPay’s users while much less likely to be
DANA’s users (see Table 2), but they are most likely to pick OVO as their most frequently used e-wallet
7ICITDA 2020 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1077 (2021) 012028 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1077/1/012028
service (see Table 4). It is an indication that compared with any other e-wallet services, OVO is more
appealing especially to users from this group.
The findings, especially from Table 2, also suggest that both GoPay and OVO are much more
appealing to the middle to upper class economy. One most plausible reason is because of their
cooperation with the most popular online transportation applications in Indonesia, GoJek and Grab [22].
Specifically, GoPay as an e-wallet service is part of GoJek, while OVO has collaborations with Grab.
Both GoJek and Grab main service is transportation, but they also offer multiple other services such as
food and package delivery currently operating in more than 50 cities in Indonesia [23]. Nonetheless, the
results from Table 4 shows that the high-income class people are much more likely to pick OVO as their
most frequently used e-wallet service. This phenomenon can be explained by two reasons. First, unlike
GoPay that is part of GoJek mobile app, OVO has its own separate app, making it easier to use it for
anything else outside the services provided by the online transportation app. Second, it also has a
collaboration with Tokopedia, the most popular e-commerce platform in Indonesia with USD 16.5
billion worth of transactions in 2019 [24]. As for DANA that seems to be more appealing to the middle
to lower class economy is perhaps due to the fact that DANA is used for disbursement of the Kartu
Prakerja Indonesia, a kind of social security net program for those who are unemployed [25].
Based on these findings, it can be inferred that GoPay as the market leader is suffering from lacking
uniqueness compared with the other top three e-wallet services. As suggested in the multinomial logistic
regression model in Table 4, there is not even a single factor that differentiates GoPay users from the
users of other e-wallet services. Meanwhile, OVO and DANA got strong loyalty from at least two
different groups of users. The former can rely on the migrants currently living in Java and the high-
income people, whereas the latter got strong support from the younger generation and male users. If
anything, both OVO and DANA might have a better chance at focusing their marketing strategy towards
these specific groups of people. As for GoPay, the market leader itself, it might be a good time to revisit
their marketing strategy. Without some innovation, perhaps even a radical one, it might only be a matter
of time that they will be taken over by OVO as the market leader in the e-wallet industry in Indonesia.
5. Conclusion
This study confirms the status of GoPay, OVO, and DANA as the top three e-wallet services in Indonesia
by Q2 of 2020. The results show that GoPay has the largest user base (71.64%) but OVO, used by
65.28% of e-wallet users, is the one with the most loyal user base. More than 40% participants in this
study chose OVO as their most frequently used e-wallet compared to the 31% of participants who stick
with GoPay. Meanwhile, DANA as the third ranked e-wallet both in terms of user base and user loyalty
has the most different user characteristics of them all. It is much more appealing to the younger users
and male users than any other e-wallet services in Indonesia. The findings from this study can
complement and enrich the literature in the financial technology sector and shed light on the use of the
e-wallet and e-payment industry in Indonesia. Apart from laying out some ground work for further
research, the insight from this study can also be used by each e-wallet service to help make decisions as
part of their marketing strategy. Understanding the user's characteristics is important, especially for the
industry as this information is useful in helping with the product development and marketing strategy.
One limitation in this study has something to do with the distribution of geographical location of
participants that ended up with a simplification of Java and outside Java. A larger and more normally
distributed sample from different regions of Indonesia would provide better and more comprehensive
insight. Also, considering there are many more e-wallet services in Indonesia, it would be a good idea
to investigate them all to see if there are some other e-wallet services that serve a niche market much
more different than the other e-wallet services. Nonetheless, by identifying users’ characteristics of the
top three e-wallet services in Indonesia, this study shows that each e-wallet service has the potential to
be more appealing to different groups of users especially with their unique features that differentiate
them from each other. Considering the lack of such information in the literature, this study can lay out
a good foundation for further understanding of the use of e-wallet services and the characteristics of e-
wallet users in Indonesia.
8ICITDA 2020 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1077 (2021) 012028 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1077/1/012028
References
[1] Banindro S B 2017 Sejarah Uang Kertas “Oeang Republik Indonesia Masa Revolusi 1945-1949
(Yogyakarta: BP ISI)
[2] Pramono B 2006 Dampak pembayaran non tunai terhadap perekonomian dan kebijakan non
moneter Working Paper of Bank Indonesia p 11
[3] Nabila M, Purwandari B, Nazief B A A, Chalid D A, Wibowo S S and Solichah I 2018 Financial
technology acceptance factors of electronic wallet and digital cash in indonesia ICITSI pp 284–
9
[4] Teoh W M Y, Chong S C, Lin B and Chua J W 2013 Factors affecting consumers’ perception of
electronic payment: an empirical analysis Internet Research 23(4) pp 465–85
[5] Junadi and Sfenrianto 2015 A model of factors influencing consumer’s intention to use Procedia
Computer Sci. 5 pp 214–20
[6] Bank Indonesia 2020 Digital Payment Transformation Bank Indonesia: Demographic Structure
and Digital Vision Indonesia Retrieved from https://www.bi.go.id/id/institute/kegiatan/
Flagship/Contents/Digital%20Payment%20Transformation.pdf
[7] Korella J L and Wenwei L 2018 Retail payment behaviour and the adoption of innovative
payments: a comparative study in china and germany J. of Payments Strategy and Systems pp
245–65
[8] Angelina C and Rahadi R A 2020 A conceptual study on the factors influencing usage intention
of e-wallet in Java, Indonesia IJAFB 5(27) pp 19–29
[9] Angelini K and Koesrindartoto D P 2019 E-money or e-wallet? a study of university students
preference in choosing cashless payment systems ICMEM IICIES pp 64-8.
[10] Mainwaring S D, Anderson K and Chang M F 2005 What’s in your wallet? implications for global
e-wallet design CHI Late Breaking Result: Posters
[11] Singh S 2019 E-wallet: an overview Int. J. of Technol. and Innovation Research 1 pp 50–7
[12] Kalyani P 2016 An empirical study about the awareness of paperless e-currency transactions like
e-wallet using ICT in the youth of India JMEIT 3(3) pp 94–110
[13] Abu B N, Rosbi S and Uzaki K 2020 E-wallet transactional framework for digital economy: a
perspective from Islamic financial engineering Int. J. of Management Science and Business
Administration 6(3) pp 50–7
[14] Bank Indonesia 2020 Informasi Perizinan Penyelenggaraan dan Pendukung Jasa Sistem
Pembayaran Retrieved on 27 May 2020 from https://www.bi.go.id/id/sistem-
pembayaran/informasi-perizinan/uang-elektronik/penyelenggara-berizin/Contents/
Default.aspx
[15] Soegoto D S and Tampubolon M P 2020 E-wallet as payment instrument in the millennial era
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 879 pp 1–7
[16] Widiyanti W 2020 Pengaruh kemanfaatan, kemudahan pengguna dan promosi terhadap
keputusan pengguna e-wallet ovo di depok Moneter Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan 7
[17] Devita V D 2020 E-wallet lokal masih mendominasi q2 2019-2020 Retrieved on 12 August 2020
from https://iprice.co.id/trend/insights/top-e-wallet-di-indonesia-2020/.
[18] Teoh T T, Melissa, Yew H C and Heang L T 2020 E-wallet adoption: a case in malaysia Int. J. of
Research in Commerce and Management Studies pp 216–23
[19] Subaramaniam K, Kalandaisami R and Jalil A B 2020 The impact of e-wallets for current
generation J. of Adv. Research in Dynamical & Control Systems 12 pp 751–9
[20] Intarot P and Beokhaimook C 2018 Influencing factor in e-wallet acceptance and use Int. J. of
Business and Administrative Studies 4(4) pp 167–75
[21] Akinbile L A, Akwiwu U N and Alade O O 2014 Determinants of farmers’ willingness to utilise
e-wallet for accessing agricultural information on Osun State Nigeria Nigerian J. of Rural
15(1) pp 105–13
[22] Mulyono H and Helmi S 2018 e-crm and loyalty: a mediation effect of custom experience and
satisfaction in online transportation of Indonesia J. of Economic Studies 4(3) pp 96–105
9ICITDA 2020 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1077 (2021) 012028 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1077/1/012028
[23] Azzuhri A A, Syarafina A, Yoga F T and Amalia R 2018 A creative, innovative and solutive
transportation for indonesia with its setback and how to tackle them: a case study of the
phenomenal gojek Integrative Business and Economics Research 7(1) pp 59–67
[24] Jayani D H 2019 Tokopedia dengan Nilai Transaksi Terbesar Retrieved on 15 Oktober 2019 from
https://databoks.katadata.co.id/datapublish/2019/10/15/2014-2023-nilai-transaksi-tokopedia-
terbesar-dibandingkan-e-commerce-lainnya.
[25] Evandio A 2018 Dana Resmi Ditunjuk Jadi Mitra Prakerja Retrieved on 20 August 2020 from
https://teknologi.bisnis.com/read/20200820/266/1281291/dana-resmi-ditunjuk-jadi-mitra-
kartu-prakerja
10You can also read
