اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدSoK: Decentralized Finance (DeFi)
99
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Decentralized Finance (DeFi), a blockchain powered peer-to-peer financial system, is mushrooming. One year ago the total value locked in DeFi systems was approximately 700m USD, now, as of April 2021, it stands at around 51bn USD. The frenetic evolution of the ecosystem makes it challenging for newcomers to gain an understanding of its basic features. In this Systematization of Knowledge (SoK), we delineate the DeFi ecosystem along its principal axes. First, we provide an overview of the DeFi primitives. Second, we classify DeFi protocols according to the type of operation they provide. We then go on to consider in detail the technical and economic security of DeFi protocols, drawing particular attention to the issues that emerge specifically in the DeFi setting. Finally, we outline the open research challenges in the ecosystem.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
To non-experts, the traditional Centralized Finance (CeFi) ecosystem may seem obscure, because users are typically not aware of the underlying rules or agreements of financial assets and products. Decentralized Finance (DeFi), however, is making its
debut as an ecosystem claiming to offer transparency and control, which are partially attributable to the underlying integrity-protected blockchain, as well as currently higher financial asset yields than CeFi. Yet, the boundaries between CeFi and DeFi may not be always so clear cut. In this work, we systematically analyze the differences between CeFi and DeFi, covering legal, economic, security, privacy and market manipulation. We provide a structured methodology to differentiate between a CeFi and a DeFi service. Our findings show that certain DeFi assets (such as USDC or USDT stablecoins) do not necessarily classify as DeFi assets, and may endanger the economic security of intertwined DeFi protocols. We conclude this work with the exploration of possible synergies between CeFi and DeFi.
Machine learning models are increasingly used in a wide variety of financial settings. The difficulty of understanding the inner workings of these systems, combined with their wide applicability, has the potential to lead to significant new risks for
users; these risks need to be understood and quantified. In this sub-chapter, we will focus on a well studied application of machine learning techniques, to pricing and hedging of financial options. Our aim will be to highlight the various sources of risk that the introduction of machine learning emphasises or de-emphasises, and the possible risk mitigation and management strategies that are available.
Yield farming has been an immensely popular activity for cryptocurrency holders since the explosion of Decentralized Finance (DeFi) in the summer of 2020. In this Systematization of Knowledge (SoK), we study a general framework for yield farming stra
tegies with empirical analysis. First, we summarize the fundamentals of yield farming by focusing on the protocols and tokens used by aggregators. We then examine the sources of yield and translate those into three example yield farming strategies, followed by the simulations of yield farming performance, based on these strategies. We further compare four major yield aggregrators -- Idle, Pickle, Harvest and Yearn -- in the ecosystem, along with brief introductions of others. We systematize their strategies and revenue models, and conduct an empirical analysis with on-chain data from example vaults, to find a plausible connection between data anomalies and historical events. Finally, we discuss the benefits and risks of yield aggregators.
In this paper, we construct a decentralized clearing mechanism which endogenously and automatically provides a claims resolution procedure. This mechanism can be used to clear a network of obligations through blockchain. In particular, we investigate
default contagion in a network of smart contracts cleared through blockchain. In so doing, we provide an algorithm which constructs the blockchain so as to guarantee the payments can be verified and the miners earn a fee. We, additionally, consider the special case in which the blocks have unbounded capacity to provide a simple equilibrium clearing condition for the terminal net worths; existence and uniqueness are proven for this system. Finally, we consider the optimal bidding strategies for each firm in the network so that all firms are utility maximizers with respect to their terminal wealths. We first look for a mixed Nash equilibrium bidding strategies, and then also consider Pareto optimal bidding strategies. The implications of these strategies, and more broadly blockchain, on systemic risk are considered.
Background: During the last years, there has been a lot of discussion and estimations on the energy consumption of Bitcoin miners. However, most of the studies are focused on estimating energy consumption, not in exploring the factors that determine
it. Goal: To explore the factors that determine maximum energy consumption of Bitcoin miners. In particular, analyze the limits of energy consumption, and to which extent variations of the factors could produce its reduction. Method: Estimate the overall profit of all Bitcoin miners during a certain period of time, and the costs (including energy) that they face during that time, because of the mining activity. The underlying assumptions is that miners will only consume energy to mine Bitcoin if they have the expectation of profit, and at the same time they are competitive with respect of each other. Therefore, they will operate as a group in the point where profits balance expenditures. Results: We show a basic equation that determines energy consumption based on some specific factors: minting, transaction fees, exchange rate, energy price, and amortization cost. We also define the Amortization Factor, which can be computed for mining devices based on their cost and energy consumption, helps to understand how the cost of equipment influences total energy consumption. Conclusions: The factors driving energy consumption are identified, and from them, some ways in which Bitcoin energy consumption could be reduced are discussed. Some of these ways do not reduce the most important properties of Bitcoin, such as the chances of control of the aggregated hashpower, or the fundamentals of the proof of work mechanism. In general, the methods presented can help to predict energy consumption in different scenarios, based on factors that can be calculated from available data, or assumed in scenarios.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
