Blockchain-Powered Asset Tokenization Platform

Aaryan Sinha; Alavikunhu Panthakkan; Pranav Pawar; Raja Muthalagu; Shadi Atalla

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 19 references

Blockchain-Powered Asset Tokenization Platform

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a browser-based DApp called WDApp lets ordinary users create and manage ERC-20 and ERC-721 asset tokens on Ethereum with no onboarding cost and minimal overheads.

desk verdict A cleanly written demo of standard Ethereum tokenization components whose 'zero centrality' claim is contradicted by its own Infura/Streamlit architecture. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06752 v1 pith:IIYZBFAQ submitted 2025-02-10 cs.CR

Aaryan Sinha , Raja Muthalagu , Pranav Pawar , Alavikunhu Panthakkan , Shadi Atalla This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CR

keywords blockchaintokenizationdistributedapplicationERC-20ERC-721EthereumWeb3real-worldassets

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a lightweight, open-source distributed application can put asset tokenization in the hands of ordinary users. The proposed platform, WDApp, lets a user create and manage ERC-20 and ERC-721 tokens representing real-world or digital assets, with no onboarding cost, no platform fees, and no enterprise intermediary. If the claim holds, individual users and small decentralized groups could issue liquid, transferable claims on assets using the same standards that power widely used Ethereum tokens. The demonstration on a testnet shows the workflow functioning end to end; the paper's broader claim is that this combination of standardized contracts and a simple user interface is enough to make tokenization accessible without sacrificing the transparency of a public blockchain.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pair of Ethereum token standards ERC-20 and ERC-721, the common interfaces for fungible and non-fungible tokens, implemented as reusable smart contracts and driven through a Web3-style backend. Those standards define the functions the app exposes to users: checking balances, transferring tokens, and approving third-party spenders. The backend carries each user action into a contract call, the browser wallet supplies transaction signing, and the Ethereum network records the result immutably on-chain. The standards also provide the interoperability the paper uses to argue that tokens made in WDApp work outside the app.

What would settle it

Run the app with a modified relay service that silently rewrites the recipient address in a transfer request and show that the user's wallet displays and signs the altered transaction; that failure would prove the platform's security does not actually reduce to the blockchain's, contradicting the maximum-decentralization claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that WDApp, a full-stack distributed application, provides an open-source path for ordinary users to create and deploy asset tokens on Ethereum: ERC-20 for fungible assets and ERC-721 for non-fungible assets. In the demonstration, a user fills a small web form, authenticates through a browser wallet, and the backend, built against a standard Ethereum web interface, deploys or interacts with a smart contract on the Sepolia testnet. The resulting transactions are mined and verified on a public block explorer, which the paper offers as evidence that token creation and transfer are transparent, secure, and interoperable with the wider Ethereum ecosystem. The paper further claims this workflow removes onboarding costs and reduces centralized control compared to enterprise tokenization platforms.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the parts of the app outside the blockchain, namely the web page, the relay service that connects it to Ethereum, and the browser wallet, will faithfully pass along the user's intended transaction; if any of those parts is compromised or malicious, the tokenization workflow can be altered even though the blockchain itself remains secure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A user needs only a browser wallet to issue a new token; no enterprise onboarding or initial capital outlay is required.
Tokens minted through the platform follow public standards, so they are usable in any wallet, exchange, or DApp that supports ERC-20 or ERC-721.
Every mint, transfer, and approval is recorded on-chain and visible on a block explorer, giving stakeholders a shared, auditable record that no single party controls.
The open-source codebase lets DAOs or other communities embed additional legal or compliance rules into the smart contracts, moving some compliance work away from centralized platform operators.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper leaves implicit that the user-facing path is still anchored to a hosted relay service and a browser extension; a stricter decentralization test would run the same interface against a local Ethereum node.
Issuing a token on Ethereum does not by itself transfer legal title to a house or artwork; a separate registry, oracle, or legal agreement is needed, so the paper's 'legal compliance' is a design goal rather than an automatic property of the deployed contracts.
A direct extension would be a mainnet pilot with a real asset class, measuring whether users can complete the whole lifecycle of creation, transfer, and redemption without recourse to a centralized authority.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a well-presented student demo, not a research result. The authors assemble a tokenization DApp from standard parts—OpenZeppelin ERC-20/ERC-721, Web3.py, Infura, MetaMask, Streamlit—deploy one token on Sepolia, and show screenshots of a successful transfer. That part is real and reproducible in spirit: the code is open source, and the Etherscan confirmation proves a transaction happened.

The central problem is the gap between the claims and the evidence. The paper says WDApp offers 'maximum decentralization' and 'zero centrality,' but Fig. 3 shows every user action passes through a Streamlit front end and a single Infura API endpoint. That is a centralized web app with blockchain settlement, not a trust-minimized platform. A compromised front-end host or Infura key could redirect users to a malicious contract or display false balances. The stress-test note is correct on this; the paper never provides a threat model or decentralization analysis. Even worse, Section III concedes the application 'needs to be experimented with multiple real-time use cases' to achieve a 'transparent decentralized solution'—an admission that the headline claim is aspirational.

There is some good here. The writing is clear, the architecture figures are helpful, and the authors sensibly build on audited standards rather than inventing a new token. The qualitative comparison with Fireblocks, Codefi, and Obito shows they looked at the competitive landscape. But the comparison tables are self-assessed and score WDApp as perfect on every axis, which is not persuasive. There is no security analysis, no scalability benchmark, no user study, and only one testnet transaction.

For whom is this useful? As a tutorial or blog post for someone wanting to build a simple tokenization DApp, it would be a fine starting point. As a research paper, the unsupported claims and lack of evaluation put it below the bar. I would not send this to peer review in its current form. If the authors scaled back the claims, added a real threat model, and positioned it as a practice-oriented system description, it could become a workshop paper. But that requires substantial revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper describes WDApp, a blockchain-based asset tokenization platform. The authors implement a web application that lets a user create and transfer an ERC-20 token (and claim analogous support for ERC-721) using Solidity smart contracts built on OpenZeppelin, a Web3.py backend, an Infura API endpoint, a Streamlit front end, and MetaMask for transaction authentication. The only demonstrated result is a single ERC-20 transfer on the Sepolia testnet, confirmed by a transaction hash and an Etherscan screenshot. The paper's stated contributions are an open-source, user-friendly tokenization platform that reduces onboarding costs, simplifies asset liquidation, and makes legal compliance more decentralized. The broader claims in the abstract and introduction, namely "highly secure," "high scalability," and "maximum decentralization," go well beyond what the demonstrated prototype and the provided analysis support.

Significance. If the narrow claim is taken alone, the paper demonstrates a working end-to-end flow for creating and transferring an ERC-20 token through a web DApp; this is a useful educational or tutorial-level artifact, and the authors deserve credit for providing an open-source implementation and for grounding the demo in standard OpenZeppelin contracts. However, the research-level significance claimed by the paper depends on the assertions of high security, high scalability, and zero centrality. These assertions are neither measured nor argued rigorously. The architecture shown in Fig. 3 introduces centralized components that contradict the zero-centrality claim, and Sec. III explicitly admits that the application has not yet been tested in multiple real-world use cases. As a result, the paper's significance as a research contribution is limited to a prototype demonstration; its central claims are currently unsupported and, in the case of the decentralization claim, contradicted by the platform's own design.

major comments (4)

[Sec. II.B, Fig. 3] The architecture routes all user interactions through a Streamlit front end and a Web3.py back end connected to a single Infura API endpoint. These are unilaterally controllable components: a compromised Streamlit host or Infura key could display false balances, redirect contract calls, or censor transactions, with no on-chain detection. This directly contradicts the "Zero Centrality" entry for WDApp in Table II and the abstract's "highly secure" and "decentralized" claims. The paper provides no threat model, no trust-minimization mechanism (e.g., client-side verification, decentralized front-end hosting, or fallback RPC endpoints), and no discussion of how an adversarial host would be detected, so the central decentralization and security claims are unsupported.
[Sec. III, final paragraph; Sec. II.E] The paper's own conclusion states that the application "needs to be experimented with multiple real-time use cases and user-groups to ensure it achieves its goal of a transparent decentralized solution." Combined with Sec. II.E, where the only evidence is a single Sepolia testnet transaction (Fig. 11), this means the claims of high security, high scalability, and maximum decentralization are predictions rather than demonstrated results. There are no measurements of transaction throughput, latency, gas costs, uptime, usability, or adversarial robustness; the "Results" section reports only that an ERC-20 transfer was mined. This gap is load-bearing because the paper frames the platform's contribution as a secure, scalable, decentralized solution, not merely as a minimal proof-of-concept.
[Tables I and II] The qualitative comparison tables are the primary evidence for the paper's claimed advantages over existing platforms, but they contain unsupported categorical claims. Table II assigns WDApp "Zero Centrality," "Minimum overheads," and "Represent any asset," while Table I awards ERC-20 "Highest scalability" among the compared standards. No definitions, metrics, or measurement methodology are provided, and the comparison conflates token-standard properties (e.g., fungibility, interoperability) with platform-level properties (e.g., onboarding, overheads). The tables also fail to account for the centralized components shown in Fig. 3. As a result, the comparison does not substantiate the paper's conclusion that WDApp outperforms Fireblocks, Obito, and Codefi on decentralization and user convenience.
[Sec. II.A.b; Sec. II.C] The paper states that the OpenZeppelin-based contracts are "further customized to be able to mint more, burn and change ownership of these tokens," and Sec. II.A describes embedding legal-compliance norms. No security audit, formal verification, or even basic test results for these customizations are presented. The open-source claim in Sec. II.C refers to a GitHub repository, but no URL or artifact identifier is provided, so the code cannot be independently inspected. Given the paper's repeated "highly secure" claims, the absence of any vulnerability analysis for the custom contract logic and the unverifiable artifact link are load-bearing omissions.

minor comments (4)

[Fig. 8] Fig. 8 is split into three subfigures labeled (a), (b), and (c), but the caption is a single line and the placement relative to Fig. 9 is confusing; consider using separate floats with distinct captions.
[Throughout] There are numerous typographical and OCR artifacts, including "trust-less" vs. "trustless," "li kes" in the abstract, "OpenZepellin" in references [11] and [15], "movemnts" in Sec. III, and "Aacheive" in the review of [9]; the manuscript needs a careful proofread.
[References] Reference [5] is missing its page range, and references [1], [2], and [3] do not follow the same IEEE style as the other entries; author and publisher details should be made consistent.
[Sec. II.B] The sentence "the proposed contract workflow helps back any tokens minted to be secure" is grammatically unclear; the intended meaning should be rephrased, and the relationship between the contract workflow and the security property should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation; central claims are implementation assertions, with self-rated comparison tables as correctness/evidence concerns, not circularity.

full rationale

This paper does not present a mathematical derivation or a fitted model, so the standard circularity traps (self-definition, fitted input called prediction, load-bearing self-citation, imported uniqueness, ansatz-by-citation, renamed known result) do not apply. The deployment chain is an empirical report: contracts are constructed from OpenZeppelin's ERC-20/721 standards (external, machine-checkable by inspection), deployed via Remix on Sepolia, and exercised through a Web3.py/Infura/Streamlit front end. Security is asserted as inherited from Ethereum and OpenZeppelin, which is not circular. The most questionable passage is Table II's self-rating 'Zero Centrality' for WDApp despite Fig. 3 showing an Infura API endpoint and Streamlit backend; this is an unsupported comparative claim and a correctness/evidentiary weakness, not an input-output equivalence. Section III's own admission that the application 'needs to be experimented with multiple real-time use cases and user-groups to ensure it achieves its goal of a transparent decentralized solution' further shows the central claim is a stated aspiration, not a derived result. No step reduces by construction to its inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper has no fitted parameters and introduces no new physical or conceptual entities. Its central claim rests on domain assumptions about the security of Ethereum, the correctness of OpenZeppelin contracts, and the adequacy of a single testnet demo. The self-acknowledged lack of real-world testing makes these assumptions load-bearing.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Ethereum (or Sepolia testnet) provides a trustworthy, secure, and transparent environment for asset tokenization
Invoked throughout Section II; no analysis of network-specific risks, finality, or alternatives is provided.
domain assumption OpenZeppelin's ERC-20 and ERC-721 base contracts are secure and sufficient for real-world asset tokens
Section II.A adopts OpenZeppelin contracts without an audit or a description of the custom modifications.
ad hoc to paper A testnet demonstration with a single transaction is representative of real-world performance and security
Section II.E presents the Etherscan confirmation as proof of the application's validity and security; no production test is described.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Blockchain-Powered Asset Tokenization Platform." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IIYZBFAQ

@misc{pith2026250206752,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Blockchain-Powered Asset Tokenization Platform},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IIYZBFAQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06752}
}

read the original abstract

Blockchain Technology has revolutionized Finance and Technology with its secure, decentralized, and trust-less methodologies of data management. In a world where asset value fluctuations are unprecedented, it has become increasingly important to secure one's stake on their valuable assets and streamline the process of acquiring and transferring that stake over a trust-less environment. Tokenization proves to be unbeaten when it comes to giving the ownership of one's asset, an immutable, liquid, and irrefutable identity, as of the likes of cryptocurrency. It enables users to store and maintain records of their assets and even transfer fractions of these assets to other investors and stakeholders in the form of these tokens. However, like cryptocurrency, it too has witnessed attacks by malicious users that have compromised on their very foundation of security.These attacks have inflicted more damage since they represent real-world assets that have physical importance. This project aims to assist users to secure their valuable assets by providing a highly secure user-friendly platform to manage, create and deploy asset-tokens, and facilitate open and transparent communication between stakeholders, thereby upholding the decentralized nature of blockchain and offering the financial freedom of asset ownership, with an added market value of a cryptocurrency-backed tokens.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06752 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** A Swimlane and Class diagram depicting the Contract Deployment Workflow DApp Back end Deployment Script holds ABI.json, Bytecode & Contract Address Change URL Infura API Endpoint No Web3.py Library Establish Ethereum Yes If URL Network connection HTTPProvider(infur_url) Valid through API eth.contract(contract_address, abi) is_address(address) Validity Check to_checksum_address(address) Convert Streamlit Front End Us… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** State Diagrams illustrating the full-stack aspects of the distributed application workflow and end-user interaction with WDApp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Landing page with endpoint connected with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: View functions for token status. The entirety of the back-end and the front-end code is opensourced and can be found on the author’s GitHub repository. D. Simulation environment The proposed smart contract was deployed using the Remix Web IDE on a Sepolia Testnet. The…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Non-Fungible Token (NFT): What It Means and How It Works

R. Sharma, “Non-Fungible Token (NFT): What It Means and How It Works.” Investopedia. Jun. 12, 2024. Accessed: May 5, 2024. [On- line]. Available: https://www.investopedia.com/non-fungible- tokens-nft-5115211

work page 2024
[2]

21, 2024)

CoinGecko, Synthetic Assets Explained, (Mar. 21, 2024). Accessed: May 5, 2024. [Online Video]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unIGQXgewcA&feature=youtu.be

work page 2024
[3]

Asset Tokenization Explained: Benefits, Risks, and How It Can Work

“Asset Tokenization Explained: Benefits, Risks, and How It Can Work.” Chainalysis. Mar. 22, 2024. Accessed: May 5, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/asset-tokenization-explained/

work page 2024
[4]

Frolov, A.A

V.N. Frolov, A.A. Vatolin, and A.P. Romanchuk, ”Asset tokenization and related problems,” in IEEE Transl. Proc. Steklov Inst. Math, vol. 323 (Suppl 1), 2023, pp. S98 –S112. [Trudy Instituta Matematiki i Mekhaniki Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 231–246, 2023] doi: 10.1134/S0081543823060081

work page doi:10.1134/s0081543823060081 2023
[5]

Henker, D

R. Henker, D. Atzberger, W. Scheibel and J. Doll ner,¨ ”Real estate tokenization in Germany: market analysis and concept of a regulatory and technical solution,” presented at the 2023 IEEE Int. Conf. on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), Dubai, UAE, May 1-5, 2023, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1109/ICBC56567.2023.10174954

work page arXiv 2023
[6]

Shi, ”Decoding the Future of Finance: An Examination of Asset Tokenization and Web 3.0,” in Eximia Journal, vol

J. Shi, ”Decoding the Future of Finance: An Examination of Asset Tokenization and Web 3.0,” in Eximia Journal, vol. 11 (1), Aug. 2, 2023, pp. 257-263, doi:10.47577/eximia.v11i1.303

work page doi:10.47577/eximia.v11i1.303 2023
[7]

Zarifis, and X

A. Zarifis, and X. Cheng, ”The business models of NFTs and fan tokens and how they build trust,” Journal of Electronic Business and Digital Economics, Vol. 1 No. 1/2, 2022, pp. 138 -151, doi:10.1108/JEBDE-07-2022-0021

work page doi:10.1108/jebde-07-2022-0021 2022
[8]

Y. Tian, R. E. Minchin, c. Peterson, E. Moayed and P. Adiaens, ”Financing Public -Private Partnershi p infrastructure projects through tokenization -enabled project finance on blockchain,” presented at IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 1218 (1), Jan. 1, 2022, pp. 012027. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1218/1/012027

work page doi:10.1088/1757-899x/1218/1/012027 2022

Show all 19 references

[9]

Buldas, D

A. Buldas, D. Draheim, M. Gault, R. Laanoja , T. Nagumo, S.T. Shah, M. Saarepera et al., ”An ultra-scalable blockchain plat-form for Universal Asset Tokenization: design and implementa -tion,” in IEEE Access, vol. 10, Jul. 21, 2022, pp. 77284 -77322. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3192837

2022
[10]

P. A. Drogovoz, N . A. Kashevarova, and I. S. Starikova, ”Development of blockchain platforms for tokenization of real assets,” in Ecological Footprint of the Modern Economy and the Ways to Reduce It. Advances in Science, Technology and Innovation, B.S. Sergi, E.G. Popkova, A....

2024
[11]

The ERC-1155 Standard

“The ERC-1155 Standard.” OpenZepellin. Accessed: May 5, 2024. [On - line]. Available: https://docs.openzeppelin.com/contracts/3.x/erc1155

2024
[12]

The BEP-20 Standard

“The BEP-20 Standard.” Binance Academy. Accessed: May 5, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://academy.binance.com/en/glossary/bep-20

2024
[13]

The KIP-37 Standard

“The KIP-37 Standard.” Klaytn Improvement Proposals. Accessed: May 5, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://kips.klaytn.foundation/KIPs/kip-37

2024
[14]

The TRC-20 Standard

“The TRC-20 Standard.” CoinGecko. Accessed: May 23, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.coingecko.com/learn/tron-trc-20-token-standards

2024
[15]

The ERC-721 Standard

“The ERC-721 Standard.” OpenZepellin. Accessed: May 5, 2024. [On - line]. Available: https://docs.openzeppelin.com/contracts/3.x/erc721

2024
[16]

The ERC-20 Standard

“The ERC-20 Standard.” Ethereum. Accessed: May 5, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/standards/tokens/erc - 20/

2024
[17]

Fireblocks Tokenization Platform

“Fireblocks Tokenization Platform.” Fireblocks. Accessed: May 23, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.fireblocks.com/platforms/tokenization/

2024
[18]

Obito Tokenization Platform by PixelPlex

“Obito Tokenization Platform by PixelPlex.” PixelPlex. Accessed: May 23, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://pixelplex.io/work/digital- asset-tokenization-platform/

2024
[19]

Codefi Tokenization Platform by Consensys

“Codefi Tokenization Platform by Consensys.” Consensys. Accessed: May 23, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://consensys.io/staking/assets

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Non-Fungible Token (NFT): What It Means and How It Works

R. Sharma, “Non-Fungible Token (NFT): What It Means and How It Works.” Investopedia. Jun. 12, 2024. Accessed: May 5, 2024. [On- line]. Available: https://www.investopedia.com/non-fungible- tokens-nft-5115211

work page 2024

[2] [2]

21, 2024)

CoinGecko, Synthetic Assets Explained, (Mar. 21, 2024). Accessed: May 5, 2024. [Online Video]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unIGQXgewcA&feature=youtu.be

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Asset Tokenization Explained: Benefits, Risks, and How It Can Work

“Asset Tokenization Explained: Benefits, Risks, and How It Can Work.” Chainalysis. Mar. 22, 2024. Accessed: May 5, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/asset-tokenization-explained/

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Frolov, A.A

V.N. Frolov, A.A. Vatolin, and A.P. Romanchuk, ”Asset tokenization and related problems,” in IEEE Transl. Proc. Steklov Inst. Math, vol. 323 (Suppl 1), 2023, pp. S98 –S112. [Trudy Instituta Matematiki i Mekhaniki Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 231–246, 2023] doi: 10.1134/S0081543823060081

work page doi:10.1134/s0081543823060081 2023

[5] [5]

Henker, D

R. Henker, D. Atzberger, W. Scheibel and J. Doll ner,¨ ”Real estate tokenization in Germany: market analysis and concept of a regulatory and technical solution,” presented at the 2023 IEEE Int. Conf. on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), Dubai, UAE, May 1-5, 2023, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1109/ICBC56567.2023.10174954

work page arXiv 2023

[6] [6]

Shi, ”Decoding the Future of Finance: An Examination of Asset Tokenization and Web 3.0,” in Eximia Journal, vol

J. Shi, ”Decoding the Future of Finance: An Examination of Asset Tokenization and Web 3.0,” in Eximia Journal, vol. 11 (1), Aug. 2, 2023, pp. 257-263, doi:10.47577/eximia.v11i1.303

work page doi:10.47577/eximia.v11i1.303 2023

[7] [7]

Zarifis, and X

A. Zarifis, and X. Cheng, ”The business models of NFTs and fan tokens and how they build trust,” Journal of Electronic Business and Digital Economics, Vol. 1 No. 1/2, 2022, pp. 138 -151, doi:10.1108/JEBDE-07-2022-0021

work page doi:10.1108/jebde-07-2022-0021 2022

[8] [8]

Y. Tian, R. E. Minchin, c. Peterson, E. Moayed and P. Adiaens, ”Financing Public -Private Partnershi p infrastructure projects through tokenization -enabled project finance on blockchain,” presented at IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 1218 (1), Jan. 1, 2022, pp. 012027. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1218/1/012027

work page doi:10.1088/1757-899x/1218/1/012027 2022