Element and Everything Tokens: Two-Tier Architecture for Mobilizing Alternative Assets

Ailiya Borjigin; Charles CC Lee; Cong He; Wei Zhou

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 22 references

Element and Everything Tokens: Two-Tier Architecture for Mobilizing Alternative Assets

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that splitting complex assets into standardized element tokens plus a redeemable everything token, with two-way convertibility, makes previously illiquid real assets tradable like ETFs.

desk verdict A coherent and honest design blueprint for two-tier tokenization, but the liquidity and price-discovery claims are not demonstrated and the core assumption of liquid element markets is structurally fragile, not just an empirical risk. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.11266 v1 pith:WKQP6XIG submitted 2025-08-15 cs.DC cs.CY

Ailiya Borjigin , Cong He , Charles CC Lee , Wei Zhou This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.DCcs.CY

keywords elementtokenseverythingassettokenizationtwo-wayconvertibilityarbitragereal-worldassetsliquidityETFs

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 proposes a two-tier token architecture for real-world assets—mines, power plants, infrastructure—that are hard to value or fractionalize. Each asset is decomposed into standardized element tokens that represent specific components (tons of output, MWh of energy, land rights, credits), and an everything token that is a fixed bundle of those elements. Because the everything token can be minted from, and redeemed into, the exact element basket, arbitrage ties its price to the sum of element prices, analogous to ETF creation and redemption. The authors argue this two-way convertibility improves liquidity and price discovery for assets that currently trade only as opaque, whole units. If the mechanism works, investors could take targeted exposure to single components or hold the whole asset, and asset owners could unlock financing by pre-selling specific outputs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-way convertibility contract, a smart-contract-enforced bundle swap with a fixed composition vector $\mathbf{a} = (a_1,\dots,a_n)$. It defines the everything token as a claim on a fixed basket of element tokens and guarantees that the basket and the composite are mutually redeemable. That conversion right is what creates the arbitrage loop that enforces the NAV-pricing identity. The paper pairs it with constant-function market maker (CFMM) spot markets for each element token and an oracle/proof-of-behavior layer to keep element supply collateralized.

What would settle it

Run a pilot with one deliberately illiquid element token and a liquid everything token; track the daily deviation between $P(W)$ and $\sum a_i P(E_i)$ after conversion fees. The paper's claim predicts deviations stay small and mean-revert via arbitrage; persistent deviations beyond fees, especially while the illiquid element barely trades, would falsify the core pricing link.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that two-way convertibility between an everything token $W$ and its constituent element tokens $E_1,\dots,E_n$ keeps the composite's market price anchored to the net asset value of its parts. The contract enforces $W \equiv a_1 E_1 + \dots + a_n E_n$: depositing the exact element basket mints one $W$, and burning one $W$ returns the basket. Under equilibrium, $P(W) \approx a_1 P(E_1) + \dots + a_n P(E_n)$. Any divergence invites arbitrage—buying elements to mint and sell $W$ when $W$ is rich, or redeeming $W$ and selling elements when $W$ is cheap—so the composite cannot stay far from its components' value for long. The paper presents this as a generalization of the ETF

Load-bearing premise

Arbitrage alignment holds only if every element token has an actively traded, liquid market with low conversion frictions; the paper itself notes that if some element tokens do not trade actively, price discovery for that component is weak and the pricing link breaks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Anyone holding an everything token can exit partially in one step by redeeming it for the element basket and selling only selected components.
Investors can buy single components—gold output, MWh, carbon credits—without acquiring the entire project, lowering entry barriers.
Asset owners can pre-sell output tokens to raise financing while keeping the rest of the asset, effectively forward-selling production.
Standardized element tokens, e.g., verified carbon credits, can become fungible across projects, pooling thin markets into larger ones.
Component-level prices make the whole asset's value transparent as a sum of parts, reducing the opaque bundled valuations common in infrastructure and mining.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable microstructure prediction follows: the everything token's premium or discount to NAV should shrink as the least liquid element token's trading volume increases—the price anchor is only as strong as the weakest component market.
If composition vectors are allowed to change over an asset's life, the everything token becomes a managed product, and the update process becomes a governance and value-extraction risk the paper leaves open.
Taken further, standardized element tokens across projects turn project-specific risk into tradeable factor exposures—component-level indexing—extending the logic of equity index construction to real assets.
The model implies a potential split of control rights: if different parties accumulate different element tokens, governance of the asset must be separated from cash-flow claims, possibly by reserving governance for the everything token.

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

"Element and Everything Tokens" is a coherent, well-scoped design blueprint. The new thing is the two-tier structure: a composite token that is exactly a fixed basket of fungible element tokens, with two-way convertibility enforced by a smart contract. That goes beyond one-token-per-asset models and beyond multi-token ownership that doesn't force a fixed bundle ratio. The framing is a genuine generalization of ETF creation/redemption applied inside a single heterogeneous asset. The paper also does a good job situating itself: the ETF, CFMM, oracle, and STO literature is relevant and cited appropriately, and Section V-D gives a practical implementation sketch that shows awareness of real engineering constraints.

The internal logic is coherent. Eq. (2) is a definitional relation, not a falsifiable prediction, which the paper mostly acknowledges. The arbitrage argument is the standard one. But the load-bearing assumption is that every element token has an active, liquid market with meaningful prices. The authors themselves flag in Section V-C that if some element tokens don't trade actively, price discovery for that component is weak. That is more than an empirical caveat. Many of the elements they list—land rights, permits, project-specific output claims—are idiosyncratic and non-fungible across projects. Absent cross-project standardization, those markets will be thin or absent. If an element price is stale or missing, the everything token's price is anchored to a basket with no real price signal. The issuer market-making mitigation reintroduces conflicts of interest. This is a design mismatch, not just a future implementation detail.

Also, the abstract says "we demonstrate," but the body provides only illustrative examples. There is no simulation, prototype, or pilot data. The paper would be stronger if it either scaled back the claim to "we propose and illustrate" or added a formal model of the arbitrage dynamics under thin markets.

That said, this is a serious, honest paper. It is transparent about its limitations and points to concrete open problems. I'd put it in front of a good referee. It's not ready as is, but it deserves the time.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-tier tokenization architecture for complex real-world assets. An 'Element Token' (Ei) represents a standardized, collateralized component of an asset (e.g., a unit of output, a land right, a permit), while an 'Everything Token' (W) represents the whole asset as a fixed basket of element tokens: W = a1E1 + ... + anEn. Two-way convertibility between W and its constituent elements is enforced by a smart contract, analogous to ETF creation/redemption. The paper argues that this mechanism keeps P(W) approximately equal to the value-weighted sum of element prices (Eq. 2), and that this improves liquidity, price discovery, and financing flexibility. The body of the paper contains a description of the architecture, a discussion of the arbitrage argument, a set of illustrative use cases (mining, solar, hydrogen, data centers, carbon projects, hydropower), and a discussion of implementation considerations including smart contracts, oracles, and liquidity provision.

Significance. If the central claims were established, the architecture would be a useful contribution to the real-world-asset tokenization literature, extending the one-token-per-asset model with a composable two-tier structure and connecting it to ETF arbitrage and CFMM-based market design. The paper is transparent about several limitations and points to relevant literature. However, the contribution at present is conceptual and illustrative: the claimed liquidity and price-discovery benefits are asserted rather than demonstrated, and Eq. (2) is an identity implied by the conversion contract rather than a falsifiable prediction. The paper would be strengthened by a formal model of arbitrage dynamics and an explicit treatment of element-market liquidity, both of which are load-bearing for the main claims.

major comments (4)

[§III-B, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is not a market-equilibrium prediction; it is a restatement of the convertibility rule in Eq. (1). Because the smart contract enforces that minting one W requires depositing exactly {ai} of each Ei and redemption returns that basket, the no-arbitrage value of W is defined as Σ ai P(Ei) up to conversion frictions. The interesting claim is not that this identity holds, but that arbitrage will make the market price P(W) track this basket value and that the element prices P(Ei) are meaningful. The paper does not provide a model in which these prices arise or a test of the tracking claim. Please clarify the distinction and provide a formal treatment or simulation.
[§III-B and §V-C] The arbitrage alignment presupposes that every element token has an actively traded, liquid market with an independently meaningful price. The paper itself concedes in §V-C that if some element tokens do not trade actively, price discovery for that component may be weak, and W pricing may rely on models rather than market prices. Many of the proposed element tokens—land-right tokens, permit tokens, concession tokens, IP license tokens—are inherently idiosyncratic and non-fungible across projects, so there is no reason to expect spontaneous liquid markets for them. The suggested mitigation (issuer-provided market making) is asserted but introduces conflicts of interest and does not resolve information scarcity. This is a load-bearing issue for the liquidity claim. Please either restrict the architecture to elements with credible external price references (e.g., commodities, standardized c
[Abstract and §IV] The abstract states that 'we demonstrate' that the approach allows illiquid high-value projects to be fractionalized and traded 'akin to stocks or ETFs.' The body, however, only provides illustrative examples (mining, solar, hydrogen, data centers, etc.). There is no simulation, no backtest, no empirical case study, and no formal analysis of liquidity, spreads, or arbitrage convergence. The central effectiveness claims—improved liquidity and improved price discovery—are therefore unsupported. I recommend either adding a quantitative evaluation (even a stylized agent-based simulation of the creation/redemption mechanism with varying element liquidity) or substantially tempering the claims to reflect that this is a design proposal with an untested mechanism.
[§V-D] The implementation blueprint introduces 'Proof-of-Behavior (PoB)' and 'AIO' (regulated primary offering) without formally defining them or relating them to the core architecture. PoB is asserted to anchor issuance to real production, but no mechanism is specified for how proofs are verified, how they interact with the element-token mint/burn functions, or how disputes are resolved. Since these are presented as implementation requirements, please either define them precisely or explicitly mark this section as speculative.

minor comments (5)

[Introduction and paper structure] The introduction's roadmap is inconsistent with the actual structure: it says 'Section II formalizes... Section III provides illustrative examples... Section IV discusses... Section V concludes,' but in the paper Section II is the literature review, Section III is the architecture, Section IV is use cases, Section V is discussion, and Section VI is the conclusion. Please correct the roadmap.
[§V-D1] The acronym 'AIO' is used without expansion. Please define it at first use.
[§IV-A] The phrase 'an EAu token redeemable for a unit of gold produced' is ambiguous: is the holder entitled to physical gold, cash equivalent, or a claim on the mine's future production? Clarify the legal nature of the element token claim.
[Table I] The table appears before its discussion in the text; consider placing it after the first mention in §IV. Also, the use of arrows (⇐) is nonstandard — consider using '=' to be consistent with Eq. (1).
[References] Some references lack full bibliographic details (e.g., [2], [6]); others are arXiv preprints without peer-review status. Please ensure consistency with the journal's reference style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (2) is an explicitly conditional no-arbitrage consequence, not a fitted or self-imported result.

full rationale

The paper's central pricing relation, Eq. (2), is not presented as an empirical prediction fitted from data or as a result imported from the authors' own prior work. It is derived from the two-way convertibility contract (Eq. (1)) plus a standard arbitrage argument, and the paper explicitly qualifies it as an equilibrium expectation ('under equilibrium conditions one would expect'). The text also acknowledges the conditions under which the relation can weaken: fees, slippage, and illiquid element markets (Sec. V-C: 'if some element tokens do not trade actively ... price discovery for that component may be weak'). That is a stated assumption/limitation, not a circular definition. The architecture leans on independently cited ETF creation/redemption literature and DeFi CFMM results, none of which are self-citations. The claimed liquidity and price-discovery benefits are conditional on liquid element markets, which the paper concedes, and are therefore not rendered true by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no load-bearing self-citation appears, and no known result is merely relabeled. The derivation chain is self-contained as a design proposal and does not reduce to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The architecture rests on the feasibility of decomposing complex assets into clean, independently tradeable components, secure smart-contract enforcement, and liquid element markets. The composition ratios ai are asset-specific definitions, not fitted parameters, so no free parameters are listed. The main invented entities are the two token types themselves, which have no independent empirical evidence.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Element tokens are fully collateralized one-to-one by the underlying asset components, and can be independently priced and traded.
Sec. III-A states 'These element tokens are designed to be fully collateralized...' and assumes independent measurability. If components cannot be cleanly separated legally or economically, the architecture collapses.
domain assumption Smart contracts can reliably enforce composition ratios and permissionless or gated creation/redemption.
Sec. III-C specifies ERC-1155 implementation. This is an engineering assumption about contract security and correctness.
domain assumption Markets for each element token will have sufficient liquidity and low frictions for arbitrage to align P(W) with basket NAV.
Sec. III-B ('as long as the frictions are not too high') and Sec. V-C acknowledge thin markets. This is a load-bearing premise for the arbitrage claim.
domain assumption Off-chain data (e.g., MWh generated, ore mined) can be reliably attested via oracles (Town Crier, DECO) and Proof-of-Behavior mechanisms.
Sec. V-D2 cites these mechanisms without formal proof of their applicability to physical assets.

invented entities (2)

Element Token (Ei)
purpose: Represents a standardized, fully collateralized component of an asset (e.g., 1 MWh, 1 ton of output, 1 carbon credit).
Introduced as a new primitive; no implementation or falsifiable handle is provided.
Everything Token (W)
purpose: Represents the whole asset as a fixed bundle of element tokens, enabling composite trading and arbitrage.
Introduced as a new primitive; the price relationship is enforced by the design, not empirically validated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Element and Everything Tokens: Two-Tier Architecture for Mobilizing Alternative Assets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WKQP6XIG

@misc{pith2026250811266,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Element and Everything Tokens: Two-Tier Architecture for Mobilizing Alternative Assets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WKQP6XIG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.11266}
}

read the original abstract

Alternative assets such as mines, power plants, or infrastructure projects are often large, heterogeneous bundles of resources, rights, and outputs whose value is difficult to trade or fractionalize under traditional frameworks. This paper proposes a novel two-tier tokenization architecture to enhance the liquidity and transparency of such complex assets. We introduce the concepts of Element Tokens and Everything Tokens: elemental tokens represent standardized, fully collateralized components of an asset (e.g., outputs, rights, or credits), while an everything token represents the entire asset as a fixed combination of those elements. The architecture enables both fine-grained partial ownership and integrated whole-asset ownership through a system of two-way convertibility. We detail the design and mechanics of this system, including an arbitrage mechanism that keeps the price of the composite token aligned with the net asset value of its constituents. Through illustrative examples in the energy and industrial sectors, we demonstrate that our approach allows previously illiquid, high-value projects to be fractionalized and traded akin to stocks or exchange-traded funds (ETFs). We discuss the benefits for investors and asset owners, such as lower entry barriers, improved price discovery, and flexible financing, as well as the considerations for implementation and regulation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Tokenization of Real Estate Assets Using Blockchain,

S. Joshi and A. Choudhury, “Tokenization of Real Estate Assets Using Blockchain,” International Journal of Intelligent Information Technolo- gies, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 1–12, 2022, doi: 10.4018/IJIIT.309588

work page doi:10.4018/ijiit.309588 2022
[2]

How will asset tokenization transform the future of finance?,

S. Waliczek, “How will asset tokenization transform the future of finance?,” World Economic Forum, Aug. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/08/ tokenization-assets-transform-future-of-finance/

work page 2025
[3]

The Financial Stability Implications of Tokenisation,

Financial Stability Board, “The Financial Stability Implications of Tokenisation,” Oct. 2024

work page 2024
[4]

The anatomy of bond ETF arbitrage,

K. Todorov, “The anatomy of bond ETF arbitrage,” BIS Quarterly Review, Mar. 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Tokenized assets in a decen- tralized economy: Balancing efficiency, value, and risks,

U. Tanveer, S. Ishaq, and T. G. Hoang, “Tokenized assets in a decen- tralized economy: Balancing efficiency, value, and risks,” International Journal of Production Economics , vol. 282, p. 109554, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2025.109554

work page arXiv 2025
[6]

Solar Asset Tokenization: Renewable Energy Investments,

Idea Usher, “Solar Asset Tokenization: Renewable Energy Investments,” 2023

work page 2023
[7]

Real Estate Security Token Offerings and the Secondary Market: Driven by Crypto Hype or Fundamentals?,

J. Kreppmeier, R. Laschinger, B. I. Steininger, and G. Dorfleitner, “Real Estate Security Token Offerings and the Secondary Market: Driven by Crypto Hype or Fundamentals?,” Journal of Banking & Finance , vol. 154, p. 106940, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2023.106940

work page arXiv 2023
[8]

Tokenization of Infrastructure: A Blockchain-Based Solu- tion to Financing Sustainable Infrastructure,

D. Uzsoki, “Tokenization of Infrastructure: A Blockchain-Based Solu- tion to Financing Sustainable Infrastructure,” International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), 2019

work page 2019

Show all 22 references

[9]

Blockchain-enabled tokenization for sustainable and inclusive infrastructure investment,

Y . Tian, N. Wang, J. Lu, and B. Xu, “Blockchain-enabled tokenization for sustainable and inclusive infrastructure investment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.04709, 2022

2022 arXiv
[10]

Price Dynamics and Liquidity of Exchange-Traded Funds,

A. Madhavan and A. Sobczyk, “Price Dynamics and Liquidity of Exchange-Traded Funds,” Journal of Investment Management , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 86–102, 2016

2016
[11]

ETF Arbitrage under Liquidity Mismatch,

K. Pan and Y . Zeng, “ETF Arbitrage under Liquidity Mismatch,” European Systemic Risk Board Working Paper No. 59, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.esrb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/wp/esrb.wp59.en.pdf

2017
[12]

ETF Arbitrage, Non-Fundamental Demand, and Return Predictability,

D. C. Brown, S. W. Davies, and M. C. Ringgenberg, “ETF Arbitrage, Non-Fundamental Demand, and Return Predictability,” Review of Fi- nance, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 937–972, 2021

2021
[13]

Gahng, J

M. Gahng, J. R. Ritter, and D. Zhang, “SPACs,” Review of Financial Studies, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 3463–3501, 2023, doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhad019

2023 doi
[14]

IPOs and SPACs: Recent Devel- opments,

R. Huang, J. R. Ritter, and D. Zhang, “IPOs and SPACs: Recent Devel- opments,” Annual Review of Financial Economics, vol. 15, pp. 595–615, 2023, doi: 10.1146/annurev-financial-111021-100657

2023 doi
[15]

Im- proved Price Oracles: Constant Function Market Makers,

G. Angeris, A. Evans, T. Chitra, A. Agrawal, and S. Boyd, “Im- proved Price Oracles: Constant Function Market Makers,” in Proc. 2nd ACM Conf. Advances in Financial Technologies (AFT ’20) , 2020, doi: 10.1145/3419614.3423251

2020
[16]

Constant Function Market Makers: Multi-Asset Trades via Convex Optimization,

G. Angeris, A. Agrawal, A. Evans, T. Chitra, and S. Boyd, “Constant Function Market Makers: Multi-Asset Trades via Convex Optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.12484 , 2021. [Online]. Available: https:// arxiv.org/abs/2107.12484

2021 arXiv
[17]

An Analysis of Uniswap Markets,

G. Angeris, H.-T. Kao, A. Evans, and T. Chitra, “An Analysis of Uniswap Markets,” Cryptoeconomic Systems, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.03380

2020 arXiv
[18]

The Geometry of Constant Function Market Makers,

G. Angeris, T. Chitra, T. Diamandis, A. Evans, and K. Kulkarni, “The Geometry of Constant Function Market Makers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08066, 2023

2023 arXiv
[19]

Decentralized Finance: On Blockchain- and Smart Contract- Based Financial Markets,

F. Sch ¨ar, “Decentralized Finance: On Blockchain- and Smart Contract- Based Financial Markets,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review , vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 153–174, 2021, doi: 10.20955/r.103.153-74

2021 doi
[20]

Town Crier: An Authenticated Data Feed for Smart Contracts,

F. Zhang, E. Cecchetti, K. Croman, A. Juels, and E. Shi, “Town Crier: An Authenticated Data Feed for Smart Contracts,” in Proc. ACM CCS, 2016, pp. 270–282, doi: 10.1145/2976749.2978326

2016
[21]

DECO: Liberating Web Data Using Decentralized Oracles for TLS,

F. Zhang, S. Cohney, and A. Juels, “DECO: Liberating Web Data Using Decentralized Oracles for TLS,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.00938, 2019

1909 arXiv
[22]

OVer: Safeguarding DeFi Smart Contracts against Oracle Deviation,

X. Deng et al. , “OVer: Safeguarding DeFi Smart Contracts against Oracle Deviation,” in Proc. 46th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 2024

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Tokenization of Real Estate Assets Using Blockchain,

S. Joshi and A. Choudhury, “Tokenization of Real Estate Assets Using Blockchain,” International Journal of Intelligent Information Technolo- gies, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 1–12, 2022, doi: 10.4018/IJIIT.309588

work page doi:10.4018/ijiit.309588 2022

[2] [2]

How will asset tokenization transform the future of finance?,

S. Waliczek, “How will asset tokenization transform the future of finance?,” World Economic Forum, Aug. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/08/ tokenization-assets-transform-future-of-finance/

work page 2025

[3] [3]

The Financial Stability Implications of Tokenisation,

Financial Stability Board, “The Financial Stability Implications of Tokenisation,” Oct. 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

The anatomy of bond ETF arbitrage,

K. Todorov, “The anatomy of bond ETF arbitrage,” BIS Quarterly Review, Mar. 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Tokenized assets in a decen- tralized economy: Balancing efficiency, value, and risks,

U. Tanveer, S. Ishaq, and T. G. Hoang, “Tokenized assets in a decen- tralized economy: Balancing efficiency, value, and risks,” International Journal of Production Economics , vol. 282, p. 109554, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2025.109554

work page arXiv 2025

[6] [6]

Solar Asset Tokenization: Renewable Energy Investments,

Idea Usher, “Solar Asset Tokenization: Renewable Energy Investments,” 2023

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Real Estate Security Token Offerings and the Secondary Market: Driven by Crypto Hype or Fundamentals?,

J. Kreppmeier, R. Laschinger, B. I. Steininger, and G. Dorfleitner, “Real Estate Security Token Offerings and the Secondary Market: Driven by Crypto Hype or Fundamentals?,” Journal of Banking & Finance , vol. 154, p. 106940, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2023.106940

work page arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

Tokenization of Infrastructure: A Blockchain-Based Solu- tion to Financing Sustainable Infrastructure,

D. Uzsoki, “Tokenization of Infrastructure: A Blockchain-Based Solu- tion to Financing Sustainable Infrastructure,” International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), 2019

work page 2019