Real-World Asset Integration in Next-Generation Communication Networks: Fundamental, Framework, and Case Study

Gang Sun; Haoxiang Luo; Hongfang Yu; Ruichen Zhang; Tingxuan Su; Yinqiu Liu

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 15 references

Real-World Asset Integration in Next-Generation Communication Networks: Fundamental, Framework, and Case Study

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tokenizing spectrum licenses as real-world assets can beat auction-based allocation when spectrum is scarce, the paper argues.

desk verdict A plausible RWA-for-networks framework with a genuinely new spectrum market case study, but the attack-resilience claim is under-supported by unmodeled liquidity-pool assumptions and unreproducible simulations. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.11798 v2 pith:RP7ZCCQN submitted 2026-02-12 cs.NI

Tingxuan Su , Haoxiang Luo , Ruichen Zhang , Yinqiu Liu , Gang Sun , Hongfang Yu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.NI

keywords real-worldassettokenizationspectrumallocationautomatedmarketmakerdoubleauctionByzantinefaulttoleranceresourceliquidityblockchainnext-generationnetworks

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 argues that the high upfront cost and rigid, license-based allocation of network resources create the twin problems of low liquidity and weak security, and that real-world-asset (RWA) tokenization on blockchain is a structural fix. It proposes a framework in which network resources are digitized on-chain and offered in two modes — purchase through an automated-market-maker (AMM) market, and temporary leasing through state channels — and derives three criteria for choosing which resources are suitable. The load-bearing case is spectrum: 10 MHz licenses are split into 0.1 MHz slices and one-hour usage tokens, then traded through an AMM. In agent-based simulations under scarcity the RWA market reaches near-100% utilization where three double-auction benchmarks fall short, and its utilization holds under buyer collusion, seller collusion, and default attacks. The broader claim is that fine-grained, programmable ownership of network resources converts idle infrastructure into a liquid, attack-resilient market.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is RWA tokenization plus an automated market maker. Physical network resources are digitized, registered on-chain, and divided into homogeneous security tokens representing fractional usage rights; an AMM liquidity pool sets prices continuously from reserve ratios, so prices do not respond to any single bid. Leasing rides on state channels that lock tokens and update signed off-chain balances, settling on-chain only at the end. The three asset-selection criteria — intrinsic and stable value, strategic scarcity, and legal clarity — act as a filter that determines which network resources can plausibly carry this machinery; most candidates fail on legal clarity.

What would settle it

In an agent-based simulation with 200 buyers and 100 sellers under a coordinated buyer-collusion attack, let a third of buyers push trades through a deliberately shallow AMM pool (e.g., 10% of the reserves used in the paper) while the pool's liquidity providers are allowed to rebalance withdrawal; if utilization drops by more than a few points or prices jump, the claimed insensitivity to collusion is falsified. Equivalently, a field pilot of secondary spectrum trading in a jurisdiction that permits it would settle whether fractional 0.1 MHz/hour tokens actually clear the market at the utilizat

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a scarcity-regime result: when demand for spectrum outruns supply, a market built on tokenized, finely divided spectrum licenses (0.1 MHz slices, hourly usage tokens, a regulated security-token standard, AMM pricing) achieves higher resource utilization than ranking/binary-search auctions, truthful double auctions, and consortium-chain competitive padding auctions. It also stays near 100% utilization when up to 30% of nodes mount buyer collusion, seller collusion, or default attacks, because AMM pricing is driven by a liquidity pool rather than submitted bids. The paper attributes the liquidity gain to finer allocation granularity and the security gain to replacing b

Load-bearing premise

The attack-resilience and full-utilization results assume a continuously funded AMM pool whose liquidity providers smooth the price curve and never withdraw or collude; if the pool is thin or LPs behave strategically, prices are set by the pool's own quotes and the same attacks could regain traction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Under resource scarcity, the RWA-AMM scheme matches supply and demand at finer granularity, reaching 100% utilization when demand equals supply, where coarse-lot auction schemes leave resources idle.
The scheme keeps utilization near 100% under coordinated buyer or seller collusion and under post-trade default attacks, outperforming double-auction benchmarks.
The two trading modes — purchase through an AMM market and temporary leasing through state channels — complement each other: the market sets long-term value and liquidity, while leasing provides flexible short-term access without changing ownership.
The asset-suitability analysis implies that legal and regulatory clarity, not technical feasibility, is the main constraint on tokenizing most network resources such as domain names, IP blocks, bandwidth, node access, compute, spectrum, and storage.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct testable extension is to stress the AMM with a thin or withdrawable liquidity pool: if liquidity providers can exit or collude, the claimed insensitivity to bid-based attacks likely shifts to sensitivity to pool manipulation, which the paper does not model.
The same fine-grained RWA design should generalize beyond spectrum to the other listed resources — compute and storage are standardized and divisible — but the paper's results suggest the benefit concentrates where scarcity binds, so pilots in resource-rich regimes may see less gain.
The leftover-order inefficiency the paper admits at low demand hints that a hybrid market (RWA-AMM for scarce slices, auction or direct sale for leftovers) could capture both regimes; this is an inference, not in the paper.
Because legal clarity is the binding constraint, the empirical question is regulatory: a jurisdiction that already allows secondary spectrum trading would be the natural place to test whether fractional tokenized markets actually raise utilization in the field.

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

Dear colleague,

Two things to know up front. First, this is not a breakthrough; it's a framework paper with a worked case study. Second, the case study's real novelty is the spectrum market, not the RWA concept — and the attack-resilience claim is considerably weaker than the abstract implies.

What the paper does well: it lays out a sensible two-mode architecture (state-channel leasing vs. AMM purchase), gives a reasonable three-criteria filter for tokenizable assets, and organizes seven resource types into a useful table with honest compliance caveats. The simulation case study is new relative to the authors' own earlier work: they compare an AMM-based RWA spectrum market against three double-auction baselines and show better utilization under scarcity. To their credit, they openly disclose that the RWA scheme underperforms at 100 buyers due to leftover orders; they don't hide the blemish. The scarcity-regime utilization result is the most defensible part of the paper.

The soft spots are real and are mostly about the security half. The claim of 'strong resilience against collusion and default attacks' under scarcity is not actually tested. The security experiments run at 200 buyers and 100 sellers — the supply-demand equilibrium point, not the scarcity regime highlighted in the abstract. The authors never sweep scarcity in the attack scenarios. The explanation for immunity to bid manipulation is that the AMM formula and continuously funded liquidity providers 'smooth' the price curve. That is a design assumption, not a demonstrated result. Nothing models pool depth, LP incentives, withdrawals, or LP collusion. With a thin pool, price moves are driven by reserve ratios, and the claimed immunity becomes a liability. The paper also ships no code, data, or parameter lists, and the figures show single curves without error bars or run counts. That alone would make me skeptical of any quantitative claim.

The reader's PITH report is fair. I'd push back slightly on the circularity burden: calling the security result 'design-entailed' is accurate, but the utilization result is an empirical comparison, not merely entailed. Still, the absence of a scarcity sweep for attacks is a genuine gap.

Bottom line: this paper is for researchers working on blockchain-based resource allocation or spectrum secondary markets. It deserves a serious referee: conditional accept after major revision — the authors need to release code, model LP depth, and run security tests under actual scarcity. I probably wouldn't cite it in my own work until those gaps close.

Recommendation: send it to peer review, but the editor should insist on reproducibility and a scarcity-consistent security evaluation.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Real-World Asset (RWA) tokenization framework for next-generation communication networks, addressing liquidity and security challenges. It introduces a two-mode architecture (leasing via state channels, purchase via AMM-based markets), discusses token standards from NFTs to ERC-3643, and derives three criteria for identifying tokenizable network resources. The core case study tokenizes a 10 MHz spectrum license into 0.1 MHz ERC-3643 tokens and compares the resulting RWA market against three double-auction benchmarks (MPRA, TRA, CPA) in agent-based simulations. The paper claims that the RWA scheme achieves higher spectrum allocation granularity and, under resource scarcity, significantly better utilization and strong resilience against buyer/seller collusion and default attacks.

Significance. If the empirical claims were fully supported, the paper would provide a useful conceptual bridge from RWA tokenization to dynamic spectrum allocation, with a concrete asset-selection taxonomy and a plausible market design. The framework and criteria are clearly presented, the comparison against three established double-auction mechanisms is appropriate, and the authors honestly disclose the 100-buyer underperformance due to leftover orders. However, the paper does not ship code, data, or a complete parameter set, and the security claim depends on an unmodeled, permanently deep AMM liquidity pool. The strengths are conceptual; the quantitative evidence as presented is insufficient to establish the central claims.

major comments (4)

[§V.C.2] The attack-resilience claim assumes a permanently deep AMM liquidity pool. The text says RWA 'determines prices directly via an AMM formula, with liquidity providers continuously smoothing the price curve, rendering it largely insensitive to bid-based attacks.' No pool depth, reserve ratio, LP incentive, or LP withdrawal/collusion behavior is modeled in §V.B or §V.C.2. Thin liquidity makes the pool quote the binding price, so bid-manipulation immunity becomes LP-manipulation exposure. The simulation therefore cannot support the Abstract's 'strong resilience against collusion and default attacks' claim until the liquidity-pool model is made explicit and tested across depths, including thin pools.
[§V.B, Figs. 4–5] The quantitative results are unreproducible. No code, data, parameter files, random seeds, or number of runs are provided; Figs. 4–5 show single curves without error bars. Key attack parameters—default-attack payment-refusal probability, collusion bid/ask manipulation magnitudes—and the AMM price-curve and pool-depth parameters are unspecified. The reader cannot determine whether the reported RWA advantage is robust or an artifact of favorable parameter settings. Please release the code and exact parameter set, and report variability across seeds.
[Fig. 5 vs. §V.C.2] The security experiments are internally inconsistent and incomplete. The Fig. 5 caption states 200 buyers and 100 sellers, while §V.C.2 states 100 buyers and 100 sellers. In addition, no scarcity sweep is performed for the attack scenarios; the runs use a single market composition. Thus the Abstract's pairing of 'resource scarcity' with 'strong resilience' is not actually tested along the scarcity dimension. Reconcile the numbers and repeat the attack experiments across buyer counts (including the scarce regimes where RWA is claimed to excel).
[§V.C.1] The 'leftover orders' explanation needs formalization. The text says resources are 'considered sold only when all fragmented units are purchased as a whole,' yet it also claims finer granularity is the source of RWA's advantage. If the utilization rule is all-or-nothing per license, the 100-buyer underperformance may be an artifact of that counting rule rather than of fragmentation. Please specify the exact token-sale/matching algorithm and the utilization counting rule, and show how partial fragment sales are credited.

minor comments (4)

[Fig. 1 and references] The ERC-3643 reference [A3] points to a URL, and the caption says 'Related reference of [A1-A3]' informally. These should be formal numbered references.
[Throughout] There are inconsistent typographical artifacts: 'RW A' spacing varies, the author block contains 'V Y', and Fig. 2 uses 'T oken'. Please proofread carefully.
[§V.B] The Byzantine node ratio is described as 'proportion of Byzantine nodes from 0 to 30%' but the figures do not specify axis units. Clarify whether the x-axis is a fraction or percentage, and describe the block/consensus parameters more precisely.
[§VI] Future work lists adaptive contracts, on-chain costs, and privacy, but not liquidity-provider incentives or pool-depth management, which are central to the security claim made in §V.C.2. Consider adding this direction.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Attack-resilience claim reduces to built-in AMM/blockchain design choices; central case-study results are partly self-definitional.

self definitional [Sec. V.C.2 (Security Analysis), Fig. 5]
"RW A, however, determines prices directly via an AMM formula, with liquidity providers continuously smoothing the price curve, rendering it largely insensitive to bid-based attacks."

The RWA purchase mode was designed in Sec. III.B Step 2 to trade 'on decentralized exchanges through AMM mechanisms,' so the price mechanism is an input of the proposed system. The claimed resilience ('largely insensitive to bid-based attacks') is a restatement of that input: if prices are set by an AMM with continuously smoothing liquidity providers, collusive bids cannot move the price by construction. The simulation's near-100% utilization under collusion therefore demonstrates a property built into the model rather than an independent finding. The paper never models finite pool depth or liquidity-provider withdrawal, which would invalidate the assumed insensitivity.
self definitional [Sec. V.C.2 (Security Analysis), default attack paragraph]
"In the case of default attacks, MPRA and TRA show marked declines in resource utilization, whereas RW A and CPA, strengthened by blockchain-related mechanisms, exhibit robust security and effectively resist default attacks."

The default attack is defined as buyers refusing payment after obtaining resources. RWA's resistance is attributed to 'blockchain-related mechanisms' that are part of the RWA architecture itself, such as smart-contract escrow or atomic settlement. If payment is enforced by the chosen smart-contract mechanism, a default attack cannot reduce utilization by construction. Thus the simulation is validating the enforcement mechanism the authors placed inside the RWA design, not testing an independent prediction about tokenization.

full rationale

The paper contains no equations, so I looked for constructional reductions rather than algebraic ones. The central security claim is the clearest such reduction: Section III.B Step 2 defines the RWA purchase mode as trading through AMM mechanisms, and Section V.C.2 then explains RWA's collusion resilience by the same AMM price-smoothing property. The agent-based simulation encodes that same price rule, so the reported near-100% utilization under buyer/seller collusion is entailed by the model's own design, not an externally falsifiable prediction. Likewise, default-attack resistance is credited to 'blockchain-related mechanisms' built into the RWA proposal; if smart-contract settlement enforces payment, default is impossible by construction. The utilization advantage is also framed as a consequence of finer token granularity, which is the defining feature of RWA tokenization in this paper, making the scarcity result partially a restatement of the design. The self-citation [2] for the '30% node tolerance in BFT protocols' is a standard external result and is not load-bearing, so it does not add circularity. Lack of code or data is a reproducibility concern, not a circularity concern. The framework and asset-categorization portions are non-circular, but the case-study security claims reduce to the chosen mechanisms, warranting a partial-circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework relies on standard blockchain properties and a hand-built simulation. The key unstated inputs are the AMM/liquidity parameters, attack magnitudes, and replication counts; the case study assumes legal decomposition of spectrum licenses, which the paper's own Table I flags as the dominant barrier. No truly novel physical or economic entities are postulated beyond the paper's own token design.

free parameters (4)

AMM price-curve and liquidity-pool depth
Section V.C.2's resilience argument depends on 'liquidity providers continuously smoothing the price curve', but no AMM formula, pool size, or LP behavior is specified (Section V.B); pool depth is a hand-chosen input that determines how immune prices are to manipulation.
Default-attack payment-refusal probability
Section V.B describes default attacks as probabilistic refusal to pay but never states the probability, a key driver of the reported utilization decline for the auction baselines.
Collusion bid-manipulation magnitudes
Buyer and seller collusion are described qualitatively ('depressing bids', 'inflating asking prices'); the actual distortions, which determine how much the baselines suffer, are unstated.
Number of simulation runs and random seeds
No replication count is reported and Figs. 4–5 show single curves without variance; the stability of the reported 100% utilization is unverifiable.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption BFT consensus tolerates Byzantine-node ratios below 1/3; testing up to 30% is within the tolerable regime
Section V.B sets the Byzantine-node ceiling at 30% citing the authors' own ref. [2]; the <1/3 bound is standard consensus theory, so the security simulations never leave the regime where consensus is expected to hold.
domain assumption Blockchain records are immutable, transparent, and tamper-proof, and smart contracts execute trustlessly
Section III.C lists 'no manipulation or tampering', auditability, and 'eliminating reliance on intermediaries' as framework benefits; these properties are assumed rather than modeled or demonstrated in the case study.
ad hoc to paper A licensed 10 MHz spectrum band can be legally decomposed into 100 tradable 0.1 MHz ERC-3643 tokens with hourly usage rights
The case scenario (Section V.A) presupposes the very regulatory feasibility that Table I identifies as the primary barrier ('vastly differing regulatory policies across countries'); the paper's own analysis undercuts this premise.
domain assumption Liquidity is adequately measured by resource utilization (sold resources / initial total resources)
Section V.B defines liquidity this way; the metric ignores price efficiency, welfare, and allocative fairness that the auction baselines explicitly optimize, so the comparison favors granular sell-out.

invented entities (1)

Hourly spectrum usage-right tokens (ERC-3643)
purpose: Represent authorized access to a 0.1 MHz spectrum slice for a defined period with one-hour minimum granularity; the fine granularity drives the utilization and security results in the case study.
A design artifact of the proposed framework with no falsifiable handle outside the paper's own simulation; the paper provides no external data point that would confirm or refute the instrument's behavior.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Real-World Asset Integration in Next-Generation Communication Networks: Fundamental, Framework, and Case Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RP7ZCCQN

@misc{pith2026260211798,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Real-World Asset Integration in Next-Generation Communication Networks: Fundamental, Framework, and Case Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RP7ZCCQN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.11798}
}

read the original abstract

Next-generation communication networks are characterized by integrated ultra-high reliability, ultra-low latency, massive connectivity, and ubiquitous coverage. However, this paradigm faces significant structural challenges of liquidity and security. Liquidity issues arise from prohibitive upfront costs of network resources, which strain the limited capital and financial flexibility. This also limits the deployment of the resource- and investment-intensive security solutions, bringing security issues. Security vulnerabilities arise from the decentralized architecture as well, particularly threats posed by Byzantine nodes. To address these dual challenges, we propose a novel framework utilizing Real-World Asset (RWA) tokenization for tokenizing network resources. RWA tokenization uses blockchain to convert ownership rights of real-world assets into digital tokens that can be programmed, divided, and traded. We then analyze the criteria for identifying suitable assets. Through a case study on dynamic spectrum allocation, we demonstrate the superior performance of this RWA approach. Particularly under conditions of resource scarcity, it can exhibit strong resilience against collusion and default attacks. Finally, we delineate fruitful avenues for future research in this nascent field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.11798 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Different types of token standards, with the corresponding substitute features and applications, from NFTs to RWA. Related reference of [A1-A3] can [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The proposed RWA framework for the next-generation communication networks resources. This framework can enhance the network resource liquidity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Network resources benefits from the proposed RWA framework. It can [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Utilization comparison among RWA, MPRA, TRA, CPA. Utilization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Utilization comparison among RWA, MPRA, TRA, and CPA schemes under varying Byzantine node ratios and attack scenarios. The experiments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[1]

Generative ai for the optimization of next-generation wireless networks: Basics, state-of-the-art, and open challenges,

F. Khoramnejad and E. Hossain, “Generative ai for the optimization of next-generation wireless networks: Basics, state-of-the-art, and open challenges,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 3483–3525, 2025

2025
[2]

A weighted byzantine fault tolerance consensus driven trusted multiple large language models network,

H. Luoet al., “A weighted byzantine fault tolerance consensus driven trusted multiple large language models network,”IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, 2026

2026
[3]

Wireless blockchain meets 6g: The future trustworthy and ubiquitous connectivity,

H. Luo, G. Sunet al., “Wireless blockchain meets 6g: The future trustworthy and ubiquitous connectivity,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 3912–3950, 2025

2025
[4]

Key focus areas and enabling technologies for 6g,

Brintonet al., “Key focus areas and enabling technologies for 6g,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 84–91, 2025

2025
[5]

When moe meets blockchain: A trustworthy distributed framework of large models,

W. Zhu, L. Shi, K. Wei, Z. Mei, Z. Wang, J. Wang, and J. Li, “When moe meets blockchain: A trustworthy distributed framework of large models,”IEEE Communications Magazine, 2026

2026
[6]

Exploration on real world assets (rwas) & tokenization,

N. Xiaet al., “Exploration on real world assets (rwas) & tokenization,” May 2025

2025
[7]

Synergizing blockchain and internet of things for en- hancing efficiency and waste reduction in sustainable food management,

Y . Zhanget al., “Synergizing blockchain and internet of things for en- hancing efficiency and waste reduction in sustainable food management,” Trends in Food Science & Technology, p. 104873, 2025

2025
[8]

Non-fungible token (nft): Overview, evaluation, oppor- tunities and challenges,

Q. Wanget al., “Non-fungible token (nft): Overview, evaluation, oppor- tunities and challenges,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.07447, 2021

arXiv 2021

Show all 15 references

[9]

An on-chain trading model of real world asset backed digital assets,

D. Houet al., “An on-chain trading model of real world asset backed digital assets,”IET Blockchain, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 315–323, 2024

2024
[10]

Trading real-world assets on blockchain: an application of trust-free transaction systems in the market for lemons,

B. Notheisenet al., “Trading real-world assets on blockchain: an application of trust-free transaction systems in the market for lemons,” Business & Information Systems Engineering, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 425– 440, 2017

2017
[11]

Real world assets on-chain assistance low-altitude computility networks: Architecture, methodology, and challenges,

H. Luoet al., “Real world assets on-chain assistance low-altitude computility networks: Architecture, methodology, and challenges,”IEEE Internet of Things Magazine, 2026

2026
[12]

Exploring the security issues of real world assets (rwa),

S. Chenet al., “Exploring the security issues of real world assets (rwa),” inProceedings of the Workshop on Decentralized Finance and Security, November 2024, pp. 31–40

2024
[13]

Cognitive radio spectrum allocation using nash equilibrium with multiple scheduling resource selection algorithm,

S. H. Gopalanet al., “Cognitive radio spectrum allocation using nash equilibrium with multiple scheduling resource selection algorithm,”Ain Shams Engineering Journal, vol. 15, no. 5, p. 102688, 2024

2024
[14]

Multiparticipant double auction for resource allocation and pricing in edge computing,

J. Huanget al., “Multiparticipant double auction for resource allocation and pricing in edge computing,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 14 007–14 016, 2023

2023
[15]

A consortium blockchain-enabled double auction mecha- nism for peer-to-peer energy trading among prosumers,

S. Cuiet al., “A consortium blockchain-enabled double auction mecha- nism for peer-to-peer energy trading among prosumers,”Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 82–97, 2024

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Generative ai for the optimization of next-generation wireless networks: Basics, state-of-the-art, and open challenges,

F. Khoramnejad and E. Hossain, “Generative ai for the optimization of next-generation wireless networks: Basics, state-of-the-art, and open challenges,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 3483–3525, 2025

2025

[2] [2]

A weighted byzantine fault tolerance consensus driven trusted multiple large language models network,

H. Luoet al., “A weighted byzantine fault tolerance consensus driven trusted multiple large language models network,”IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, 2026

2026

[3] [3]

Wireless blockchain meets 6g: The future trustworthy and ubiquitous connectivity,

H. Luo, G. Sunet al., “Wireless blockchain meets 6g: The future trustworthy and ubiquitous connectivity,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 3912–3950, 2025

2025

[4] [4]

Key focus areas and enabling technologies for 6g,

Brintonet al., “Key focus areas and enabling technologies for 6g,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 84–91, 2025

2025

[5] [5]

When moe meets blockchain: A trustworthy distributed framework of large models,

W. Zhu, L. Shi, K. Wei, Z. Mei, Z. Wang, J. Wang, and J. Li, “When moe meets blockchain: A trustworthy distributed framework of large models,”IEEE Communications Magazine, 2026

2026

[6] [6]

Exploration on real world assets (rwas) & tokenization,

N. Xiaet al., “Exploration on real world assets (rwas) & tokenization,” May 2025

2025

[7] [7]

Synergizing blockchain and internet of things for en- hancing efficiency and waste reduction in sustainable food management,

Y . Zhanget al., “Synergizing blockchain and internet of things for en- hancing efficiency and waste reduction in sustainable food management,” Trends in Food Science & Technology, p. 104873, 2025

2025

[8] [8]

Non-fungible token (nft): Overview, evaluation, oppor- tunities and challenges,

Q. Wanget al., “Non-fungible token (nft): Overview, evaluation, oppor- tunities and challenges,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.07447, 2021

arXiv 2021