Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 296 references

Partial delivery disruption cuts market efficiency by about 70 percent and hits sellers hardest; rating attacks do almost nothing.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 16:06 UTC pith:WDGHTC2Y

load-bearing objection Clean lab evidence that delivery noise tanks efficiency and concentrates the market; rating noise does nothing — solid internal design, real attrition and external-validity soft spots. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24389 v1 pith:WDGHTC2Y submitted 2026-07-27 econ.GN q-fin.EC

How to Disrupt a Market

Edoardo Gallo , Rebecca Heath , Jonathan Lusthaus , Federico Varese This is my paper
classification econ.GN q-fin.EC
keywords market disruptionillicit marketscybercrimeasymmetric informationreputation systemsdelivery attackmarket efficiencyexperimental economics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Most market-design work tries to make trade more efficient. This paper asks the reverse: which interventions make a market less efficient, with an eye toward reducing the social harm of illicit online markets such as cybercrime forums. In a controlled web experiment with fixed groups of three sellers and four buyers, a 20 percent chance that a purchased good simply never arrives lowers overall efficiency by roughly 70 percent relative to an undisturbed baseline, mainly because fewer goods are sold and sellers earn far less. Randomly corrupting numerical seller ratings has no comparable effect. The same delivery shock also concentrates sales in the hands of a dominant seller, because larger sellers are less likely to have every sale fail. The authors present the result as causal evidence that delivery-side interference can shrink market activity and as a template for later field tests against real illicit markets.

Core claim

A partial disruption to delivery is an effective way to decrease market efficiency. In the final ten rounds, market efficiency in the delivery and combined treatments is respectively 70 percent and 76 percent lower than baseline; the loss is borne by sellers, whose earnings fall 63 percent and 57 percent, while the number of goods sold falls about 18 percent. Attacks that randomly replace buyer ratings leave efficiency essentially unchanged.

What carries the argument

The delivery attack: after each purchase there is an independent 20 percent probability that the buyer receives nothing, and the buyer is not told whether the failure was caused by the attack or by the seller. The resulting private rating damage, combined with the asymmetric probability that multi-unit sellers lose every sale, is what drives both the efficiency drop and the rise in market concentration.

Load-bearing premise

That behavior in a short, low-stakes online experiment with legal goods and fixed small groups tells us how real cybercrime markets, with high stakes, anonymity tools, violence, and outside options, would respond to the same delivery shock.

What would settle it

A field test that seizes or degrades a measurable fraction of deliveries on a real illicit marketplace and finds no lasting drop in transaction volume or seller earnings relative to an untreated control market would falsify the central policy claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Delivery-side interventions can be used as a policy lever to shrink the gains from trade in markets one wishes to disrupt.
  • Rating-noise or fake-review campaigns alone are unlikely to reduce market efficiency when buyers can rely on personal trading histories.
  • The same delivery shock tends to create a dominant seller, giving enforcement a more visible target even as overall volume falls.
  • Combined delivery-plus-rating attacks add little beyond delivery attacks alone under the conditions tested.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If personal trading relationships already substitute for public ratings, any reputation attack that leaves those private histories intact will remain weak; interventions that also scramble identity or break repeat matching may be needed.
  • The concentration side-effect suggests a two-stage enforcement logic: first thin the market with delivery shocks, then focus scarce investigative resources on the remaining large seller.
  • The 20 percent seizure rate is a design choice; mapping the dose-response curve (how efficiency and concentration change with seizure probability) would be a direct next experiment.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies how to make a market less efficient, motivated by cybercrime and other illicit markets. In a web-based experiment (oTree, MTurk), groups of seven (3 sellers, 4 buyers) trade for 20 rounds under asymmetric information about quality, with a 2×2 between-subjects design crossing a delivery attack (20% of purchases undelivered, buyers not told why) and a rating attack (20% of ratings replaced by a random rating). The main findings, estimated on the last 10 rounds using group-level Mann-Whitney tests: the delivery and combined treatments reduce market efficiency by 70% and 76% relative to baseline, with the loss borne by sellers (earnings 63%/57% lower), an ~18% reduction in goods sold, higher buyer inactivity, and increased market concentration (dominant seller's share rising to 59%/56% vs 41% baseline) driven by asymmetric reputational exposure of small vs. large sellers. The rating attack alone has no significant efficiency effect, which the authors attribute to personal trading relationships substituting for public reputation. Results are supported by random-effects robustness checks distinguishing short- and long-run effects.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper opens a genuinely new line of work: applying experimental market-design methods in reverse, to measure how markets can be made less efficient, with direct relevance to cybercrime enforcement policy where takedowns have repeatedly failed. The paper's strengths are real: a pre-structured 2×2 factorial design, conservative group-level non-parametric inference that correctly treats the market (not the individual) as the unit of independent variation, a transparent surplus-based efficiency measure with an explicit adjustment for expected seizures (Table A.2), robustness via random-effects models separating short- and long-run effects, a mechanistic analysis of the concentration result (complete vs. incomplete delivery attacks), and full instructions and design parameters in the appendices, which makes the experiment replicable. The contrast between the effective delivery attack and the ineffective rating attack — with a plausible mechanism in personal trading relationships — is informative for both theory and policy. However, the policy relevance depends on an external-validity bridge from MTurk to illicit markets that the paper asserts rather than tests,½

major comments (3)
  1. [§B.2.1, §5.1] The headline estimates (70%/76% lower efficiency; seller earnings 63%/57% lower) are computed on '14 complete groups for each treatment,' where completeness requires all seven participants to finish the market experiment and both bonus tasks (§B.2.1). Only 49.6% of groups are complete, so half of all formed markets are discarded. The exclusion rule is plausibly endogenous to treatment: participants must click a progress bar every 30 seconds on every wait page and are forfeited after three consecutive timeouts, while sellers in Delivery/Combined earn 57–63% less and watch their goods fail to arrive — precisely the participants with the weakest incentive to remain attentive. The balance tests in Table B.7 are computed only on the completer sample and therefore cannot detect differential selection. With n=14 groups per cell, a few selected groups can move the medians on which the MW tests r
  2. [§5, Table A.1, §A.1] The manuscript reports a large number of Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon tests at α = 0.05 (Table A.1 alone contains dozens of starred comparisons across eight outcome variables and three round windows) with no multiple-testing correction and no pre-analysis plan referenced. Compounding this, the main-text decision to restrict treatment comparisons to the final 10 rounds 'owing to significant time trends' is a researcher degree of freedom; it is reassuring that Table A.1 shows similar effects over rounds 1–20 and that the parametric specification (Eq. 1) uses all rounds, but the headline percentages in the abstract and §5.1 are tied to the chosen window. The authors should either apply a correction (or at least state the number of hypotheses tested per family), and state whether the last-10-rounds window and the completer-only rule were pre-specified before data inspection.
  3. [§1, §6] The abstract and §6 move from the lab result to policy for cybercrime markets ('paves the way for evidence-based... policies to disrupt cybercrime and other illicit markets'), but the external-validity step is asserted rather than examined. The experimental market differs from darknet markets on stakes, anonymity infrastructure, multi-homing, violence/exit options, and the fact that a 20% seizure rate is imposed by the experimenter rather than achievable by law enforcement. This does not undermine the internal experimental result, but the policy claim as stated does not follow from it. The discussion should delineate which features of the setting drive the result (reputational spillover from non-delivery, small group size, fixed matching) and state explicitly what would need to hold in the field for the finding to transfer.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5.1, Abstract] The '70% and 76% lower efficiency' figures are relative reductions from a baseline efficiency of only ~29% (Table A.1); the absolute decline is roughly 20–22 percentage points. Stating both the relative and absolute magnitudes would prevent over-reading, especially since the abstract's framing invites the relative reading.
  2. [Table B.6] The treatment column labels are wrong: rows are labelled 'Delivery (B)', 'Rating (B)' etc., apparently copy-paste errors from the Baseline row. Also the checkmark/cross pattern should be double-checked against the text.
  3. [§A.5, Table A.4] §A.5: the claim that firm size is not the driver is supported by the split in col. 4, but the big-seller complete-attack coefficient (2.228, SE 0.723) is estimated on what must be a small number of events (4% probability per round per big seller); report the number of complete-attack events by seller size so readers can judge the precision.
  4. [Eqs. (2)–(3), §A.1] The notation for the latent variable is inconsistent (f* in Eq. 2 vs. α_i vs. u_i for the random effect in Eq. 3; D vs. Z vs. X for the regressors). Also 'rating attach' should read 'rating attack'.
  5. [§5.1] Buyer earnings are described as 'unchanged across treatments,' but Table A.1 shows baseline buyer earnings falling from −6.6 to −11.7 while Combined shows a significant time trend (W, p<0.05); a sentence clarifying that the cross-treatment contrast (not the trend) is what is null would help.
  6. [§5.2] Consider reporting the Herfindahl-Hirschman results alongside the dominant-seller share in the main text rather than only in the appendix, since the concentration claim is one of the paper's three headline findings.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: central claims are between-treatment experimental contrasts, not identities forced by definition or recycled fits.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing results are Mann–Whitney and Wilcoxon comparisons of group averages (and supporting random-effects / probit / conditional-logit estimates) across a 2×2 between-subjects design. Market efficiency is defined as realized surplus normalized by a transparent, a-priori maximum gains-from-trade benchmark (350 points in Baseline; expected 230 after the known 20% seizure probability for the adjusted measure). That normalization does not embed the treatment contrast: the delivery effect remains significant after the mechanical seizure adjustment, and is corroborated by independent outcomes (goods sold, buyer inactivity, seller earnings, HHI / dominant-seller share). The failure-to-sell probit uses lagged attack exposure with controls; the McFadden choice model estimates partner effects conditional on price, quality, and public ratings. None of these steps fit a parameter on the target quantity and then relabel the fit as a prediction, nor do they rest on a self-citation uniqueness theorem or ansatz. Background self-citation (Gallo et al. 2022 on noise in networks) is non-load-bearing literature context. Attrition and external-validity concerns are real but are selection/generalization issues, not circular derivation. Score 0 is therefore the correct finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The load-bearing content is empirical, not axiomatic derivation. What the claim rests on beyond standard experimental economics is a small set of design choices (market size, 20% attack rates, information structure that hides delivery attacks from buyers) and the domain premise that this stylized asymmetric-information market is a useful analogue for cybercrime platforms. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • delivery_attack_probability = 0.20
    Hand-chosen 20% chance each purchased good is not delivered; magnitude of efficiency and concentration effects is conditional on this rate.
  • rating_attack_probability = 0.20
    Hand-chosen 20% chance each submitted rating is replaced by a different random rating; null result is specific to this noise rate and implementation.
  • market_composition_and_horizon = 3 sellers / 4 buyers / 20 rounds
    Fixed 3 sellers, 4 buyers, 20 rounds, production set {0,1,2} goods of one quality, costs (10/20 regular, 50/100 super) and values (30/150) chosen by experimenters; all treatment contrasts live inside this parameterization.
  • analysis_window_last_10_rounds = rounds 11-20
    Primary reported contrasts use rounds 11–20 after observing time trends; not a fitted constant but a data-dependent analysis choice that affects headline percentages.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Standard nonparametric and random-effects inference on group-level experimental outcomes identifies causal treatment effects under random assignment and the stated dependence structure.
    Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, and RE models in §5 and Appendix A.1–A.3.
  • domain assumption Illicit cybercrime marketplaces are usefully approximated by a legal-goods market with quality uncertainty, identity labels, and public ratings.
    Stated motivation in Introduction and §2; never validated against field cybercrime data.
  • ad hoc to paper Buyers are not told when non-delivery is caused by the attack, so delivery shocks also act as reputational shocks.
    Design choice in §4 Treatments and Figure 1; load-bearing for the reputation-concentration mechanism.
  • ad hoc to paper Completer-only groups (all seven participants finish market and bonus tasks) are representative enough for treatment contrasts.
    Appendix B.2.1: 49.6% of groups complete; analysis uses 14 complete groups per cell.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 27210 in / 3563 out tokens · 75078 ms · 2026-07-31T16:06:36.822040+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Market design research in economics naturally focusses on how to improve market efficiency. Our objective here is exactly the opposite - how to design interventions that make a market less efficient. Our research is inspired by the growth of illicit markets online where reducing their efficiency may reduce societal harm. Using a web-based experiment, we find that a partial disruption to delivery is an effective method to decrease market efficiency. The decrease is borne by sellers who sell fewer goods and have lower earnings. A consequence of a disruption to delivery, however, is an increase in market concentration because it facilitates the emergence of a dominant seller. In contrast, we find that attacks on seller ratings are ineffective at reducing market efficiency. This study paves the way for evidence-based, causally driven investigations to aid policies to disrupt cybercrime and other illicit markets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24389 by Edoardo Gallo, Federico Varese, Jonathan Lusthaus, Rebecca Heath.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Summary of experimental design. In the Baseline treatment, there is no disruption: the buyer receives exactly the good sent by the seller, and the seller receives exactly the rating submitted by the buyer. In the Rating treatment, the good is delivered as intended, but the rating system is disrupted - there is a 20% probability that each rating is replaced with a different, random rating. In the Delivery t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The effect of the interventions on market aggregates. (a) Market efficiency, sellers’ earnings and buyers’ earnings averaged over the last 10 market rounds. Bars indicate ± standard error. (b) Number of goods sold and buyer inactivity rate averaged over the last 10 market rounds. Bars indicate ± standard error. (c) The number of goods sold over the market rounds, plotted for each intervention. Lines are li… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The change in each seller’s market share over time. (a) We plot the market share of the largest seller (blue), the intermediate seller (orange) and the smallest seller (grey) over time. Sellers are categorised according to their average market share over all market rounds. (b) We plot the frequency of submitted ratings for sellers affected by the delivery attack. We differentiate between sellers with two s… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

296 extracted references · 146 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022 , month = sep, publisher =

    Sherry He and Brett Hollenbeck and Davide Proserpio , title =. 2022 , month = sep, publisher =. doi:10.1287/mksc.2022.1353 , url =

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    1993 , publisher =

    Diego Gambetta , title =. 1993 , publisher =

    1993

  3. [3]

    Offline and Local: The Hidden Face of Cybercrime , volume =

    Lusthaus, Jonathan and Varese, Federico , year =. Offline and Local: The Hidden Face of Cybercrime , volume =. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice , publisher =. doi:10.1093/police/pax042 , number =

    work page doi:10.1093/police/pax042

  4. [4]

    2025 , publisher =

    Peter Andreas , title =. 2025 , publisher =

    2025

  5. [5]

    2025 , publisher =

    Mark Galeotti , title =. 2025 , publisher =

    2025

  6. [6]

    Roth, A. E. and Sonmez, T. and Unver, M. U. , year =. Kidney Exchange , volume =. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , publisher =. doi:10.1162/0033553041382157 , number =

    doi:10.1162/0033553041382157

  7. [7]

    Market Design: The Policy Uses of Theory , volume =

    McMillan, John , year =. Market Design: The Policy Uses of Theory , volume =. American Economic Review , publisher =. doi:10.1257/000282803321946949 , number =

    work page doi:10.1257/000282803321946949

  8. [8]

    Experimental Methods: A Primer for Economists , ISBN =

    Friedman, Daniel and Sunder, Shyam , year =. Experimental Methods: A Primer for Economists , ISBN =. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174176 , publisher =

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174176

  9. [9]

    Trends in the publication of experimental economics articles , volume =

    Reuben, Ernesto and Li, Sherry Xin and Suetens, Sigrid and Svorenčík, Andrej and Turocy, Theodore and Kotsidis, Vasileios , year =. Trends in the publication of experimental economics articles , volume =. Journal of the Economic Science Association , publisher =. doi:10.1007/s40881-022-00117-z , number =

    work page doi:10.1007/s40881-022-00117-z

  10. [10]

    , year =

    Allais, M. , year =. Le Comportement de l’Homme Rationnel devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l’Ecole Americaine , volume =. Econometrica , publisher =. doi:10.2307/1907921 , number =

    doi:10.2307/1907921

  11. [11]

    2026 , note =

    All Prizes in Economic Sciences , howpublished =. 2026 , note =

    2026

  12. [12]

    The Journal of Business , volume =

    Fairness and the Assumptions of Economics , author =. The Journal of Business , volume =. 1986 , publisher =

    1986

  13. [13]

    1952 , institution =

    Some Experimental Games , author =. 1952 , institution =

    1952

  14. [14]

    Prolific Participants , howpublished =

  15. [15]

    Harvard Business Review , year =

    The Founder of Qualtrics on Reinventing an Already Successful Business , author =. Harvard Business Review , year =

  16. [16]

    Why CloudResearch? , howpublished =

  17. [17]

    Celebrating 11 years of Artificial, Artificial Intelligence , howpublished =

  18. [18]

    and Sarnoff, Kim and Yariv, Leeat , year =

    Fréchette, Guillaume R. and Sarnoff, Kim and Yariv, Leeat , year =. Experimental Economics: Past and Future , volume =. Annual Review of Economics , publisher =. doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-081621-124424 , number =

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-081621-124424

  19. [19]

    Editors’ Preface: Trends in experimental economics (1975–2018) , volume =

    Nikiforakis, Nikos and Slonim, Robert , year =. Editors’ Preface: Trends in experimental economics (1975–2018) , volume =. Journal of the Economic Science Association , publisher =. doi:10.1007/s40881-019-00082-0 , number =

    work page doi:10.1007/s40881-019-00082-0 1975

  20. [20]

    Ngai and Pengkun Wu and Chong Wu , title =

    Yuanyuan Wu and Eric W.T. Ngai and Pengkun Wu and Chong Wu , title =. 2020 , month = may, publisher =. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2020.113280 , url =

    arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    The Journal of Industrial Economics , volume =

    CABRAL, LUÍS and HORTAÇSU, ALI , title =. The Journal of Industrial Economics , volume =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6451.2010.00405.x , url =. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-6451.2010.00405.x , abstract =

    arXiv 2010

  22. [22]

    2016 , month = oct, publisher =

    Steven Tadelis , title =. 2016 , month = oct, publisher =. doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-080315-015325 , url =

    doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-080315-015325 2016

  23. [23]

    2006 , month = jun, publisher =

    Paul Resnick and Richard Zeckhauser and John Swanson and Kate Lockwood , title =. 2006 , month = jun, publisher =. doi:10.1007/s10683-006-4309-2 , url =

    doi:10.1007/s10683-006-4309-2 2006

  24. [24]

    Byers , title =

    Georgios Zervas and Davide Proserpio and John W. Byers , title =. 2020 , month = nov, publisher =. doi:10.1007/s11002-020-09546-4 , url =

    doi:10.1007/s11002-020-09546-4 2020

  25. [25]

    , year =

    Keser, C. , year =. Experimental games for the design of reputation management systems , volume =. IBM Systems Journal , publisher =. doi:10.1147/sj.423.0498 , number =

    work page doi:10.1147/sj.423.0498

  26. [26]

    The value of bad ratings: An experiment on the impact of distortions in reputation systems , journal =

    Claudia Keser and Maximilian Sp\". The value of bad ratings: An experiment on the impact of distortions in reputation systems , journal =. 2021 , month = dec, publisher =. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2021.101782 , url =

    arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Seeing Stars: How the Binary Bias Distorts the Interpretation of Customer Ratings , volume =

    Fisher, Matthew and Newman, George E and Dhar, Ravi , editor =. Seeing Stars: How the Binary Bias Distorts the Interpretation of Customer Ratings , volume =. Journal of Consumer Research , publisher =. 2018 , month = mar, pages =. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucy017 , number =

    work page doi:10.1093/jcr/ucy017 2018

  28. [28]

    2013 , month = feb, publisher =

    Gary Bolton and Ben Greiner and Axel Ockenfels , title =. 2013 , month = feb, publisher =. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1120.1609 , url =

    arXiv 2013

  29. [29]

    Starting Your Retirement Benefits Early , year = 2025, url =

    2025

  30. [30]

    and Katok, Elena and Ockenfels, Axel , year =

    Bolton, Gary E. and Katok, Elena and Ockenfels, Axel , year =. How Effective Are Electronic Reputation Mechanisms? An Experimental Investigation , volume =. Management Science , publisher =. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1030.0199 , number =

    arXiv

  31. [31]

    List , title =

    John A. List , title =. 2006 , month = feb, publisher =. doi:10.1086/498587 , url =

    work page doi:10.1086/498587 2006

  32. [32]

    Wilson and Arthur Zillante , title =

    Bart J. Wilson and Arthur Zillante , title =. 2010 , month = feb, publisher =. doi:10.1007/s11151-010-9240-1 , url =

    work page doi:10.1007/s11151-010-9240-1 2010

  33. [33]

    Meet the lemons: An experiment on how cheap-talk overcomes adverse selection in decentralized markets , volume =

    Siegenthaler, Simon , year =. Meet the lemons: An experiment on how cheap-talk overcomes adverse selection in decentralized markets , volume =. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2016.11.001 , journal =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.geb.2016.11.001 2016

  34. [34]

    Cybercrime and shifts in opportunities during

    David Buil-Gil and Fernando Mir. Cybercrime and shifts in opportunities during. 2020 , month = aug, publisher =. doi:10.1080/14616696.2020.1804973 , url =

    arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Empty Streets, Busy Internet: A Time-Series Analysis of Cybercrime and Fraud Trends During

    Steven Kemp and David Buil-Gil and Asier Moneva and Fernando Mir. Empty Streets, Busy Internet: A Time-Series Analysis of Cybercrime and Fraud Trends During. 2021 , month = jul, publisher =. doi:10.1177/10439862211027986 , url =

    work page doi:10.1177/10439862211027986 2021

  36. [36]

    Pyrooz and Scott H

    David C. Pyrooz and Scott H. Decker and Richard K. Moule , title =. 2013 , month = mar, publisher =. doi:10.1080/07418825.2013.778326 , url =

    arXiv 2013

  37. [37]

    Payne , title =

    Brian K. Payne , title =. 2020 , month = jun, publisher =. doi:10.1007/s12103-020-09532-6 , url =

    work page doi:10.1007/s12103-020-09532-6 2020

  38. [39]

    Alice Hutchings and Richard Clayton and Ross Anderson , title =. 2016. 2016 , month = jun, publisher =. doi:10.1109/ecrime.2016.7487947 , url =

    arXiv 2016

  39. [40]

    Operation Onymous , howpublished =

    Europol. Operation Onymous , howpublished =

  40. [41]

    Cerys Bradley and Gianluca Stringhini , title =. 2019. 2019 , month = jun, publisher =. doi:10.1109/eurospw.2019.00057 , url =

    arXiv 2019

  41. [42]

    Criminal Marketplace Disrupted in International Cyber Operation , howpublished =

    Office of Public Affairs , year =. Criminal Marketplace Disrupted in International Cyber Operation , howpublished =

  42. [43]

    The closure of the Silk Road: what has this meant for online drug trading? , journal =

    Joe. The closure of the Silk Road: what has this meant for online drug trading? , journal =. 2014 , month = jan, publisher =. doi:10.1111/add.12422 , url =

    work page doi:10.1111/add.12422 2014

  43. [44]

    D. D. Do police crackdowns disrupt drug cryptomarkets? A longitudinal analysis of the effects of Operation Onymous , journal =. 2016 , month = oct, publisher =. doi:10.1007/s10611-016-9644-4 , url =

    work page doi:10.1007/s10611-016-9644-4 2016

  44. [45]

    2007 , pages =

    An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Internet Miscreants , author =. 2007 , pages =

    2007

  45. [46]

    Holt , title =

    Alice Hutchings and Thomas J. Holt , title =. 2014 , month = dec, publisher =. doi:10.1093/bjc/azu106 , url =

    work page doi:10.1093/bjc/azu106 2014

  46. [47]

    Akerlof , title =

    George A. Akerlof , title =. 1970 , month = aug, publisher =. doi:10.2307/1879431 , url =

    doi:10.2307/1879431 1970

  47. [48]

    2013 , month = dec, publisher =

    Michael Yip and Craig Webber and Nigel Shadbolt , title =. 2013 , month = dec, publisher =. doi:10.1080/10439463.2013.780227 , url =

    arXiv 2013

  48. [49]

    2009 , url =

    Herley, Cormac and Florencio, Dinei , title =. 2009 , url =

    2009

  49. [50]

    The Economics of the Internet and E-commerce , year =

    Paul Resnick and Richard Zeckhauser , title =. The Economics of the Internet and E-commerce , year =. doi:10.1016/s0278-0984(02)11030-3 , url =

    doi:10.1016/s0278-0984(02)11030-3

  50. [51]

    2003 , month = mar, publisher =

    Mikhail I Melnik and James Alm , title =. 2003 , month = mar, publisher =. doi:10.1111/1467-6451.00180 , url =

    arXiv 2003

  51. [52]

    2006 , month = jun, publisher =

    Daniel Houser and John Wooders , title =. 2006 , month = jun, publisher =. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9134.2006.00103.x , url =

    arXiv 2006

  52. [53]

    1983 , month = nov, publisher =

    Carl Shapiro , title =. 1983 , month = nov, publisher =. doi:10.2307/1881782 , url =

    work page doi:10.2307/1881782 1983

  53. [54]

    Leffler , journal =

    Benjamin Klein and Keith B. Leffler , journal =. The Role of Market Forces in Assuring Contractual Performance , urldate =

  54. [55]

    1982 , month = aug, publisher =

    David M Kreps and Robert Wilson , title =. 1982 , month = aug, publisher =. doi:10.1016/0022-0531(82)90030-8 , url =

    doi:10.1016/0022-0531(82)90030-8 1982

  55. [56]

    1982 , month = aug, publisher =

    Paul Milgrom and John Roberts , title =. 1982 , month = aug, publisher =. doi:10.1016/0022-0531(82)90031-x , url =

    doi:10.1016/0022-0531(82)90031-x 1982

  56. [57]

    de Figueiredo , title =

    Daniel Klerman and Miguel F.P. de Figueiredo , title =. 2021 , month = mar, publisher =. doi:10.1016/j.irle.2020.105965 , url =

    arXiv 2021

  57. [58]

    Classroom Games: A Market for Lemons , volume =

    Holt, Charles A and Sherman, Roger , year =. Classroom Games: A Market for Lemons , volume =. Journal of Economic Perspectives , publisher =. doi:10.1257/jep.13.1.205 , number =

    work page doi:10.1257/jep.13.1.205

  58. [59]

    ADVERTISING AND PRODUCT QUALITY IN POSTED‐OFFER EXPERIMENTS , volume =

    Holt, CHARLES and Sherman, ROGER , year =. ADVERTISING AND PRODUCT QUALITY IN POSTED‐OFFER EXPERIMENTS , volume =. Economic Inquiry , publisher =. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.1990.tb00802.x , number =

    arXiv 1990

  59. [60]

    Less Rationality, More Efficiency: A Laboratory Experiment on Lemons Markets , ISSN =

    Kirstein, Roland and Kirstein, Annette , year =. Less Rationality, More Efficiency: A Laboratory Experiment on Lemons Markets , ISSN =. doi:10.2139/ssrn.964633 , journal =

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.964633

  60. [61]

    Privacy concerns, voluntary disclosure of information, and unraveling: An experiment , volume =

    Benndorf, Volker and K\". Privacy concerns, voluntary disclosure of information, and unraveling: An experiment , volume =. 2015 , month = apr, pages =. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.01.005 , journal =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.01.005 2015

  61. [62]

    and Plott, Charles R

    Miller, Ross M. and Plott, Charles R. , year =. Product Quality Signaling in Experimental Markets , volume =. Econometrica , publisher =. doi:10.2307/1912657 , number =

    work page doi:10.2307/1912657

  62. [63]

    Miller and Charles R

    Michael Lynch and Ross M. Miller and Charles R. Plott and Russell Porter , title =. 1986 , booktitle =

    1986

  63. [64]

    Cason and Lata Gangadharan , title =

    Timothy N. Cason and Lata Gangadharan , title =. 2002 , month = jan, publisher =. doi:10.1006/jeem.2000.1170 , url =

    arXiv 2002

  64. [65]

    Pillars of Trust: An Experimental Study on Reputation and Its Effects , volume =

    Boero, Riccardo and Bravo, Giangiacomo and Castellani, Marco and Laganà, Francesco and Squazzoni, Flaminio , year =. Pillars of Trust: An Experimental Study on Reputation and Its Effects , volume =. Sociological Research Online , publisher =. doi:10.5153/sro.2042 , number =

    work page doi:10.5153/sro.2042 2042

  65. [66]

    Experimental Tests of a Sequential Equilibrium Reputation Model , volume =

    Camerer, Colin and Weigelt, Keith , year =. Experimental Tests of a Sequential Equilibrium Reputation Model , volume =. Econometrica , publisher =. doi:10.2307/1911840 , number =

    work page doi:10.2307/1911840

  66. [67]

    Ipeirotis , title =

    Gabriele Paolacci and Jesse Chandler and Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis , title =. 2010 , month = aug, publisher =. doi:10.1017/s1930297500002205 , url =

    work page doi:10.1017/s1930297500002205 2010

  67. [68]

    2011 , month = jun, publisher =

    Winter Mason and Siddharth Suri , title =. 2011 , month = jun, publisher =. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6 , url =

    work page doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6 2011

  68. [69]

    Social preferences in the online laboratory: a randomized experiment , volume =

    Hergueux, Jér\^ome and Jacquemet, Nicolas , year =. Social preferences in the online laboratory: a randomized experiment , volume =. Experimental Economics , publisher =. doi:10.1007/s10683-014-9400-5 , number =

    work page doi:10.1007/s10683-014-9400-5

  69. [70]

    Lab vs online experiments: No differences , volume =

    Prissé, Benjamin and Jorrat, Diego , year =. Lab vs online experiments: No differences , volume =. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2022.101910 , journal =

    arXiv 2022

  70. [71]

    Lab-like findings from online experiments , volume =

    Buso, Irene Maria and Di Cagno, Daniela and Ferrari, Lorenzo and Larocca, Vittorio and Lorè, Luisa and Marazzi, Francesca and Panaccione, Luca and Spadoni, Lorenzo , year =. Lab-like findings from online experiments , volume =. Journal of the Economic Science Association , publisher =. doi:10.1007/s40881-021-00114-8 , number =

    work page doi:10.1007/s40881-021-00114-8

  71. [73]

    Moss and Leib Litman , editor =

    Jonathan Robinson and Cheskie Rosenzweig and Aaron J. Moss and Leib Litman , editor =. Tapped out or barely tapped? Recommendations for how to harness the vast and largely unused potential of the Mechanical Turk participant pool , journal =. 2019 , month = dec, publisher =. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0226394 , url =

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0226394 2019

  72. [74]

    (Savikhin) Samak , title =

    Anya C. (Savikhin) Samak , title =. 2013 , month = jan, publisher =. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.10.039 , url =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.10.039 2013

  73. [75]

    2023 , CONTACT =

    Cyber security breaches survey , INSTITUTION =. 2023 , CONTACT =

    2023

  74. [76]

    Internet Crime Report , INSTITUTION =

  75. [77]

    Internet organised crime threat assessment , author =

  76. [78]

    Massive blow to criminal Dark Web activities after globally coordinated operation , author =

  77. [79]

    We Know Where You Are, What You Are Doing and We Will Catch You , volume =

    Ladegaard, Isak , year =. We Know Where You Are, What You Are Doing and We Will Catch You , volume =. The British Journal of Criminology , publisher =. doi:10.1093/bjc/azx021 , number =

    work page doi:10.1093/bjc/azx021

  78. [80]

    International Journal of Cyber Criminology , year =

    Roderic Broadhurst and Peter Grabosky and Mamoun Alazab and Steve Chon , title =. International Journal of Cyber Criminology , year =

  79. [81]

    2022 , month = feb, publisher =

    Jonathan Lusthaus and Jaap van Oss and Philipp Amann , title =. 2022 , month = feb, publisher =. doi:10.1177/14773708221077615 , url =

    work page doi:10.1177/14773708221077615 2022

  80. [82]

    Holt and Eric Lampke , title =

    Thomas J. Holt and Eric Lampke , title =. 2010 , month = mar, publisher =. doi:10.1080/14786011003634415 , url =

    work page doi:10.1080/14786011003634415 2010

Showing first 80 references.