pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.13671 · v3 · pith:36BOAEHWnew · submitted 2026-03-14 · 💻 cs.DC · cs.MA· cs.PL

Grassroots Bonds as a Foundation for Market Liquidity

Ehud Shapiro This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 11:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DC cs.MAcs.PL
keywords grassroots bondsmarket liquiditydigital social contractsinterest-bearing creditlocal digital economiesmutual trustgrassroots cryptocurrencies
0
0 comments X

The pith

Grassroots bonds extend local coins with maturity dates to create interest-bearing credit from mutual trust alone.

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

The paper introduces grassroots bonds as a way to add maturity dates and interest to grassroots cryptocurrencies that are backed by issuers' own goods and services. This change lets participants lend liquid coins today in exchange for future bonds, turning mutual credit into a source of liquidity without needing outside capital or global consensus. Digital social contracts then allow any financial instrument to be built as a voluntary swap of these bonds. If the approach works, local economies could develop and expand using only internal trust and smartphone operations. A sympathetic reader would see a route for communities to generate market liquidity internally rather than waiting for external funding or high-cost global systems.

Core claim

Grassroots bonds extend grassroots coins by adding a maturity date, reframing coins as mature bonds. Bond redemption generalizes coin redemption, so liquid coins can be lent for interest-bearing future-maturity bonds. Digital social contracts express the full range of financial instruments as voluntary swaps of these bonds, including loans, debt sales, forwards, options, and escrow tools. Classical liquidity ratios apply directly to grassroots bonds, enabling local digital economies to form and grow without initial capital or external credit by converting mutual trust into liquidity.

What carries the argument

Grassroots bonds, which add a maturity date to grassroots coins so that redemption becomes a general mechanism for interest-bearing credit via voluntary swaps under digital social contracts.

If this is right

  • Local issuers can lend and borrow at interest while remaining backed only by their own goods and services.
  • Loans, debt sales, forwards, options, and escrow instruments become expressible through sequences of voluntary bond exchanges.
  • Standard liquidity ratios from classical finance carry over unchanged to these bonds.
  • Communities can build and expand market liquidity using only mutual trust and smartphone-level operations.
  • No global consensus or external credit is required for the system to function.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Such bonds could be layered onto existing community networks that already track informal obligations.
  • The model suggests a path for microfinance to operate without intermediaries if trust can be digitally encoded.
  • Real-world village markets could test whether liquidity ratios remain stable when bonds mature at different rates.
  • Integration with physical goods tracking might allow direct redemption against inventory rather than cash.

Load-bearing premise

Bond redemption generalizes coin redemption and digital social contracts can express every financial instrument as a voluntary swap of grassroots bonds.

What would settle it

A running implementation in which participants cannot construct a basic option or forward contract as a sequence of bond swaps without external enforcement or where redemption after exchange produces systematic profit or loss.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.13671 by Ehud Shapiro.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Village Market: six-agent grassroots bond economy. Each panel shows one agent’s narrative trace. The scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Global cryptocurrencies are unbacked and have high transaction cost incurred by global consensus. In contrast, grassroots cryptocurrencies are backed by the goods and services of their issuers -- any person, natural or legal -- and have no transaction cost beyond operating a smartphone. Liquidity in grassroots cryptocurrencies arises from mutual credit via coin exchange among issuers. However, as grassroots coins are redeemable 1-for-1 against any other grassroots coin, the credit-forming exchange must also be 1-for-1, lest prompt redemption after exchange would leave the parties with undue profit or loss. Thus, grassroots coins are incongruent with liquidity through interest-bearing credit. Here we introduce grassroots bonds, which extend grassroots coins with a maturity date, reframing grassroots coins -- cash -- as mature grassroots bonds. Bond redemption generalises coin redemption, allowing the lending of liquid coins in exchange for interest-bearing future-maturity bonds. We show that digital social contracts -- voluntary agreements among persons, specified, fulfilled, and enforced digitally -- can express the full gamut of financial instruments as the voluntary swap of grassroots bonds, including loans, sale of debt, forward contracts, options, and escrow-based instruments, and that classical liquidity ratios are applicable just as well to grassroots bonds. Grassroots bonds may thus allow local digital economies to form and grow without initial capital or external credit, harnessing mutual trust within communities into liquidity. The formal specification presented here was implemented in GLP, a concurrent logic programming language running on Dart for smartphone deployment. The implementation is illustrated by a running multiagent village market scenario in GLP.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces grassroots bonds as an extension of grassroots coins (reframed as mature bonds) by adding maturity dates, enabling interest-bearing credit while preserving 1-for-1 redemption semantics. It claims this generalization allows lending liquid coins for future bonds, expresses the full range of financial instruments (loans, debt sales, forwards, options, escrow) via voluntary digital social contract swaps of bonds, applies classical liquidity ratios, and supports local digital economies without initial capital. A formal specification is implemented in the GLP concurrent logic programming language and illustrated via a multiagent village market scenario on smartphones.

Significance. If the bond generalization maintains the no-arbitrage invariance of coin redemptions, the work could enable trust-based liquidity formation in community economies using only mobile devices, reducing dependence on global unbacked cryptocurrencies. The smartphone-deployable implementation and scenario demonstration provide a concrete starting point for practical deployment, though the conceptual nature limits immediate impact without further validation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'Bond redemption generalises coin redemption' to support interest-bearing future-maturity bonds does not specify the mechanism for incorporating interest while conserving value and blocking arbitrage (e.g., a borrower redeeming received coins immediately against an unbacked lender claim). This invariance is load-bearing for the no-profit/no-loss rule extended from coins.
  2. [The formal specification] The formal specification section: No detailed derivation, proof, or analysis is provided showing how the voluntary swap mechanism for bonds expresses all listed instruments (loans, forwards, options, escrow) without introducing inconsistencies with the 1-for-1 redemption rule or allowing net value extraction.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract asserts that 'classical liquidity ratios are applicable just as well to grassroots bonds' without identifying the ratios or demonstrating their application in the bond context.
  2. The implementation illustration via the village market scenario would benefit from explicit discussion of how digital enforcement handles default or dispute resolution in bond swaps.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments, which help us strengthen the presentation of the no-arbitrage properties and the expressiveness of the bond swap mechanism. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'Bond redemption generalises coin redemption' to support interest-bearing future-maturity bonds does not specify the mechanism for incorporating interest while conserving value and blocking arbitrage (e.g., a borrower redeeming received coins immediately against an unbacked lender claim). This invariance is load-bearing for the no-profit/no-loss rule extended from coins.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from a clearer specification of the interest incorporation mechanism. In the revision, we will expand the abstract to note that interest is embedded in the face value and maturity terms of the voluntary digital social contract. Bond redemption is defined to occur exclusively at the maturity date, generalizing the immediate redemption of coins (mature bonds). Consequently, a borrower cannot redeem coins received in a loan against an unbacked future claim, as the lender's entitlement is only to the bond's face value at maturity. This maintains the 1-for-1 redemption invariance for all mature instruments and blocks arbitrage opportunities. We will also add a short paragraph in the introduction elaborating on this point. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [The formal specification] The formal specification section: No detailed derivation, proof, or analysis is provided showing how the voluntary swap mechanism for bonds expresses all listed instruments (loans, forwards, options, escrow) without introducing inconsistencies with the 1-for-1 redemption rule or allowing net value extraction.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for more explicit analysis in the formal specification section. Although the GLP implementation encodes the swaps and the village market scenario illustrates their use, we will add a new subsection providing a detailed informal derivation for each instrument. For example, a loan is a swap of current-maturity bonds for future-maturity bonds with an interest-adjusted face value; a forward is a conditional swap at a future date; options involve optional swaps; escrow uses a third-party bond holder. We will show that since each swap is voluntary and redemption remains strictly 1-for-1 at the respective maturity dates, no inconsistencies arise and net value extraction is prevented outside the contractually agreed terms. This analysis will reference the formal rules in the specification to demonstrate invariance. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; conceptual extension is self-contained

full rationale

The paper defines grassroots bonds by extending coins with a maturity date and states that bond redemption generalizes coin redemption to support interest-bearing credit through voluntary digital social contracts. This is a definitional reframing rather than a derivation that reduces to fitted parameters, self-referential definitions, or load-bearing self-citations by construction. The argument for expressing financial instruments as bond swaps and applying liquidity ratios relies on described voluntary agreements and digital enforcement, which introduce independent content without looping back to the inputs. Foundational references to grassroots coins draw from prior concepts but do not make the central claims equivalent to those inputs. No equations or reductions are exhibited that would qualify under the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on assumptions about digital enforcement of contracts and the generalization of redemption mechanics; no free parameters or invented entities with independent evidence are introduced beyond the core proposal.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Digital social contracts can be specified, fulfilled, and enforced digitally among persons without external parties.
    Invoked to support expression of all financial instruments as voluntary bond swaps.
invented entities (1)
  • Grassroots bonds no independent evidence
    purpose: Extend coins with maturity dates to enable interest-bearing credit while preserving redeemability.
    New construct introduced to resolve the incongruence between 1-for-1 coin exchange and interest-bearing lending.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5803 in / 1249 out tokens · 47331 ms · 2026-05-21T11:07:23.351481+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel echoes
    ?
    echoes

    ECHOES: this paper passage has the same mathematical shape or conceptual pattern as the Recognition theorem, but is not a direct formal dependency.

    as grassroots coins are redeemable 1-for-1 against any other grassroots coin, the credit-forming exchange must also be 1-for-1, lest prompt redemption after exchange would leave the parties with undue profit or loss

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Volitional Multiagent Atomic Transactions: Describing People and their Machines

    cs.DC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Volitional multiagent atomic transactions model systems of people and machines by requiring both machine preconditions and human willingness for atomic actions, enabling safety and liveness analysis for grassroots platforms.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Sumit Agarwal, Shashwat Alok, Pulak Ghosh, Soumya Ghosh, Tomasz Piskorski, and Amit Seru. 2017. Banking the unbanked: What do 255 million new bank accounts reveal about financial access?Columbia Business School Research Paper 17-12 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Shirley Ardener. 1964. The Comparative Study of Rotating Credit Associations. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland94, 2 (1964), 201–229. doi:10.2307/2844382

    work page doi:10.2307/2844382 1964

  3. [3]

    Timothy Besley, Stephen Coate, and Glenn Loury. 1993. The Economics of Rotating Savings and Credit Associations.American Economic Review83, 4 (1993), 792–810

    work page 1993

  4. [4]

    Graphchain

    Xavier Boyen, Christopher Carr, and Thomas Haines. 2016. Blockchain-Free Cryptocurrencies: A Framework for Truly Decentralised Fast Transactions. Cryp- tology ePrint Archive, Report 2016/871. Also published as “Graphchain” at BCC@AsiaCCS 2018

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Miriam Bruhn and Inessa Love. 2009. The economic impact of banking the unbanked: evidence from Mexico.World bank policy research working paper4981 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Brunnermeier, Harold James, and Jean-Pierre Landau

    Markus K. Brunnermeier, Harold James, and Jean-Pierre Landau. 2019.The Digitalization of Money. Working Paper 26300. National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w26300

    work page doi:10.3386/w26300 2019

  7. [7]

    Vitalik Buterin. 2014. A next-generation smart contract and decentralized appli- cation platform.white paper3, 37 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    2023.Tokenization: Overview and Financial Stability Implications

    Francesca Carapella, Grace Chuan, Jacob Gerszten, Chelsea Hunter, and Nathan Swem. 2023.Tokenization: Overview and Financial Stability Implications. Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2023-060. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. doi:10.17016/FEDS.2023.060r1

    work page doi:10.17016/feds.2023.060r1 2023

  9. [9]

    Luca Cardelli, Liav Orgad, Gal Shahaf, Ehud Shapiro, and Nimrod Talmon. 2020. Digital social contracts: A foundation for an egalitarian and just digital society. InCEUR Proceedings of the First International Forum on Digital and Democracy, Vol. 2781. CEUR-WS, 51–60

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Ricardo de O Cavalcanti and Neil Wallace. 1999. Inside and outside money as alternative media of exchange.Journal of Money, Credit and Banking(1999), 443–457

    work page 1999

  11. [11]

    Ricardo de O Cavalcanti and Neil Wallace. 1999. A model of private bank-note issue.Review of Economic Dynamics2, 1 (1999), 104–136

    work page 1999

  12. [12]

    Retrieved 2021 https://joincircles.net/

    Circles. Retrieved 2021 https://joincircles.net/. Circles: A decentralised Universal Basic Income platform based on personal currencies

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Philip Daian, Steven Goldfeder, Tyler Kell, Yunqi Li, Xueyuan Zhao, Iddo Ben- tov, Lorenz Breidenbach, and Ari Juels. 2020. Flash Boys 2.0: Frontrunning in Decentralized Exchanges, Miner Extractable Value, and Consensus Insta- bility. In2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 910–927. doi:10.1109/SP40000.2020.00040

    work page doi:10.1109/sp40000.2020.00040 2020

  14. [14]

    Pranav Dandekar, Ashish Goel, Ramesh Govindan, and Ian Post. 2011. Liquidity in credit networks: A little trust goes a long way. InProceedings of the 12th ACM conference on Electronic commerce. 147–156

    work page 2011

  15. [15]

    2022.The Global Findex Database 2021: Financial Inclusion, Digital Payments, and Resilience in the Age of COVID-19

    Asli Demirgüç-Kunt, Leora Klapper, Dorothe Singer, and Saniya Ansar. 2022.The Global Findex Database 2021: Financial Inclusion, Digital Payments, and Resilience in the Age of COVID-19. World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1897-4

    work page doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1897-4 2022

  16. [16]

    Stefan Dziembowski, Lisa Eckey, Sebastian Faust, and Daniel Malinowski. 2018. General state channel networks. InProceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Confer- ence on Computer and Communications Security. 949–966

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Mohammed El Qorchi, Samuel Munzele Maimbo, and John F. Wilson. 2003. Informal Funds Transfer Systems: An Analysis of the Informal Hawala System. Number 222 in IMF Occasional Paper. International Monetary Fund

    work page 2003

  18. [18]

    Fabozzi and Francesco A

    Frank J. Fabozzi and Francesco A. Fabozzi. 2021.Bond Markets, Analysis, and Strategies(10th ed.). MIT Press

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Ryan Fugger. 2004. Money as IOUs in social trust networks & a proposal for a decentralized currency network protocol.Hypertext document. A vailable elec- tronically at http://ripple. sourceforge. net106 (2004)

    work page 2004

  20. [20]

    Jim Gray. 1981. The Transaction Concept: Virtues and Limitations.Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases(1981), 144–154

    work page 1981

  21. [21]

    Lewis Gudgeon, Pedro Moreno-Sanchez, Stefanie Roos, Patrick McCorry, and Arthur Gervais. 2020. SoK: Layer-Two Blockchain Protocols. InFinancial Cryp- tography and Data Security (FC 2020) (LNCS, Vol. 12059). Springer, 201–226. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51280-4_12

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51280-4_12 2020

  22. [22]

    Werner, Daniel Perez, and William J

    Lewis Gudgeon, Sam M. Werner, Daniel Perez, and William J. Knottenbelt. 2020. DeFi Protocols for Loanable Funds: Interest Rates, Liquidity and Market Efficiency. InProceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies (AFT ’20). ACM, 92–112. doi:10.1145/3419614.3423254

    work page doi:10.1145/3419614.3423254 2020

  23. [23]

    2021, https://docs.trustlines.network/assets/pdf/Trustlines_Network_Whitepaper_2021.pdf

    Heiko Hees, Gustav Friis, Kristoffer Naerland, Aleeza Howitt, Tatu Kärki, and Andreas Fletcher. 2021, https://docs.trustlines.network/assets/pdf/Trustlines_Network_Whitepaper_2021.pdf. Trustlines Network White Paper

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Maurice Herlihy. 2018. Atomic cross-chain swaps. InProceedings of the 2018 ACM symposium on principles of distributed computing. 245–254

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    George Iosifidis, Yanick Charette, Edoardo Airoldi, Giuseppe Littera, Leandros Tassiulas, and Nicholas Christakis. 2018. Cyclic Motifs in the Sardex Monetary Network.Nature Human Behaviour2 (2018), 822–829. doi:10.1038/s41562-018- 0450-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41562-018- 2018

  26. [26]

    Rajkamal Iyer, Asim Ijaz Khwaja, Erzo F. P. Luttmer, and Kelly Shue. 2016. Screen- ing Peers Softly: Inferring the Quality of Small Borrowers.Management Science 62, 6 (2016), 1554–1577. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2181

    work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2181 2016

  27. [27]

    Idit Keidar, Andrew Lewis-Pye, and Ehud Shapiro. 2025. Constitutional Consen- sus

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Narayana R Kocherlakota. 1998. Money is memory.Journal of economic theory 81, 2 (1998), 232–251

    work page 1998

  29. [29]

    Thomas Lambert, Daniel Liebau, and Peter Roosenboom. 2022. Security Token Offerings.Small Business Economics59 (2022), 299–325. doi:10.1007/s11187-021- 00539-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11187-021- 2022

  30. [30]

    Pablo Lamela Seijas and Simon Thompson. 2018. Marlowe: Financial Contracts on Blockchain. InLeveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation (ISoLA 2018) (LNCS, Vol. 11247). Springer, 356–375. doi:10.1007/978-3- 030-03427-6_27 10 Grassroots Bonds

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3- 2018

  31. [31]

    Robert Leshner. 2020. Compound Governance. Blog post, Compound Labs. https://medium.com/compound-finance/compound-governance-5531f524cf68

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    Andrew Lewis-Pye, Oded Naor, and Ehud Shapiro. 2023. Grassroots Flash: A Payment System for Grassroots Cryptocurrencies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13191 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Prabhala, and Siva Viswanathan

    Mingfeng Lin, Nagpurnanand R. Prabhala, and Siva Viswanathan. 2013. Judging Borrowers by the Company They Keep: Friendship Networks and Information Asymmetry in Online Peer-to-Peer Lending.Management Science59, 1 (2013), 17–35. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1120.1560

    work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.1120.1560 2013

  34. [34]

    Giulio Malavolta, Pedro Moreno-Sanchez, Aniket Kate, and Matteo Maffei. 2017. SilentWhispers: Enforcing Security and Privacy in Decentralized Credit Net- works. InProceedings of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS 2017). Internet Society

    work page 2017

  35. [35]

    Carolina E. S. Mattsson, Teodoro Criscione, and William O. Ruddick. 2022. Sarafu Community Inclusion Currency 2020–2021.Scientific Data9 (2022), 426. doi:10. 1038/s41597-022-01539-4

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Michael McLeay, Amar Radia, and Ryland Thomas. 2014. Money Creation in the Modern Economy.Bank of England Quarterly BulletinQ1 (2014), 14–27

    work page 2014

  37. [37]

    Jonathan Morduch. 1999. The Microfinance Promise.Journal of Economic Literature37, 4 (1999), 1569–1614. doi:10.1257/jel.37.4.1569

    work page doi:10.1257/jel.37.4.1569 1999

  38. [38]

    Robert A Mundell. 1961. A theory of optimum currency areas.The American economic review51, 4 (1961), 657–665

    work page 1961

  39. [39]

    Satoshi Nakamoto and A Bitcoin. 2008. A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Bitcoin.–URL: https://bitcoin. org/bitcoin. pdf4 (2008)

    work page 2008

  40. [40]

    Thomas I. Palley. 2002. Endogenous Money: What It Is and Why It Matters. Metroeconomica53, 2 (2002), 152–180

    work page 2002

  41. [41]

    Simon Peyton Jones, Jean-Marc Eber, and Julian Seward. 2000. Composing Con- tracts: An Adventure in Financial Engineering (Functional Pearl). InProceedings of the 5th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP ’00). ACM, 280–292. doi:10.1145/351240.351267

    work page doi:10.1145/351240.351267 2000

  42. [42]

    Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja. 2016. The bitcoin lightning network: Scal- able off-chain instant payments.Draft version 0.5.9.2(2016). https://lightning. network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

    work page 2016

  43. [43]

    Kaihua Qin, Liyi Zhou, and Arthur Gervais. 2022. Quantifying Blockchain Extractable Value: How Dark is the Forest?. In2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 198–214. doi:10.1109/SP46214.2022.9833734

    work page doi:10.1109/sp46214.2022.9833734 2022

  44. [44]

    Kaihua Qin, Liyi Zhou, Benjamin Livshits, and Arthur Gervais. 2021. Attacking the DeFi Ecosystem with Flash Loans for Fun and Profit. InFinancial Cryptogra- phy and Data Security – 25th International Conference, FC 2021. Springer, 3–32. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-64322-8_1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-64322-8_1 2021

  45. [45]

    Fabian Schär. 2021. Decentralized Finance: On Blockchain- and Smart Contract- Based Financial Markets.Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review103, 2 (2021), 153–174. doi:10.20955/r.103.153-74

    work page doi:10.20955/r.103.153-74 2021

  46. [46]

    David Schwartz, Noah Youngs, and Arthur Britto. 2014. The Ripple protocol consensus algorithm.Ripple Labs White Paper(2014)

    work page 2014

  47. [47]

    Ilya Sergey, Amrit Kumar, and Aquinas Hobor. 2019. Scilla: a smart contract intermediate-level language. InProceedings of the 40th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation. ACM, 366–381

    work page 2019

  48. [48]

    Ehud Shapiro. 2023. Grassroots Distributed Systems: Concept, Examples, Imple- mentation and Applications (Brief Announcement). In37th International Sympo- sium on Distributed Computing (DISC 2023). (Extended version: arXiv:2301.04391). LIPICS, Italy, 47:1, 47:7

    work page arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Ehud Shapiro. 2024. A Grassroots Architecture to Supplant Global Digital Plat- forms by a Global Digital Democracy.arXiv:2404.13468, Proceedings of DA WO’24 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Ehud Shapiro. 2024. Grassroots Currencies: Foundations for Grassroots Digital Economies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.05619(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Ehud Shapiro. 2025. GLP: A Grassroots, Multiagent, Concurrent, Logic Program- ming Language.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.15747(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Ehud Shapiro. 2026. Grassroots Platforms with Atomic Transactions: Social Graphs, Cryptocurrencies, and Democratic Federations. InProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking. 71–81. doi:10.1145/3772290.3772309 arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11299

    work page doi:10.1145/3772290.3772309 2026

  53. [53]

    Nick Szabo. 1997. Formalizing and Securing Relationships on Public Networks

    work page 1997

  54. [54]

    Werner, Daniel Perez, Lewis Gudgeon, Ariah Klages-Mundt, Dominik Harz, and William J

    Sam M. Werner, Daniel Perez, Lewis Gudgeon, Ariah Klages-Mundt, Dominik Harz, and William J. Knottenbelt. 2022. SoK: Decentralized Finance (DeFi). In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies (AFT ’22). ACM, 446–461. doi:10.1145/3558535.3559780

    work page doi:10.1145/3558535.3559780 2022

  55. [55]

    Gavin Wood. 2014. Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger

    work page 2014

  56. [56]

    alien traces

    Liyi Zhou, Xihan Xiong, Jens Ernstberger, Stefanos Chaliasos, Zhipeng Wang, Ye Wang, Kaihua Qin, Roger Wattenhofer, Dawn Song, and Arthur Gervais. 2023. SoK: Decentralized Finance (DeFi) Attacks. In2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P). IEEE. doi:10.1109/SP46215.2023.10179435 A Mathematical Foundations This appendix collects the formal definit...

    work page doi:10.1109/sp46215.2023.10179435 2023