Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 17 references

Gasp proposes a master-rollup DEX that swaps native assets across chains without bridges, claiming each token keeps its home L1's security.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 21:30 UTC pith:NDEO7LOC

load-bearing objection This is a well-written protocol whitepaper with an interesting master-rollup idea, but the central security claims are asserted, not demonstrated; the key gap is cross-chain fault provability to an Ethereum slashing contract. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16052 v1 pith:NDEO7LOC submitted 2026-07-17 cs.CR

Gasp: A DeFi Application Specic Rollup as a Consolidation Layer for All Assets

Stanislav Vozarik , Mateusz Nowakowski , Shoeb Siddiqui , Elliot Hill , Gleb Urvanov , Peter Kris This is my paper
classification cs.CR
keywords DeFirollupscross-chain swapsEigenLayerMEV mitigationproof of liquiditytime-based LP incentivesbridge-free interoperability
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.

The paper introduces Gasp, an application-specific L2 rollup designed as a consolidation layer for all crypto assets. Its central claim: by building a master-rollup on EigenLayer's restaked ETH, Gasp can offer gas-free, native cross-chain swaps without traditional bridges, with each token retaining the security of its originating layer-1. The architecture uses decentralized sequencers, a Rolldown mechanism to validate external chain reads, and escape hatches that guarantee withdrawal even if the rollup stalls. The authors also propose Themis for MEV minimization, Proof-of-Liquidity staking, and time-based LP rewards. A sympathetic reader would care because it attempts to solve cross-chain interoperability by replacing trust in bridges with cryptoeconomic security.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a single L2 can act as a neutral settlement hub for many L1s by decomposing the L2 state into per-chain components and rolling each component up to its respective home chain, coordinated by EigenLayer restakers. Correctness of external state reads is enforced by Rolldowns—pending reads are queued and verified during a dispute period, with sequencers staking collateral that can be slashed if they misbehave. This yields an 'at least one honest actor' guarantee, replacing the usual 51% consensus assumption. Withdrawal safety is provided by escape hatches that let users return to the L1 under all conditions. The paper further claims that Themis's t

What carries the argument

The master-rollup is the central object: an L2 that treats its state as a sum of rollup states, each inheriting the security of its respective L1, while EigenLayer provides restaked ETH collateral and a finalization/slashing layer. Rolldowns are the named mechanism that verifies external L1 reads during a dispute window; Ferries front funds to reduce deposit latency; escape hatches guarantee withdrawal; Themis is the named MEV-minimization architecture featuring two-step block building and doubly encrypted transactions.

Load-bearing premise

That any incorrect read of an external blockchain's state can be cryptographically proven to the EigenLayer slashing mechanism on Ethereum—the paper asserts this via Rolldowns but never shows how finality and fault windows work for non-EVM chains.

What would settle it

A test where a majority of sequencers submit a false deposit read from a non-EVM chain (e.g., Solana) and a single honest sequencer attempts to challenge it; if no fraud proof can be posted that the Ethereum-side slasher accepts, the L1-security guarantee fails.

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

If this is right

  • If correct, users could trade DOT, SOL, ETH, and other native assets in one place without bridging, and a bridge hack would no longer endanger their funds.
  • The 'single honest actor' paradigm means the system tolerates a majority of malicious sequencers, unlike many rollups that rely on a single trusted sequencer.
  • Escape hatches imply that even a stalled rollup does not lock user funds, preserving withdrawal access under adverse conditions.
  • Themis's encryption scheme could set a template for censorship-resistant transaction inclusion in other L2s.
  • Proof-of-Liquidity and time-based rewards could reduce 'mercenary capital' churn in DEX liquidity pools, stabilizing liquidity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The master-rollup concept, if workable, could generalize beyond DEX swaps to any cross-chain state coordination, since the Rolldown and dispute mechanism is described generically.
  • A key unspoken dependency is that each connected chain must expose a cheaply provable finality checkpoint; chains without light-client-friendly finality would require additional trust assumptions the paper does not address.
  • Themis's voluntary encryption and fixed gas costs imply a trade-off between MEV protection and transaction expressiveness, which might naturally extend to a fee market for encrypted versus public transactions that the paper does not model.

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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Gasp, an application-specific Layer-2 DEX built as a 'master-rollup' secured by EigenLayer restaking, intended to support bridge-free cross-chain swaps of native assets. It claims L1-grade security for all user-held assets, guaranteed withdrawals via escape hatches, an 'at least one honest actor' security paradigm, MEV minimization through the Themis architecture, staking-linked liquidity via Proof-of-Liquidity, and time-based LP incentives with an asymptotic reward curve. The exposition is high-level and largely prose: there are no formal definitions, equations, security models, protocols, or proofs. The paper is best read as a system description or project whitepaper, not as a completed research argument for the guarantees it asserts.

Significance. If the stated guarantees were established, the contribution would be significant: trust-minimized, bridge-free cross-chain trading with native assets retaining their original L1 security is an important open problem. The paper also provides a readable synthesis of cross-chain bridge risks and a clear description of an apparently deployed DEX architecture. However, none of the central properties are demonstrated; the manuscript contains no machine-checked proofs, no reproducible code, no formal invariant, and no parameter-free derivations. The security and incentive claims are asserted in prose, and the cross-chain fault-provability problem identified in §2.1/§2.6 is not addressed. As it stands, the paper does not provide the evidence that its title and abstract promise.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.1 and §2.6] The central security guarantee — that one honest sequencer can maintain integrity and that misbehaving sequencers are slashed via EigenLayer — assumes every 'incorrect L1 read' on every connected chain is provable on Ethereum. No mechanism is specified for non-EVM chains such as Solana, Polkadot, or Bitcoin. Without a source-chain light-client/finality proof or a fault game, an honest challenger cannot construct an on-chain proof when a dishonest majority reports a state that was canonical on the source chain but later reorged, or when the source chain suffers a 51% attack. The Rolldown mechanism (§2.1) and slashing (§2.6) are described only at a high level; this premise is load-bearing and unproven.
  2. [§1.2, §2.2, §2.3] The claim that each token 'inherits' its home chain's security rests on the assertion in §1.2 that the L2 state can be decomposed into per-L1 components. This decomposition is not formalized; no argument shows that components secured by different L1s cannot interact in ways that introduce new security dependencies. Separately, the escape-hatch guarantee in §2.3 is stated for 'connected chains with smart contract capabilities,' while §2.1 promises support for all blockchain ecosystems, including Bitcoin. The paper does not explain how a native Bitcoin or Solana asset is withdrawn through an Ethereum-based escape hatch. Without that, the 'guarantee withdrawal' claim is either false or undefined for assets whose withdrawal path is not expressible on the settlement chain.
  3. [§3.3] The asymptotic reward curve is presented as a property of the mechanism ('achieving over 90% efficiency within a two-week period'), but no equation defines efficiency, work, or the curve itself. As presented, the curve's parameters are design constants chosen by the authors, not derived from any stated security or incentive objective. The claims about retaining long-term LPs and deterring 'mercenary capital' need a formal model and quantitative analysis; as written, they are not falsifiable. The session-discretization and gas-efficiency advantages are also described only verbally.
  4. [§3.1 and §4] The MEV-minimization claims are not supported by a threat model or proof. The 'separation of concerns' argument assumes the block builder and block executor are distinct and do not collude, but the paper provides no game-theoretic analysis of collusion or of strategic transaction submission. The paper itself acknowledges that the VED solution reaches only the second of three robustness levels and that 'probabilistic value extraction' remains possible via multiple transactions (§4). Calling Themis 'one of the most advanced MEV minimization mechanisms' without a benchmark or lower-bound analysis is not supportable.
  5. [§2.4 and §3.4] The design principle in §2.4 — 'operate in a fully decentralized manner, free of centralized components or entities' — is contradicted by the governance structure in §3.4, which includes a seven-member council and a three-member foundation with veto authority. The paper does not explain how these bodies are compatible with the 'no centralized components' claim, nor how the foundation's oversight of 'maintenance mode' interacts with the escape-hatch guarantee in §2.3. This is an internal inconsistency in a stated design goal.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.5] Heading typo: 'A void' should be 'Avoid'. Similar typos include 'liveliness' for 'liveness' in §2.3 and §2.6, and 'minimisation' vs 'minimization' inconsistency.
  2. [Figures 1–4] The figures have no captions and no axis labels; Figure 3 in particular shows 'Efficiency & Rewards Over Time' without defining the units or the efficiency metric. The text references the figures but does not explain the diagrams in sufficient detail.
  3. [References] Several core mechanisms are cited only to self-published documents or forum posts ([8], [12], [13]). The paper would benefit from comparison with academic work on cross-chain light clients, optimism fault proofs, and intents/solver architectures; the current related-work discussion is mostly about bridges and atomic swaps.
  4. [§3.4] The spam-prevention mechanism is described as requiring a 24-hour lock of a 'predetermined amount' of GASP and a 'value threshold,' but neither parameter is specified or justified. The statement that 'the more GASP tokens held, the greater the number of swaps' is also left without a concrete formula or policy.
  5. [§1.1 vs §2.4] The tense of the decentralized-sequencer claim shifts from 'Gasp will use decentralized sequencers' (§1.1) to 'Gasp launches with decentralized sequencers from inception' (§2.4). No evidence of deployment or operational data is provided for either claim.

Circularity Check

5 steps flagged

Four of the paper's central 'novel' mechanisms are sourced only to the authors' own prior docs, and the headline 90%-efficiency reward number is a design constant presented as a property.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§2, §2.1, §2.6; ref [8]]
    "Gasp’s master-rollup interchain infrastructure ... incorporates escape hatches for user safety [8]. ... This design guarantees that even a single honest sequencer can invalidate incorrect reads, replacing the traditional 51% consensus requirement with an 'at least one honest actor' paradigm. [8] S Vozarik, G Urvanov, S Siddiqui, and P Kris. Cross-l1 information transfer via master rollup secured by eigenlayer. Eigen Layer Forum, 2023."

    The master-rollup/EigenLayer security model—the paper's central contribution—is grounded solely in the authors' own 2023 forum post [8]. No independent derivation shows how an incorrect read of a non-EVM chain's state is cryptographically proven on Ethereum so that slashing binds; the 'single honest actor' guarantee is the conclusion of the cited self-work, not derived in this paper. Removing [8] leaves the central security claim unsupported.

  2. self citation load bearing [§3.1 Themis Architecture; ref [9]]
    "Gasp features one of the most advanced MEV minimization mechanisms of any DEX developed to date, which we present under the name ’Themis Architecture’ [9]. ... [9] S Vozarik, S Siddiqui, P Kris, and G Urvanov. A solution to mev for application-specific blockchains. Gasp Docs, 2023."

    The entire MEV-minimization section is a summary of the authors' own Gasp Docs piece [9], with no formal claims, proofs, or external verification. The reordering/denial solutions and their claimed security levels are asserted from this self-citation; the paper does not provide an independent argument for why they achieve the stated protections.

  3. self citation load bearing [§3.2 Proof of Liquidity; ref [12]]
    "Gasp uses Proof-of-Liquidity (PoL), a novel consensus mechanism designed to address the inherent trade-off in decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystems between network security and liquidity provision [12]. ... [12] S Vozarik, S Siddiqui, P Kris, and G Urvanov. Proof of liquidity. Gasp Docs, 2023."

    PoL's core claim—that LP tokens staked as collateral simultaneously secure the rollup and provide liquidity—is cited only to the authors' own Gasp Docs. No consensus or security analysis is given in this paper; it is presented as a novel mechanism because the authors' prior doc says so, making the self-citation load-bearing for the section's main assertion.

  4. self citation load bearing [§3.3 Time-Based LP Incentives; ref [13]]
    "Through time-based liquidity provider (LP) incentives, Gasp introduces a novel mechanism [13] for encouraging long-term liquidity provision... Efficiency is a function of the cumulative 'work' performed by the LP’s capital in the pool over time, normalized against the theoretical maximum work achievable within the same period [13]. ... [13] S Vozarik, S+ Siddiqui, P Kris, and G Urvanov. Time-based lp incentives. Gasp Docs, 2023."

    The claimed novelty and the efficiency definition both trace to [13], the authors' own docs. The mechanism's behavioral properties are asserted rather than derived, and the only source cited for the core incentive-design claims is the authors' prior writeup.

  5. self definitional [§3.3, Figure 3]
    "The mechanism employs an asymptotic reward curve, designed to favor long-term liquidity providers. Rewards are minimal during the initial days of liquidity provision... However, rewards increase rapidly in the subsequent weeks, achieving over90% efficiency within a two-week period..."

    Because 'efficiency' is defined as cumulative work normalized by the theoretical maximum under the same asymptotic curve, the 'over 90% within two weeks' outcome is a parameter of the chosen curve, not a prediction derived from independent inputs. The design constant is presented as a measured property of the mechanism.

full rationale

The paper contains no equations and no external benchmarks. Its four claimed novel mechanisms—master-rollup/EigenLayer security, Themis MEV minimization, Proof-of-Liquidity, and time-based LP incentives—are each sourced to the authors' own prior docs ([8], [9], [12], [13]), and the headline 90%-efficiency reward figure is a definitional consequence of the curve's chosen parameters. The central 'at least one honest actor' security guarantee is the conclusion of the self-cited [8] rather than independently derived, and no mechanism is given for proving incorrect reads of non-EVM chains to an Ethereum slashing contract. This is genuinely load-bearing self-citation, but I score 6 rather than 8 because the paper does contain an independent design proposal (decentralized sequencers, ferries, escape hatches) and the self-citations are explicit; the circularity is that the justifications for the central claims reduce to those self-citations and definitional choices.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 5 invented entities

The design rests on a narrative security model rather than a formal one: an honest-minority sequencer assumption (asserted in §2.1/§2.6), enforceable cross-chain slashing via EigenLayer (asserted in §2.6 without a cross-chain fault-proof construction), the master-rollup state-decomposition postulate (§1.2), and executability of encrypted transactions (which §4 itself doubts). The only quantitative inputs are hand-chosen design constants (0.3% fee, 24h GASP lock, 90%-in-two-weeks efficiency target). Every named novel mechanism traces to the authors' own prior documents.

free parameters (3)
  • Reward-curve time constant (asymptotic efficiency target) = '>90% efficiency within two weeks' (§3.3, Fig. 3)
    The asymptotic efficiency curve is asserted in prose and a figure; no formula or data is given. The 90%-in-two-weeks anchor is a hand-chosen design constant, not derived from any model of LP behavior or from measurements.
  • GASP lock-up duration for gas-free swaps = 24 hours (§3.4)
    Chosen by hand as the spam-gating threshold; no analysis of spam-adversary incentives or user costs is provided.
  • Swap commission fee = 0.3% (§3)
    A standard DEX fee chosen by hand; asserted to sustain the network and incentivize LPs without supporting analysis.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption A single honest sequencer is sufficient to maintain system integrity even with a majority of malicious sequencers.
    §2.1 and §2.6 state this replaces the 51% honest-majority assumption, but no liveness, availability, or economic-security argument is provided; it is the central security premise of the rolldown design.
  • domain assumption EigenLayer slashing can be enforced for misbehavior committed on any connected external chain.
    §2.6: penalties are 'enforced through slashing mechanisms on EigenLayer'; the paper never specifies how a fault on a non-Ethereum chain is proven to Ethereum, nor the fault window or source-chain finality assumptions.
  • ad hoc to paper L2 state can be decomposed into per-L1 components so each component inherits the security of its own L1 without cross-component contradiction.
    §1.2 introduces this to rebut the single-L1-finalization view; the decomposition and its consistency are argued narratively, not proven. This is the paper's core architectural postulate.
  • domain assumption Doubly-encrypted transactions can be decrypted and executed by the intended builder and executor.
    §4 admits encrypted transactions 'may even be impossible to execute' and that encryption is voluntary; executability is nevertheless assumed by the VED solution.
invented entities (5)
  • Master-rollup / Rolldown no independent evidence
    purpose: Coordinate subordinate rollups across chains and queue/verify L1 reads during a dispute period to prevent incorrect reads from corrupting cross-chain state.
    Introduced via the authors' own EigenLayer forum post [8]; no formal specification, invariants, code, or testnet results appear in this paper.
  • Ferries no independent evidence
    purpose: Front funds to users to expedite L1-to-L2 deposits, reclaiming after the dispute period.
    §2.4; no specification of collateralization, reclaim liveness, or capital risk, and no analysis of how ferries remain solvent.
  • Themis architecture no independent evidence
    purpose: MEV minimization via separated block building/execution and doubly encrypted transactions.
    Referenced to the authors' Gasp Docs [9]; the paper's own §4 says VED protection reaches level 2 of 3, so the headline claim is unsupported.
  • Proof-of-Liquidity no independent evidence
    purpose: Let LP tokens serve as staking assets so liquidity provision also secures the rollup.
    Referenced to the authors' Gasp Docs [12]; no consensus model, slashing analysis, or whitelist/gaming analysis beyond one sentence.
  • Time-based LP incentive (efficiency curve) no independent evidence
    purpose: Reward long-term liquidity provision via an asymptotic efficiency function.
    Referenced to the authors' Gasp Docs [13]; curve parameters are self-defined and no external benchmark or data is provided.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9887 in / 19573 out tokens · 160847 ms · 2026-08-01T21:30:02.215155+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Gasp is a decentralized exchange designed as an application-specific Layer 2 (L2) rollup with omnichain connectivity, leveraging EigenLayer's restaked ETH for computation correctness and finalization. With a goal of being a consolidation layer for all crypto assets, the Gasp platform employs optimistic rollup technology to facilitate gas-free, native cross-chain swaps without reliance on traditional bridges, ensuring tokens retain their original L1 grade security. By combining an app-chain architecture with escape hatch mechanisms, Gasp guarantees withdrawal, while MEV minimization through Themis architecture reduces value extraction risks. Gasp's proof-of-liquidity framework unlocks staked liquidity, enhancing capital efficiency and liquidity depth by integrating staking with liquidity provisioning. Additionally, the protocol introduces a time-based reward mechanism, incentivizing long-term liquidity commitment via an asymptotic reward curve. This paper examines the current challenges in cross-chain communication, delineates Gasp's architectural innovations and security guarantees, and examines novel approaches to optimizing DeFi ecosystems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16052 by Elliot Hill, Gleb Urvanov, Mateusz Nowakowski, Peter Kris, Shoeb Siddiqui, Stanislav Vozarik.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Themis Architecture - The Role of Block Reordering and Timeslots in MEV Minimization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Themis Architecture - Encryption of User Transactions and Block Execution on Gasp. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Efficiency & Rewards Over Time in Gasp’s Time-Based LP Incentives. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gasp Token Lockup Mechanism for Network Spam Prevention. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] 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

17 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Multi-party cross-chain asset transfers.TechRxiv, 2022

    A Augusto, R Belchior, T Hardjono, A Vasconcelos, and M Correia. Multi-party cross-chain asset transfers.TechRxiv, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    A study on the challenges and solutions of blockchain interoperability.China Communications, 2023

    S Zhu, C Chi, and Y Liu. A study on the challenges and solutions of blockchain interoperability.China Communications, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Sok: Security and privacy of blockchain interoperability

    A Augusto, R Belchior, M Correia, A Vasconcelos, L Zhang, and T Hardjono. Sok: Security and privacy of blockchain interoperability. In2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pages 3840–3865, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Blockchain cross-chain bridge security: Challenges, solutions, and future outlook.Proceedings of the ACM on Digital Threats: Research and Practice, 2022

    N Li, M Qi, Z Xu, X Zhu, W Zhou, S Wen, and Y Xiang. Blockchain cross-chain bridge security: Challenges, solutions, and future outlook.Proceedings of the ACM on Digital Threats: Research and Practice, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Security of cross-chain bridges: Attack surfaces, defenses, and open problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13776, 2023

    M Zhang, X Zhang, Y Zhang, and Z Lin. Security of cross-chain bridges: Attack surfaces, defenses, and open problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13776, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Sok: Not quite water under the bridge: Review of cross-chain bridge hacks

    S-S Lee, A Murashkin, M Derka, and J Gorzny. Sok: Not quite water under the bridge: Review of cross-chain bridge hacks. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), pages 1–14, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Decentralized sequencers in rollup architectures.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03616, 2023

    Y Li, X Zhang, and H Wang. Decentralized sequencers in rollup architectures.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03616, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Cross-l1 information transfer via master rollup secured by eigenlayer

    S Vozarik, G Urvanov, S Siddiqui, and P Kris. Cross-l1 information transfer via master rollup secured by eigenlayer. Eigen Layer Forum, 2023

    2023

  9. [9]

    A solution to mev for application-specific blockchains

    S Vozarik, S Siddiqui, P Kris, and G Urvanov. A solution to mev for application-specific blockchains. Gasp Docs, 2023. 12

    2023

  10. [10]

    A theoretical basis for blockchain extractable value.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.02154, 2023

    M Bartoletti and R Zunino. A theoretical basis for blockchain extractable value.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.02154, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    On the redistribution of maximal extractable value: A dynamic mechanism.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15849, 2024

    P Braga, G Chionas, S Leonardos, P Krysta, G Piliouras, and C Ventre. On the redistribution of maximal extractable value: A dynamic mechanism.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15849, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Proof of liquidity

    S Vozarik, S Siddiqui, P Kris, and G Urvanov. Proof of liquidity. Gasp Docs, 2023

    2023

  13. [13]

    Time-based lp incentives

    S Vozarik, S+ Siddiqui, P Kris, and G Urvanov. Time-based lp incentives. Gasp Docs, 2023

    2023

  14. [14]

    Returns from liquidity provision in cryptocurrency markets

    H Farag, D Luo, L Yarovaya, and D Zięba. Returns from liquidity provision in cryptocurrency markets. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    The paradox of just-in-time liquidity in decentralized exchanges: More providers can lead to less liquidity.SSRN Electronic Journal, 2024

    A Capponi, R Jia, and B Zhu. The paradox of just-in-time liquidity in decentralized exchanges: More providers can lead to less liquidity.SSRN Electronic Journal, 2024

    2024

  16. [16]

    Phantom liquidity in decentralized lending.SSRN Electronic Journal, 2023

    A Park and J Stinner. Phantom liquidity in decentralized lending.SSRN Electronic Journal, 2023

    2023

  17. [17]

    Behavior of liquidity providers in decentralized exchanges

    L Heimbach, Y Wang, and R Wattenhofer. Behavior of liquidity providers in decentralized exchanges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.13822, 2021. 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021