REVIEW 2 cited by
Market Misconduct in Decentralized Finance (DeFi): Analysis, Regulatory Challenges and Policy Implications
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Technological advancement drives financial innovation, reshaping the traditional finance landscape and redefining user-market interactions. The rise of blockchain and Decentralized Finance (DeFi) underscores this intertwined evolution of technology and finance. While DeFi has introduced exciting opportunities, it has also exposed the ecosystem to new forms of market misconduct. This paper aims to bridge the academic and regulatory gaps by addressing key research questions about market misconduct in DeFi. We begin by discussing how blockchain technology can potentially enable the emergence of novel forms of market misconduct. We then offer a comprehensive definition and taxonomy for understanding DeFi market misconduct. Through comparative analysis and empirical measurements, we examine the novel forms of misconduct in DeFi, shedding light on their characteristics and social impact. Subsequently, we investigate the challenges of building a tailored regulatory framework for DeFi. We identify key areas where existing regulatory frameworks may need enhancement. Finally, we discuss potential approaches that bring DeFi into the regulatory perimeter.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
ManiScope: LLM-Assisted Visual Analytics of Cryptocurrency Manipulation Risk
An LLM co-analyst plus coordinated crypto views can reduce manual evidence-seeking and organize manipulation-risk findings around user hypotheses in a 12-person practitioner study.
-
From Rules to Rewards: Reinforcement Learning for Interest Rate Adjustment in DeFi Lending
An offline RL policy (TD3-BC) is claimed to beat Aave's rule-based rates on responsiveness, lender returns, and stress response, but the evidence is limited to historical replay.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.