Showing 1–6 of 6 results for author: Gudgeon, L

Oracle Counterpoint: Relationships between On-chain and Off-chain Market Data

Authors: Zhimeng Yang, Ariah Klages-Mundt, Lewis Gudgeon

Abstract: We investigate the theoretical and empirical relationships between activity in on-chain markets and pricing in off-chain cryptocurrency markets (e.g., ETH/USD prices). The motivation is to develop methods for proxying off-chain market data using data and computation that is in principle verifiable on-chain and could provide an alternative approach to blockchain price oracles. We explore relationsh… ▽ More We investigate the theoretical and empirical relationships between activity in on-chain markets and pricing in off-chain cryptocurrency markets (e.g., ETH/USD prices). The motivation is to develop methods for proxying off-chain market data using data and computation that is in principle verifiable on-chain and could provide an alternative approach to blockchain price oracles. We explore relationships in PoW mining, PoS validation, block space markets, network decentralization, usage and monetary velocity, and on-chain Automated Market Makers (AMMs). We select key features from these markets, which we analyze through graphical models, mutual information, and ensemble machine learning models to explore the degree to which off-chain pricing information can be recovered entirely on-chain. We find that a large amount of pricing information is contained in on-chain data, but that it is generally hard to recover precise prices except on short time scales of retraining the model. We discuss how even noisy information recovered from on-chain data could help to detect anomalies in oracle-reported prices on-chain. △ Less

Submitted 27 July, 2023; v1 submitted 28 March, 2023; originally announced March 2023.

Dissimilar Redundancy in DeFi

Authors: Daniel Perez, Lewis Gudgeon

Abstract: The meteoric rise of Decentralized Finance (DeFi) has been accompanied by a plethora of frequent and often financially devastating attacks on its protocols There have been over 70 exploits of DeFi protocols, with the total of lost funds amounting to approximately 1.5bn USD. In this paper, we introduce a new approach to minimizing the frequency and severity of such attacks: dissimilar redundancy fo… ▽ More The meteoric rise of Decentralized Finance (DeFi) has been accompanied by a plethora of frequent and often financially devastating attacks on its protocols There have been over 70 exploits of DeFi protocols, with the total of lost funds amounting to approximately 1.5bn USD. In this paper, we introduce a new approach to minimizing the frequency and severity of such attacks: dissimilar redundancy for smart contracts. In a nutshell, the idea is to implement a program logic more than once, ideally using different programming languages. Then, for each implementation, the results should match before allowing the state of the blockchain to change. This is inspired by and has clear parallels to the field of avionics, where on account of the safety-critical environment, flight control systems typically feature multiple redundant implementations. We argue that the high financial stakes in DeFi protocols merit a conceptually similar approach, and we provide a novel algorithm for implementing dissimilar redundancy for smart contracts. △ Less

Submitted 29 January, 2022; originally announced January 2022.

SoK: Decentralized Finance (DeFi)

Authors: Sam M. Werner, Daniel Perez, Lewis Gudgeon, Ariah Klages-Mundt, Dominik Harz, William J. Knottenbelt

Abstract: Decentralized Finance (DeFi), a blockchain powered peer-to-peer financial system, is mushrooming. Two years ago the total value locked in DeFi systems was approximately 700m USD, now, as of April 2022, it stands at around 150bn USD. The frenetic evolution of the ecosystem has created challenges in understanding the basic principles of these systems and their security risks. In this Systematization… ▽ More Decentralized Finance (DeFi), a blockchain powered peer-to-peer financial system, is mushrooming. Two years ago the total value locked in DeFi systems was approximately 700m USD, now, as of April 2022, it stands at around 150bn USD. The frenetic evolution of the ecosystem has created challenges in understanding the basic principles of these systems and their security risks. In this Systematization of Knowledge (SoK) we delineate the DeFi ecosystem along the following axes: its primitives, its operational protocol types and its security. We provide a distinction between technical security, which has a healthy literature, and economic security, which is largely unexplored, connecting the latter with new models and thereby synthesizing insights from computer science, economics and finance. Finally, we outline the open research challenges in the ecosystem across these security types. △ Less

Submitted 15 September, 2022; v1 submitted 21 January, 2021; originally announced January 2021.

DeFi Protocols for Loanable Funds: Interest Rates, Liquidity and Market Efficiency

Authors: Lewis Gudgeon, Sam M. Werner, Daniel Perez, William J. Knottenbelt

Abstract: We coin the term *Protocols for Loanable Funds (PLFs)* to refer to protocols which establish distributed ledger-based markets for loanable funds. PLFs are emerging as one of the main applications within Decentralized Finance (DeFi), and use smart contract code to facilitate the intermediation of loanable funds. In doing so, these protocols allow agents to borrow and save programmatically. Within t… ▽ More We coin the term *Protocols for Loanable Funds (PLFs)* to refer to protocols which establish distributed ledger-based markets for loanable funds. PLFs are emerging as one of the main applications within Decentralized Finance (DeFi), and use smart contract code to facilitate the intermediation of loanable funds. In doing so, these protocols allow agents to borrow and save programmatically. Within these protocols, interest rate mechanisms seek to equilibrate the supply and demand for funds. In this paper, we review the methodologies used to set interest rates on three prominent DeFi PLFs, namely Compound, Aave and dYdX. We provide an empirical examination of how these interest rate rules have behaved since their inception in response to differing degrees of liquidity. We then investigate the market efficiency and inter-connectedness between multiple protocols, examining first whether Uncovered Interest Parity holds within a particular protocol and second whether the interest rates for a particular token market show dependence across protocols, develo** a Vector Error Correction Model for the dynamics. △ Less

Submitted 15 October, 2020; v1 submitted 11 June, 2020; originally announced June 2020.

Stablecoins 2.0: Economic Foundations and Risk-based Models

Authors: Ariah Klages-Mundt, Dominik Harz, Lewis Gudgeon, Jun-You Liu, Andreea Minca

Abstract: Stablecoins are one of the most widely capitalized type of cryptocurrency. However, their risks vary significantly according to their design and are often poorly understood. We seek to provide a sound foundation for stablecoin theory, with a risk-based functional characterization of the economic structure of stablecoins. First, we match existing economic models to the disparate set of custodial sy… ▽ More Stablecoins are one of the most widely capitalized type of cryptocurrency. However, their risks vary significantly according to their design and are often poorly understood. We seek to provide a sound foundation for stablecoin theory, with a risk-based functional characterization of the economic structure of stablecoins. First, we match existing economic models to the disparate set of custodial systems. Next, we characterize the unique risks that emerge in non-custodial stablecoins and develop a model framework that unifies existing models from economics and computer science. We further discuss how this modeling framework is applicable to a wide array of cryptoeconomic systems, including cross-chain protocols, collateralized lending, and decentralized exchanges. These unique risks yield unanswered research questions that will form the crux of research in decentralized finance going forward. △ Less

Submitted 20 October, 2020; v1 submitted 22 June, 2020; originally announced June 2020.

The Decentralized Financial Crisis

Authors: Lewis Gudgeon, Daniel Perez, Dominik Harz, Benjamin Livshits, Arthur Gervais

Abstract: The Global Financial Crisis of 2008, caused by the accumulation of excessive financial risk, inspired Satoshi Nakamoto to create Bitcoin. Now, more than ten years later, Decentralized Finance (DeFi), a peer-to-peer financial paradigm which leverages blockchain-based smart contracts to ensure its integrity and security, contains over 702m USD of capital as of April 15th, 2020. As this ecosystem dev… ▽ More The Global Financial Crisis of 2008, caused by the accumulation of excessive financial risk, inspired Satoshi Nakamoto to create Bitcoin. Now, more than ten years later, Decentralized Finance (DeFi), a peer-to-peer financial paradigm which leverages blockchain-based smart contracts to ensure its integrity and security, contains over 702m USD of capital as of April 15th, 2020. As this ecosystem develops, it is at risk of the very sort of financial meltdown it is supposed to be preventing. In this paper we explore how design weaknesses and price fluctuations in DeFi protocols could lead to a DeFi crisis. We focus on DeFi lending protocols as they currently constitute most of the DeFi ecosystem with a 76% market share by capital as of April 15th, 2020. First, we demonstrate the feasibility of attacking Maker's governance design to take full control of the protocol, the largest DeFi protocol by market share, which would have allowed the theft of 0.5bn USD of collateral and the minting of an unlimited supply of DAI tokens. In doing so, we present a novel strategy utilizing so-called flash loans that would have in principle allowed the execution of the governance attack in just two transactions and without the need to lock any assets. Approximately two weeks after we disclosed the attack details, Maker modified the governance parameters mitigating the attack vectors. Second, we turn to a central component of financial risk in DeFi lending protocols. Inspired by stress-testing as performed by central banks, we develop a stress-testing framework for a stylized DeFi lending protocol, focusing our attention on the impact of a drying-up of liquidity on protocol solvency. Based on our parameters, we find that with sufficiently illiquidity a lending protocol with a total debt of 400m USD could become undercollateralized within 19 days. △ Less

Submitted 27 June, 2020; v1 submitted 19 February, 2020; originally announced February 2020.