AI Agent Architecture for Decentralized Trading of Alternative Assets

Ailiya Borjigin; Charles CC Lee; Cong He; Wei Zhou

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 16 references

AI Agent Architecture for Decentralized Trading of Alternative Assets

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An AI-agent-based exchange for gold-backed tokens can issue tokens in under 1.2 seconds, keep spreads below 0.5 percent, and halt on faults, provided the simulated benchmarks transfer to a real deployment.

desk verdict A solid, honest system paper whose real results are the fault-injection and latency measurements; the headline 5,200 TPS is a simulation artifact, not a property of the deployed chain. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11117 v1 pith:SBUOAH7P submitted 2025-07-15 cs.AI

Ailiya Borjigin , Cong He , Charles CC Lee , Wei Zhou This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AI

keywords multi-agentsystemsdecentralizedfinancereal-worldassettokenizationgold-backedstablecoinoraclesecuritymarketmakingriskmanagementblockchainscalability

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a decentralized exchange for real-world alternative assets like gold can meet rigorous performance and safety requirements by combining off-chain AI agents with on-chain smart contracts. It reports a prototype, GoldMine OS, with four cooperative agents handling compliance, token issuance, market making, and risk control. The prototype claims token issuance in under 1.2 seconds, bid-ask spreads often below 0.5 percent, oracle spoofing detected and mitigated within 10 seconds, and vault mis-reports halting issuance immediately. If those results transfer beyond the test environment, they would show that tokenizing and trading physically backed assets need not choose between centralized trust and insecure automation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the division of labor between four specialized AI agents (Compliance, Token Issuance, Market-Making, Risk Control) and a coordinating core, backed by two on-chain smart-contract safeguards: a reserve ceiling check that rejects any mint that would push total token supply above the last audited vault reserve, and a circuit-breaker that halts trading and issuance on abnormal conditions such as a price swing above 2 percent within five minutes or a 10-second oracle divergence. The reserve check makes the every-token-backed-by-gold invariant tamper-proof, while the circuit-breaker ensures bad data cannot propagate into trades. The paper also includes pseudocode for these safeguards and a liveness argument that halted states remain temporary and reversible.

What would settle it

Measure sustained throughput on the actual permissioned chain without the simulated parallelization bypass; if the peak stays near the chain's native 1,000 transactions per second instead of the reported 5,000 or more, the headline scalability claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an AI-agent-based decentralized exchange can satisfy the performance, liquidity, and safety requirements of regulated asset trading. In the paper's own tests, on-demand token minting takes about 1.2 seconds end-to-end, the market-making agent keeps spreads near 0.2 to 0.5 percent even in volatility, a spoofed or stuck oracle feed is caught by a redundant feed and triggers a five-minute circuit-breaker with no trades on bad data, and a simulated vault reserve shortfall freezes new issuance in under a second. The authors also report throughput around 5,200 transactions per second at 10,000 concurrent users in a parallelized simulated environment. The claimed contribution is the integration: risk controls live in smart contracts, while flexible decision-making lives in agents, so the system is both transparent and adaptable.

Load-bearing premise

The headline throughput result assumes that a parallelized cluster of simulated nodes is a fair stand-in for the real single-chain deployment, and that the synthetic user workload resembles actual gold-token demand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Token issuance for gold-backed assets can move from days to seconds without exceeding audited reserves.
A market-making agent can keep two-sided liquidity tight enough for retail trades even when the underlying gold price is volatile.
Redundant price feeds plus automatic circuit-breaking can contain oracle spoofing before any trade executes on bad prices.
Reserve shortfalls can be made fail-safe: new supply freezes instantly while trading of existing tokens continues, limiting user impact.
The architecture can be scaled horizontally by replicating agent services; the first bottleneck observed is the risk monitor's CPU usage, not the chain itself.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the reserve ceiling check is truly atomic in the token contract, the same design could extend to other assets whose supply must never exceed independently audited collateral, such as carbon credits or tokenized real estate.
The reported 5,200 TPS depends on bypassing the single chain's native 1,000 TPS cap; a fair public-chain comparison would likely put the architecture's real ceiling lower unless sharding or layer-2 batching is used.
The multi-sig and community-voting governance could be tested adversarially, for example by checking whether a quorum of compromised signers could disable the reserve check; the paper says the Risk Agent watches governance changes but does not fully demonstrate an attacker model.
A natural next benchmark is comparing the rule-based market-making agent's spreads and inventory risk against the reinforcement-learning variant under identical volatility scenarios, which would isolate how much AI adaptivity actually contributes.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the paper is more credible than the abstract makes it look. The integrated four-agent architecture with on-chain reserve checks and circuit breaker is a reasonable design, and the fault-injection results are real measurements from a prototype. But the headline throughput number is not what it appears to be.

What's actually new: the combination of compliance, issuance, market-making, and risk agents under one orchestrator, with the two critical safeguards moved on-chain. The pseudocode for the reserve check and the circuit breaker is simple and clear. The pilot gives concrete numbers: issuance in 1.2s, KYC in 2.8 minutes, spreads often below 0.5%, oracle spoof detected and mitigated in about 10s, vault misreport halts issuance in under a second. Those are useful data points for anyone building RWA tokenization.

Where the soft spots are: the 5,200 TPS claim. Section V-E says the simulated environment 'bypassed the normal 1000 TPS limit of the single chain by parallelization,' and III-A says the same. So the result describes a hypothetical parallelized cluster, not GoldMine OS running on Probe Chain. The abstract and conclusion present it as a property of the architecture. That needs to be scoped honestly or the benchmark redesigned. Relatedly, the 'liveness proof' in III-C is an informal argument, not a proof; the paper itself only says 'outline,' so that's more a terminology problem than a substantive one. The 100x speedup over manual workflows has no measured manual baseline, but the absolute 1.2s figure stands on its own. No artifacts are released, so independent reproduction would require reimplementation. Minor: the oracle detection timing is described as '~10 s' in Table I and 'within 10 s' in the text, which is consistent if the circuit-breaker kicks in after 10s of divergence; not a real conflict.

The authors are straight about limitations in Section VI: permissioned chain, trusted vault operators, agent attack surface. Good to see.

Who this is for: applied researchers and engineers working on tokenized real-world assets, multi-agent coordination in DeFi, and practical risk controls. It's not a theory paper, and the formal-assurance language oversells what's there. But as a system design with credible pilot measurements, it deserves referee time. I'd send it to peer review with a clear request to fix the scalability framing and either prove or relabel the liveness claim.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents GoldMine OS, a research-oriented multi-agent architecture for tokenizing and trading physical gold as a blockchain-based stablecoin ("OZ") on a permissioned chain called Probe Chain. Four AI agents (Compliance, Token Issuance, Market-Making, Risk Control) are coordinated by a core that interacts with on-chain smart contracts enforcing a reserve ceiling and a circuit breaker. The evaluation combines a lab testnet with simulated users and a small internal pilot, and reports concrete measurements: KYC completion in about 2.8 minutes, token issuance in under 1.2 seconds, bid-ask spreads often below 0.5%, oracle spoofing detected in about 10 seconds, and vault mis-reporting halting issuance in under 1 second. The paper also reports a scalability benchmark of roughly 5,200 transactions per second at 10,000 concurrent users, plus a governance framework using multi-signature agent updates and on-chain community voting.

Significance. If the reported results are taken at face value, the paper would demonstrate that a multi-agent architecture can combine off-chain AI decision-making with on-chain safeguards for real-world asset trading, with measured latency and safety properties. The strength of the work is its empirical component: the pilot measurements for issuance latency, spreads, and fault response are concrete and, for the most part, internally consistent. The inclusion of pseudocode for the on-chain reserve check and the explicit fault-injection scenarios is also a positive feature. However, the headline scalability claim is not supported by the experiments as described, because the simulated environment bypasses the actual consensus limit of the underlying blockchain. The comparison to manual workflows also lacks a measured baseline, and the claimed liveness proof is only an informal argument. These issues affect the credibility of the central performance and assurance claims, though they appear addressable through reframing or additional experiments.

major comments (3)

[Abstract; Section V-E; Section III-A] The claim that the architecture "scales to at least 5,000 transactions/s" is not supported by the experiments. Section V-E reports roughly 5,200 TPS at 10,000 users, but the same section states that the simulated environment "bypassed the normal 1000 TPS limit of the single chain by parallelization," and Section III-A says that higher-throughput scenarios were simulated by running the system on a cluster and parallelizing transaction processing. Since Probe Chain has a base capacity of about 1,000 TPS, the deployed system cannot reach 5,000 TPS regardless of agent tuning. The measured throughput is therefore a property of a hypothetical parallelized ledger, not of the architecture as deployed. Please either re-run the benchmark without bypassing the single-chain limit, or explicitly reframe the result as an agent-layer throughput measurement on a parallelized cluster and remove the unqualified "scales to" claim from the abstract.
[Abstract; Section V-B] The speed-up claim of "more than 100 times faster than manual workflows" lacks a measured baseline. The 1.2-second issuance latency is measured, but the manual workflow time is not; the text only compares qualitatively to processes that "could take days." A quantitative baseline for the manual process is needed to justify the 100x multiplier, or the claim should be softened to a qualitative statement such as "orders of magnitude faster than typical manual processes."
[Section III-C; Section I (contribution 6)] The paper claims to "outline a liveness proof guaranteeing that the system cannot deadlock under the defined risk protocols," but Section III-C provides only an informal argument in prose. It states that halting states are "temporary and reversible" and concludes that "there is no permanent deadlock as long as honest actors can intervene or underlying conditions eventually return to acceptable ranges," without stating formal liveness conditions, invariants, or a proof. Please either supply a rigorous liveness statement with proof obligations, or explicitly downgrade the contribution to an informal liveness argument rather than a proof.

minor comments (5)

[Section III-A] The text "We denominate all asset prices in OZOZ 1" appears to be a formatting artifact; it should likely read "OZ" with the footnote marker placed correctly.
[Section IV] The pilot is described as deploying "a physical gold reserve mock (1000 oz of gold represented in a test vault database)"; since no physical gold is actually present, consider calling this a "simulated vault database" to avoid confusion.
[Section V-D, Table I] In the oracle spoofing row, the table says the circuit-breaker "halted trading," while the text says it "paused new token issuances and the Market-Making Agent's activities"; please clarify whether existing open trades were also halted.
[Section V-C] The market depth metric ("frequently exceeded 200 OZ on each side") is reported without the number of observations, the time window, or the volatility conditions; adding these details would make the liquidity claim more reproducible.
[References] Reference [9] lists the DOI as "10.48550/arXiv.250700096"; this appears to be a typo for "10.48550/arXiv.2507.00096" and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Only minor circularity: the oracle detection 'within 10 s' is the configured threshold; the central architecture claims rest on independent measurements.

self definitional [Section V-D (Oracle spoofing scenario) and Table I; cf. Abstract]
"noticed a divergence after about 10 seconds (our threshold was if prices differ or no update for 10 s)."

The Abstract presents 'an oracle price spoofing attack is detected and mitigated within 10 s' as a resilience result, but Section V-D states that detection fires only when the system's own configured 10 s no-update/divergence threshold elapses. The reported detection latency is therefore the design parameter itself, not an independently measured property: the fault-injection test cannot fail to 'detect' at 10 s because 10 s is the rule trigger. The mitigation (feed switch plus 5-minute circuit breaker) is activated by the same rule, so the headline number is an input restated as an output. This is a mild self-definitional validation of a safety threshold; it does not affect the other agent-coordination, issuance, market-making, or throughput measurements.

full rationale

This is an empirical systems paper rather than a derivation chain, so most results do not reduce to fitted parameters or self-citations. The self-citations [8] and [9] appear only in related-work positioning and are not load-bearing. Issuance latency, spread quality, and the 5,200 TPS figure are new measurements under stated pilot/simulation conditions. The 5,000+ TPS headline is an extrapolation from a parallelized simulation that bypassed Probe Chain's real 1,000 TPS cap; that is a validity and over-claim concern, not circularity, per hard rule 5. The one mildly circular element is the oracle-spoofing test, where the measured 'within 10 s' detection time is exactly the system's configured 10-second threshold, making that particular resilience number a restatement of an input parameter. This is minor, narrowly scoped, and does not undermine the central architecture claim or the other independent experimental results.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The quantitative claims rest on seven hand-set thresholds and five domain assumptions. The reserve tolerance, oracle divergence timeout, circuit breaker triggers, check interval, market-making targets, and concentration threshold are chosen by the authors without sensitivity analysis; the system assumes honest vault audits, an uncompromised secondary oracle, a valid parallelized cluster model, eventual fault recovery, and realistic simulated workloads. The only new ledger item is the OZ stablecoin, which carries no independent evidence.

free parameters (7)

Reserve tolerance epsilon = unspecified (small)
Algorithm 1 allows a small epsilon for measurement error in the reserve ceiling check; the value is not given and is itself listed as a governance-tunable parameter.
Oracle divergence threshold = 10 seconds
Detection of the spoofed price feed is triggered when the primary feed stops updating or diverges from the secondary feed for 10 s; the claimed ~10 s detection time is a direct consequence of this hand-set threshold.
Circuit breaker trigger = 2% price swing within 5 minutes
The emergency halt activates on extreme volatility or feed disagreement; this threshold is chosen by hand and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
Circuit breaker cooldown = 5 minutes
The temporary trading halt auto-lifts after this period; the duration is an arbitrary test setting, not derived from any requirement.
Vault reserve check interval = every few seconds
The risk agent periodically compares on-chain supply to reported vault reserves; this interval controls the mis-report detection latency and is inconsistent with the under-1-second detection time in Table I.
Market making spread and inventory targets = spread 0.2-0.5%, inventory +/-100 OZ
The liquidity quality metrics depend on the agent's hand-chosen quoting heuristics and inventory bounds; different targets would change spreads and depth.
Concentration risk threshold = 20% of total OZ supply
The risk agent flags any user holding more than 20% of tokens; this monitoring threshold is arbitrary and was never triggered in tests.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Vault audit reports are truthful or at least authenticated, so lastAuditedReserve reflects actual physical gold.
Algorithm 1 enforces the supply ceiling against lastAuditedReserve, which is updated only by trusted or multi-sig authorized actions; the paper's own limitations section notes that the prototype trusts physical vault operators.
domain assumption The secondary price feed used to detect spoofing is not itself compromised.
The oracle spoofing test detects divergence between the primary and secondary feeds; if both feeds were manipulated, the redundancy check would not fire. Section V-D.
domain assumption A parallelized cluster is a valid model of the deployment target.
The 5,200 TPS measurement bypasses the single chain's 1,000 TPS limit by parallelizing transaction processing, with no analysis of whether that preserves the consensus and ordering guarantees of Probe Chain. Section V-E.
domain assumption Honest actors can intervene and fault conditions eventually resolve, so the circuit breaker cannot deadlock permanently.
The liveness argument in Section III-C states that the worst case is a graceful halt that resumes once an audit confirms reserves or price feeds agree, which presumes eventual recovery or governance intervention.
domain assumption The simulated user workload approximates real demand for a gold token exchange.
Scalability and market-making results use synthetic users generated from unspecified stochastic distributions; no real external trader population or cold-start liquidity is tested. Section IV.

invented entities (1)

OZ stablecoin
purpose: A digital token pegged 1:1 to one troy ounce of investment-grade gold, used as the tradable representation of vaulted gold in all issuance, trading, and redemption flows.
OZ exists only inside the prototype and paper; no public deployment, independent audit, or market data is supplied to verify the peg or the reserve backing.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI Agent Architecture for Decentralized Trading of Alternative Assets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SBUOAH7P

@misc{pith2026250711117,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI Agent Architecture for Decentralized Trading of Alternative Assets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SBUOAH7P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11117}
}

read the original abstract

Decentralized trading of real-world alternative assets (e.g., gold) requires bridging physical asset custody with blockchain systems while meeting strict requirements for compliance, liquidity, and risk management. We present GoldMine OS, a research oriented architecture that employs multiple specialized AI agents to automate and secure the tokenization and exchange of physical gold into a blockchain based stablecoin ("OZ"). Our approach combines on chain smart contracts for critical risk controls with off chain AI agents for decision making, blending the transparency and reliability of blockchains with the flexibility of AI driven automation. We describe four cooperative agents (Compliance, Token Issuance, Market Making, and Risk Control) and a coordinating core, and evaluate the system through simulation and a controlled pilot deployment. In experiments the prototype delivers on demand token issuance in under 1.2 s, more than 100 times faster than manual workflows. The Market Making agent maintains tight liquidity with spreads often below 0.5 percent even under volatile conditions. Fault injection tests show resilience: an oracle price spoofing attack is detected and mitigated within 10 s, and a simulated vault mis reporting halts issuance immediately with minimal user impact. The architecture scales to 5000 transactions per second with 10000 concurrent users in benchmarks. These results indicate that an AI agent based decentralized exchange for alternative assets can satisfy rigorous performance and safety requirements. We discuss broader implications for democratizing access to traditionally illiquid assets and explain how our governance model -- multi signature agent updates and on chain community voting on risk parameters -- provides ongoing transparency, adaptability, and formal assurance of system integrity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11117 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

Tokenized assets in a decentralized economy: Balancing efficiency, value, and risks,

U. Tanveer, S. Ishaq, and T. G. Hoang, “Tokenized assets in a decentralized economy: Balancing efficiency, value, and risks,” Int. J. Production Economics , vol. 282, art. 109554, Apr. 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2025.109554

arXiv 2025
[2]

Tokenization of real assets: classification, platforms, applications, opportunities and challenges of development,

S. A. Andryushin, “Tokenization of real assets: classification, platforms, applications, opportunities and challenges of development,” Russ. J. Eco- nomics and Law , vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 88–104, 2024. doi: 10.21202/2782- 2923.2024.1.88-104

work page arXiv 2024
[3]

Understanding the blockchain oracle problem: A call for action,

G. Caldarelli, “Understanding the blockchain oracle problem: A call for action,” Information, vol. 11, no. 11, p. 509, 2020. doi: 10.3390/info11110509

doi:10.3390/info11110509 2020
[4]

Exploration on Real World Assets (RW As) & Tokenization,

N. Xia, X. Zhao, Y . Yang, Y . Li, and Y . Li, “Exploration on Real World Assets (RW As) & Tokenization,” arXiv:2503.01111, 2025

arXiv 2025
[5]

“Shiny” crypto assets: A systemic look at gold-backed cryptocurrencies during the COVID-19 pandemic,

A. Jalan, R. Matkovskyy, and L. Yarovaya, ““Shiny” crypto assets: A systemic look at gold-backed cryptocurrencies during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Int. Rev. Financial Analysis , vol. 78, p. 101958, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2021.101958

arXiv 2021
[6]

Reinforcement learning approaches to optimal market making,

B. Ga ˇsperov, S. Beguˇsi´c, P. P.ˇSimovi´c, and Z. Kostanjˇcar, “Reinforcement learning approaches to optimal market making,” Mathematics, vol. 9, no. 21, p. 2689, 2021. doi: 10.3390/math9212689

work page doi:10.3390/math9212689 2021
[7]

Multi Agent Influence Diagrams for DeFi Governance

A. Nag, S. Gupta, S. Sinha, and A. Datta, “Analyzing games in Maker protocol Part One: A multi-agent influence diagram approach towards coordination,” arXiv:2402.15037, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[8]

Behavioral Universe Network (BUN): A Behavioral Information-Based Framework for Complex Systems

W. Zhou, A. Borjigin, and C. He, “Behavioral Universe Network (BUN): A behavioral information-based framework for complex systems,” arXiv:2504.15146, 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 16 references

[9]

AI-governed agent architecture for web-trustworthy tokenization of alternative assets,

A. Borjigin, W. Zhou, and C. He, “AI-governed agent architecture for web-trustworthy tokenization of alternative assets,” arXiv:2507.00096,

arXiv
[10]

Tokenization of real-estate assets: A systematic literature review,

T. Latif, A. Salahuddin, and M. Rehman, “Tokenization of real-estate assets: A systematic literature review,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 12, art. 6724, 2021

2021
[11]

Security token offerings: A financial revolution?

S. Parra Moyano and P. Ross, “Security token offerings: A financial revolution?” Journal of Corporate Finance , vol. 70, art. 102055, 2021

2021
[12]

DeFi security: A survey of smart contracts and oracles,

S. Zhang, M. Cecchetti, and I. Croman, “DeFi security: A survey of smart contracts and oracles,” ACM Computing Surveys , vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 1–38, 2023

2023
[13]

Formal verification of smart contracts: Present and future,

X. Xu, A. Pinna, and Y . Zhang, “Formal verification of smart contracts: Present and future,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 133 563–133 588, 2021

2021
[14]

Decentralized identity solutions for KYC/AML compliance on blockchain,

J. Li, H. Gao, and F. Li, “Decentralized identity solutions for KYC/AML compliance on blockchain,” Computer Networks , vol. 215, art. 109022, 2022

2022
[15]

Proof-of-reserve mechanisms for asset-backed stablecoins,

V . Buterin, K. Wuerfel, and A. Reed, “Proof-of-reserve mechanisms for asset-backed stablecoins,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 45 123–45 134, 2022

2022
[2025]

doi: 10.48550/arXiv.250700096

doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Tokenized assets in a decentralized economy: Balancing efficiency, value, and risks,

U. Tanveer, S. Ishaq, and T. G. Hoang, “Tokenized assets in a decentralized economy: Balancing efficiency, value, and risks,” Int. J. Production Economics , vol. 282, art. 109554, Apr. 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2025.109554

arXiv 2025

[2] [2]

Tokenization of real assets: classification, platforms, applications, opportunities and challenges of development,

S. A. Andryushin, “Tokenization of real assets: classification, platforms, applications, opportunities and challenges of development,” Russ. J. Eco- nomics and Law , vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 88–104, 2024. doi: 10.21202/2782- 2923.2024.1.88-104

work page arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

Understanding the blockchain oracle problem: A call for action,

G. Caldarelli, “Understanding the blockchain oracle problem: A call for action,” Information, vol. 11, no. 11, p. 509, 2020. doi: 10.3390/info11110509

doi:10.3390/info11110509 2020

[4] [4]

Exploration on Real World Assets (RW As) & Tokenization,

N. Xia, X. Zhao, Y . Yang, Y . Li, and Y . Li, “Exploration on Real World Assets (RW As) & Tokenization,” arXiv:2503.01111, 2025

arXiv 2025

[5] [5]

“Shiny” crypto assets: A systemic look at gold-backed cryptocurrencies during the COVID-19 pandemic,

A. Jalan, R. Matkovskyy, and L. Yarovaya, ““Shiny” crypto assets: A systemic look at gold-backed cryptocurrencies during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Int. Rev. Financial Analysis , vol. 78, p. 101958, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2021.101958

arXiv 2021

[6] [6]

Reinforcement learning approaches to optimal market making,

B. Ga ˇsperov, S. Beguˇsi´c, P. P.ˇSimovi´c, and Z. Kostanjˇcar, “Reinforcement learning approaches to optimal market making,” Mathematics, vol. 9, no. 21, p. 2689, 2021. doi: 10.3390/math9212689

work page doi:10.3390/math9212689 2021

[7] [7]

Multi Agent Influence Diagrams for DeFi Governance

A. Nag, S. Gupta, S. Sinha, and A. Datta, “Analyzing games in Maker protocol Part One: A multi-agent influence diagram approach towards coordination,” arXiv:2402.15037, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

Behavioral Universe Network (BUN): A Behavioral Information-Based Framework for Complex Systems

W. Zhou, A. Borjigin, and C. He, “Behavioral Universe Network (BUN): A behavioral information-based framework for complex systems,” arXiv:2504.15146, 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025