Risk Management in DeFi: Analyses of the Innovative Tools and Platforms for Tracking DeFi Transactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decentralized Finance (DeFi) is a recent advancement of the cryptocurrency ecosystem, giving plenty of opportunities for financial inclusion, innovation, and growth domains by providing services such as lending, borrowing, and trading without traditional intermediaries. However, inadequate regulatory oversight and technological vulnerabilities raise pressing concerns around market manipulation, fraud, and regulatory compliance, exposing a clear research gap in effective DeFi risk management. This paper addresses this gap by proposing a utility-based framework to evaluate six leading DeFi tracking platforms—Chainalysis, Elliptic, Nansen, Dune Analytics, DeBank, and Etherscan—focusing on two critical metrics: transaction accuracy and real-time responsiveness. Applying a mixed methods approach that combines a quantitative survey (n = 138) with qualitative interviews (n = 12), we identified critical platform features and found significant differences across these platforms with respect to compliance features, advanced analytics, and user experience. We used a utility-based model that links accuracy and responsiveness metrics, allowing us to adjust differing priorities and risk management needs for users. The results show the need for balanced, user-centric solutions that accommodate regulatory, technological efficiency and affordability requirements. Our study contributes to the growing knowledge base by providing a structured evaluation model and empirical insights, offering clear directions for practitioners, platform developers, and policymakers aiming to strengthen the DeFi ecosystem.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".