簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 林浩宇
Lin, Hao-Yu
論文名稱： 探討如何提高用戶對去中心化金融借貸平台的信任:以Trava平台為例
Understanding how to enhance user's trust on defi lending platform: A case analysis on Trava decentralized lending
指導教授： 韓傳祥
Han, Chuan-Hsiang
口試委員: 黃能富
Huang, Nen-Fu
謝明華
Hsieh, Ming-Hua
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 科技管理學院 - 國際專業管理碩士班
International Master of Business Administration(IMBA)
論文出版年： 2024
畢業學年度： 112
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 45
中文關鍵詞： 去中心化金融 、加密貨幣借貸 、智能合約 、風險評估 、區塊鏈
外文關鍵詞： Decentralized Finance, Crypto Lending, Smart Contracts, Risk Assessment, Blockchain
相關次數： 點閱：45  下載：0 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • N/A

    This thesis explores the pivotal challenge of enhancing user trust in the Decentralized Finance (DeFi) lending process, with a specific focus on Trava Decentralized Lending. As the DeFi sector experiences rapid growth, trust remains a significant barrier for wider adoption, particularly in lending platforms. This research first identifies the key trust issues in DeFi lending, including security concerns, transparency deficits, and the complexity of smart contract operations. Employing a mixed-method approach, the study analyzes Trava’s lending model through qualitative case studies and quantitative data analysis. This includes evaluating Trava’s security measures, governance structures, and user experience. The research also incorporates a comparative analysis with traditional financial
    lending services to highlight unique trust challenges in DeFi. Findings reveal that enhanced security protocols, improved user education, transparent governance models, and user-friendly interfaces significantly boost trust in DeFi lending platforms like Trava. The study suggests that integrating these elements can mitigate
    perceived risks and foster a more trustworthy DeFi ecosystem. This thesis contributes to the growing body of literature on DeFi by providing actionable insights for DeFi platforms seeking to enhance user trust. It also offers a framework for future research in the area of trust-building in decentralized financial services.

    Abstract I Acknowledgements II Contents III List of Figures VI List of Tables VII 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Research Background and Motivation 1 1.2 Research Objectives 2 1.3 Research Questions 3 2 Literature Review 4 2.1 Decentralized Finance (DeFi) examination 4 2.2 Smart Contracts in DeFi: Challenges and Opportunities 5 2.3 Identify trust on DeFi 7 2.4 DEX and CEX 9 2.5 Liquidity 10 2.6 The importance of UX/UI for Fintech products 11 2.7 Necessity of regulatory oversight 13 2.8 Automated Market Makers (AMMs) and Their Role in DeFi 14 2.9 Smart Contract Audit 16 3 Methodology 18 3.1 Methodological Approach 18 3.2 Adoption method 19 3.3 Research steps 19 3.4 Data Collection 19 3.5 Limitations 21 4 Finding and Analysis 22 4.1 Theoretical foundations of trust 22 4.1.1 Decentralized Trust Paradigm 22 4.1.2 Smart Contracts as Trust Arbiters 23 4.1.3 Risks and Regulatory Challenges 23 4.1.4 Human Factors and Interface Design 23 4.2 Trava DeFi Platform Introduction 24 4.3 Trava UX/UI development 26 4.4 Analysis of DeFi Mechanisms in TRAVA Finance 28 4.4.1 Automated Market Makers (AMMs) 28 4.4.2 Liquidity Pools 29 4.4.3 User Interaction and Investment Dynamics 29 4.5 Security Analysis of Trava Finance 30 4.6 Comparative Analysis of Trust-Building Mechanisms in DeFi Lending Platforms 32 4.6.1 Transparency 32 4.6.2 Security Mechanisms 33 4.6.3 User Experience (UX) 33 4.6.4 Community Engagement 33 4.6.5 Innovative Trust-Building Strategies 34 4.6.6 Pros and Cons 34 4.7 Evaluation of Risk Dynamics in DeFi Platforms 36 4.7.1 Smart Contract Risks 36 4.7.2 Financial Risks 37 4.7.3 Operational Risks 37 4.7.4 Regulatory Risks 37 4.7.5 Custodial and Counterparty Risks 38 5 Conclusion and Recommendation 39 5.1 Conclusion 39 5.2 Recommendation 40 5.2.1 Universal Smart Contract Security Protocols 40 5.2.2 Enhanced Risk Management Frameworks 40 5.2.3 Operational Excellence and Reliability 40 5.2.4 Proactive and Transparent Regulatory Engagement 41 5.2.5 Community Engagement and Democratic Governance 41 5.2.6 Custodial and Counterparty Risk Mitigation 41 5.3 Final Thoughts 42 References 43 List of Figures 2.1 The DeFi Stack 5 2.2 Advantages and features of Smart Contract 6 2.3 DeFi Trust Pyramid 8 2.4 AMM liquidity pool process 14 2.5 Total value Hacked by years 16 3.1 Research steps Explained 20 4.1 DeFi process on Trava 24 4.2 Audit report from Certik 31 List of Tables 2.1 The difference between DEX and CEX 10 4.1 Comparative insights between traditional financial systems and DeFi 24

    References
    [Bron, 2023] Bron, D. (2023). The legal aspects of decentralized finance (defi): Regulation, compliance, and consumer protection. Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Centic, 2023] Centic (2023). Centralized exchange (cex) vs decentralized exchange (dex). which is the best crypto exchange? Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Certik Skynet, 2021] Certik Skynet (2021). Security assessment: Trava finance. Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Chainlink Website, 2023] Chainlink Website (2023). The defi ecosystem. Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Defi Llama, 2023] Defi Llama (2023). Total value hacked data. Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Gourley, 2021] Gourley, R. (2021). Defi platforms: The ux/ui challenges and opportunities. Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Hacken website, 2021] Hacken website (2021). Audit report: Trava finance. Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Hafner et al., 2023] Hafner, M., de Luze, R., Greber, N., Beccuti, J., Biondi, B., Katten, G., Riccobene, M., and Arrigoni, A. (2023). Defi lending platform liquidity risk: The example of folks finance. Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Han et al., 2021] Han, J., Huang, S., and Zhong, Z. (2021). Trust in defi: An empirical study of the decentralized exchange. Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Kwon, 2023] Kwon, S. (2023). Regulation of defi lending: Agency supervision on decentralization. Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Makarov and Schoar, 2022] Makarov, I. and Schoar, A. (2022). Cryptocurrencies and decentralized finance (defi). Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Mohan, 2022] Mohan, V. (2022). Automated market makers and decentralized exchanges: a defi primer. Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Nugraha et al., 2019] Nugraha, A. P., Rolando, Puspasari, M. A., and Syaifullah, D. H. (2019). Usability evaluation for user interface redesign of financial technology application. Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Punzano, 2023] Punzano, G. (2023). Defi vs. traditional banking: A comparative analysis. Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Rozario and Vasarhelyi, 2018] Rozario, A. M. and Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2018). Auditing with smart contracts. International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 18. Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Saengchote et al., 2022] Saengchote, K., Putni¸nˇs, T. J., and Samphantharak, K. (2022). Does defi remove the need for trust? evidence from a natural experiment in stablecoin lending. Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Sch¨ar, 2021] Sch¨ar, F. (2021). Decentralized finance: On blockchain- and smart contract-based financial markets. Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [SciEcon, 2021] SciEcon (2021). How will defi reshape the future of finance? the ama interview for prof. campbell harvey. Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Shardeum Community, 2022] Shardeum Community (2022). What is an
    automated market maker (amm) – a complete guide. Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Swarm Markets, 2021] Swarm Markets (2021). How to evaluate defi platforms for safety and security: the defi trust pyramid. Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Tania, 2021] Tania (2021). What are automated market makers? Accessed: 2024-01-05.
    [Trava Finance, 2020] Trava Finance (2020). Trava document portal. Accessed: 2024-01-05.

    QR CODE