arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Centralized and decentralized payments networks: a simple cost comparison

Peter Stella

Journal of Financial Market Infrastructures2024https://doi.org/10.21314/jfmi.2024.003article
AJG 1
Weight
0.30

What the paper says

The original motivation for the concept paper introducing the Bitcoin blockchain and distributed ledger technology was to enable peer-to-peer transfers of currency and thereby eliminate the role of fiat money, banks and central banks in payments systems worldwide. Although subsequent generations of blockchains have been designed to enable additional applications such as the transfer of artifacts other than their native currencies (eg, tokenized bonds, nonfungible token digital artwork and items or objects purchased in online video games), the most prominent networks continue to stress their decentralized payments or “currency†applications. In this paper we examine the feasibility of the widespread adoption of cryptocurrencies in payments by comparing the output and cost statistics of several centralized payments systems with those of Bitcoin, Ethereum and Solana.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21314/jfmi.2024.003

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{peter2024,
  title        = {{Centralized and decentralized payments networks: a simple cost comparison}},
  author       = {Peter Stella},
  journal      = {Journal of Financial Market Infrastructures},
  year         = {2024},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21314/jfmi.2024.003},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Centralized and decentralized payments networks: a simple cost comparison

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.30

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.00 × 0.4 = 0.00
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.