Regulating Cryptocurrency and Decentralized Finance for an Inclusive Economy

Amrutha Muralidhar; Muralidhar Lakkanna

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2407.01532

Regulating Cryptocurrency and Decentralized Finance for an Inclusive Economy

Amrutha Muralidhar·Muralidhar Lakkanna

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The evolution of cryptocurrency and decentralized finance (DeFi) marks a significant shift in the financial landscape, making it more accessible, inclusive, and participative for various societal groups. However, this transition from traditional financial institutions to DeFi demands a meticulous policy framework that strikes a balance between innovation and safeguarding consumer interests, security, and regulatory compliance. In this script we explore the imperative need for regulatory frameworks overseeing cryptocurrencies and DeFi, aiming to leverage their potential for inclusive economic advancement. It underscores the prevalent challenges within conventional financial systems, juxtaposing them with the transformative potential offered by these emergent financial paradigms. By highlighting the role of robust regulations, we examine their capacity to ensure user security, fortify market resilience, and spur innovative strides. We aim to proffer viable strategies for formulating regulatory structures that harmonize the twin objectives of fostering innovation and upholding fairness within financial ecosystems.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.GN

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Amrutha Muralidhar, Muralidhar Lakkanna. 2024-02-15. Regulating Cryptocurrency and Decentralized Finance for an Inclusive Economy. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.01532

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Compliant AI Infrastructure for Regulated Finance: A tiered multi-agent framework with DLT audit trails for financial operations in DACH

We present a compliance-first architecture for AI in regulated finance that treats regulation as an orientation layer rather than a deterministic ruleset. A matrix of regulatory intent and exposure provides a compact classification handle, which a governed policy compiler then maps into concrete prohibitions, obligations and runtime budgets. Prohibitions constrain feasibility and block externalisation, while obligations extend tasks with artefacts that must meet explicit admissibility criteria. Committee activation remains policy-driven and proportionate, preserving efficiency while ensuring supervisory oversight. Evidence, decisions and reason codes are bound to a permissioned DAG with deterministic timestamping, enabling replay, provenance checks and clear attribution of failure. Clause-level legal indexing with effective dates and capability-based agent routing ensure portability across DACH and the wider EU. The result is assurance by construction: compliance is embedded in execution and verifiable by auditors without sacrificing proportionality or transparency.

q-fin.GN↗

arXiv2026

Multi-Agent AI Architecture for Regulated Insurers: A generic AI framework under Solvency II and the AI Act in Austria and Germany

This paper proposes a formal multi-agent architecture for implementing enterprise AI in regulated insurance firms, integrating economic theory with institutional design. The framework synthesises three core theoretical perspectives: Arrow's risk pooling theory to formalise risk transformation under uncertainty, Nash equilibrium to model strategic interactions between decision agents, and Principal-Agent theory to address incentive alignment under information asymmetry. The insurer is modelled as a constrained optimisation entity operating under solvency, legal, ESG, and operational boundaries, with specific focus on the regulatory contexts of Austria and Germany. The architecture decomposes the firm into multiple specialised agents, each representing distinct functional domains such as capital management, underwriting, claims processing, compliance, fraud detection, and client interaction. Human-in-the-loop agents are integrated through a tiered access control system, ensuring differentiated data visibility and decision influence based on user roles. An orchestrator agent supervises inter-agent coordination, enforcing regulatory admissibility and institutional coherence under frameworks such as Solvency II, the AI Act, and the Insurance Distribution Directive. Protocol integration is based on asynchronous execution and dual-layer communication infrastructures, specifically the Model Context Protocol (MCP) and Agent-to-Agent (A2A) messaging. This structure enables the systematic design of compliant, auditable multi-agent systems aligned with the institutional logic of financial firms in Austria and Germany.

q-fin.GN↗

arXiv2026

The Virtue of Sparsity in Complexity

Sparsity or complexity? In modern high-dimensional asset pricing, these are often viewed as competing principles: recent empirical evidence favors richer models, while economic intuition has long favored parsimony. We reconcile this tension by distinguishing capacity sparsity-restrictions on effective model capacity-from factor sparsity-the parsimonious structure of priced risks. Revisiting the benchmark empirical design of Didisheim et al. (2025), we combine nonlinear feature expansions with basis pursuit, using column generation and GPU acceleration to scale estimation to 432 million candidate factors. Reaching this scale reveals a reversal in out-of-sample performance: sparse portfolios trail dense ridgeless benchmarks at lower complexity but achieve a higher Sharpe ratio and lower pricing error at the largest candidate set. Capacity expansion and factor sparsity are therefore complements: enlarging the candidate space allows a parsimonious pricing kernel to outperform its dense counterpart.

q-fin.GN↗