Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Is There Any Pattern Regarding the Vulnerability of Smart Contracts in the Food Supply Chain to a Stressed Event? A Quantile Connectedness Investigation
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Is There Any Pattern Regarding the Vulnerability of Smart Contracts in the Food Supply Chain to a Stressed Event? A Quantile Connectedness Investigation
Do you wish to request the book?
Is There Any Pattern Regarding the Vulnerability of Smart Contracts in the Food Supply Chain to a Stressed Event? A Quantile Connectedness Investigation
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Is There Any Pattern Regarding the Vulnerability of Smart Contracts in the Food Supply Chain to a Stressed Event? A Quantile Connectedness Investigation
2023
Overview
Blockchain can support the food supply chain in several aspects. Particularly, food traceability and trading across pre-existing contracts can make the supply chain fast, error-free, and support in detecting potential fraud. A proper algorithm, keeping in mind specific geographic, demographic, and additional essential parameters, would let the automated market maker (AMM) supply ample liquidity to pre-determined orders. AMMs are usually run by a set of sequential algorithms called a ‘smart contract’ (SM). Appropriate use of SM reduces food waste, contamination, extra or no delivery in due course, and, possibly most significantly, increases traceability. However, SM has definite vulnerabilities, making it less adaptable at times. We are investigating whether they are genuinely vulnerable during stressful periods or not. We considered seven SM platforms, namely, Fabric, Ethereum (ETH), Waves, NEM (XEM), Tezos (XTZ), Algorand (ALGO), and Stellar (XLM), as the proxies for food supply-chain-based smart contracts from 29 August 2021 to 5 October 2022. This period coincides with three stressed events: Delta (Covid II), Omicron (Covid III), and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We found strong traces of risk transmission, comovement, and interdependence of SM return among the diversified SMs; however, the SMs focused on the food supply chain ended up as net receivers of shocks at both of the extreme tails. All these SMs share a stronger connection in both positive shocks (bullish) and negative shocks (bearish).
Publisher
MDPI AG
Subject
