Decentralized credit scoring: Black box 3.0

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q3 BUSINESS
Nizan Geslevich Packin, Yafit Lev-Aretz
{"title":"Decentralized credit scoring: Black box 3.0","authors":"Nizan Geslevich Packin,&nbsp;Yafit Lev-Aretz","doi":"10.1111/ablj.12240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Much like traditional credit scoring, decentralized credit scoring calculates a borrower's creditworthiness, but the fully automated process is executed on the blockchain by Decentralized Finance (DeFi) platforms. Originally, DeFi emerged as an alternative to the centralized traditional finance (TradFi) system; however, decentralized credit scoring combines DeFi data and traditional data that include a wide range of information sources, from traditional credit reports to social media information. Despite their fairness-oriented narrative, an examination of the business models of the protocols and entities operating in this space reveals that these hybrid scores are subject to the same algorithmic distortions that have been observed in traditional and alternative credit scoring models. Moreover, decentralized credit scores present their own distinctive set of fairness issues. Particularly, both upgrade to smart contracts and their reliance on external algorithms, known as oracles, which feed outside data, introduce heightened potential for error and bias in the credit scoring process. These “black box 3.0” issues can result in opaque automation of biased processes and perpetuate social injustices, requiring regulatory intervention to strengthen the linkage points between DeFi and TradFi and better protect consumers from the black box 3.0 consequences of decentralized credit scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":54186,"journal":{"name":"American Business Law Journal","volume":"61 2","pages":"91-111"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12240","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Much like traditional credit scoring, decentralized credit scoring calculates a borrower's creditworthiness, but the fully automated process is executed on the blockchain by Decentralized Finance (DeFi) platforms. Originally, DeFi emerged as an alternative to the centralized traditional finance (TradFi) system; however, decentralized credit scoring combines DeFi data and traditional data that include a wide range of information sources, from traditional credit reports to social media information. Despite their fairness-oriented narrative, an examination of the business models of the protocols and entities operating in this space reveals that these hybrid scores are subject to the same algorithmic distortions that have been observed in traditional and alternative credit scoring models. Moreover, decentralized credit scores present their own distinctive set of fairness issues. Particularly, both upgrade to smart contracts and their reliance on external algorithms, known as oracles, which feed outside data, introduce heightened potential for error and bias in the credit scoring process. These “black box 3.0” issues can result in opaque automation of biased processes and perpetuate social injustices, requiring regulatory intervention to strengthen the linkage points between DeFi and TradFi and better protect consumers from the black box 3.0 consequences of decentralized credit scores.

分散式信用评分:黑盒 3.0
与传统的信用评分很相似,去中心化信用评分计算借款人的信用度,但这一全自动过程是由去中心化金融(DeFi)平台在区块链上执行的。DeFi 最初是作为中心化传统金融(TradFi)系统的替代品而出现的;然而,去中心化信用评分结合了 DeFi 数据和传统数据,其中包括从传统信用报告到社交媒体信息等广泛的信息来源。尽管它们以公平为导向,但对在这一领域运营的协议和实体的商业模式进行研究后发现,这些混合评分受制于与传统和替代信用评分模式相同的算法失真。此外,去中心化信用评分也有其独特的公平性问题。特别是,智能合约的升级及其对外部算法(即提供外部数据的oracle)的依赖,都增加了信用评分过程中出现错误和偏差的可能性。这些 "黑盒 3.0 "问题可能导致不透明的自动化有偏见的流程,并使社会不公正现象长期存在,这就需要监管部门进行干预,以加强 DeFi 和 TradFi 之间的联系点,更好地保护消费者免受去中心化信用评分的黑盒 3.0 后果的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The ABLJ is a faculty-edited, double blind peer reviewed journal, continuously published since 1963. Our mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice. We search for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law. The blind peer review process means legal scholars well-versed in the relevant specialty area have determined selected articles are original, thorough, important, and timely. Faculty editors assure the authors’ contribution to scholarship is evident. We aim to elevate legal scholarship and inform responsible business decisions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信