标题： 区块链网络分析：去中心化银行的比较研究 显示英文标题

标题： Blockchain Network Analysis: A Comparative Study of Decentralized Banks

摘要： 去中心化金融（DeFi）以其独特的机制设计而闻名，它应用智能合约来促进点对点交易。 去中心化银行是一个典型的DeFi应用。 理想情况下，去中心化银行应在交易中实现去中心化。 然而，许多近期研究发现，去中心化银行并未实现显著程度的去中心化。 本研究对主流去中心化银行进行了比较研究。 我们使用来自四个去中心化银行（Liquity、Aave、MakerDao和Compound）的交易数据，应用核心-边缘网络特征分析。 我们提取了六个特征，并横向比较了银行的去中心化水平。 根据分析结果，我们发现：1）MakerDao和Compound在交易中比Aave和Liquity更去中心化。 2）尽管去中心化银行业务交易应为去中心化，但数据显示，四家银行都有主要的外部交易核心地址，如Huobi、Coinbase和Binance等。 我们还讨论了四种可能影响网络去中心化的设计特征。 我们的研究在去中心化金融、金融科技（Fintech）和社会网络分析的交叉领域做出了贡献，并启发了未来协议设计，以实现去中心化金融真正点对点交易网络的承诺。 显示英文摘要

摘要： Decentralized finance (DeFi) is known for its unique mechanism design, which applies smart contracts to facilitate peer-to-peer transactions. The decentralized bank is a typical DeFi application. Ideally, a decentralized bank should be decentralized in the transaction. However, many recent studies have found that decentralized banks have not achieved a significant degree of decentralization. This research conducts a comparative study among mainstream decentralized banks. We apply core-periphery network features analysis using the transaction data from four decentralized banks, Liquity, Aave, MakerDao, and Compound. We extract six features and compare the banks' levels of decentralization cross-sectionally. According to the analysis results, we find that: 1) MakerDao and Compound are more decentralized in the transactions than Aave and Liquity. 2) Although decentralized banking transactions are supposed to be decentralized, the data show that four banks have primary external transaction core addresses such as Huobi, Coinbase, and Binance, etc. We also discuss four design features that might affect network decentralization. Our research contributes to the literature at the interface of decentralized finance, financial technology (Fintech), and social network analysis and inspires future protocol designs to live up to the promise of decentralized finance for a truly peer-to-peer transaction network.