Journal of Financial Market Infrastructures

Risk.net

Centralized and decentralized payments networks: a simple cost comparison

Peter Stella

  • Cryptocurrencies were originally intended to enable peer-to-peer transfers of currency and eliminate the role of fiat money in payment systems.
  • Subsequent blockchain iterations have have been designed to enable additional applications such as the transfer of artifacts, such as nonfungible token artworks.
  • We investigate whether widespread adoption of cryptocurrencies in payments is feasible by comparing centralized payments systems with three cryptocurrencies.

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.

Sorry, our subscription options are not loading right now

Please try again later. Get in touch with our customer services team if this issue persists.

New to Risk.net? View our subscription options

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a Risk.net account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here