Systemic Contagion in RWA-Tokenized Ecosystems: DeFi–Traditional Banking Regulatory Friction and Prudential Supervision Framework Proposal for Peru
This study quantitatively analyzes the systemic contagion risks between DeFi RWA-tokenized ecosystems and traditional banking in Peru, revealing high correlation and liquidity vulnerabilities, and proposes a tiered regulatory framework involving the SBS, SUNAT, and INDECOPI to mitigate these risks while enhancing tax compliance and consumer protection.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
The Big Picture: A New Kind of Financial Bridge
Imagine the global financial system as two separate islands.
- Island A is the Traditional Banking System (the banks you know, with vaults and regulators).
- Island B is DeFi (Decentralized Finance), a wild, digital marketplace where people trade without a central boss.
For a long time, these islands were far apart. But recently, people started building a bridge called RWA Tokenization (Real-World Assets). This bridge allows digital money to be backed by real things like U.S. Treasury bonds or private loans.
The Problem: The author, Paul Ricardo Prudencio Galvez, argues that this bridge is shaky. If a storm hits the digital island (DeFi), the shaking travels across the bridge and can sink the traditional island (Banks), and vice versa. This is called Systemic Contagion.
The Peru Context: A House with Too Many Keys
The paper focuses specifically on Peru. The author compares Peru's current financial regulation to a house where four different people hold keys, but they never talk to each other:
- SUNAT (The Tax Collector): They want to tax crypto gains at a high rate (30%).
- INDECOPI (The Consumer Watchdog): They are trying to protect people from scams, but complaints are skyrocketing.
- SBS (The Bank Supervisor): They watch the banks but aren't sure how to watch the digital world.
- BCRP (The Central Bank): They manage the money supply but lack a clear plan for crypto.
Because these four "keyholders" aren't coordinating, people are running away from the rules. The paper estimates that $450 million in crypto transactions happen every year in Peru's "underground" (informal market) because the 30% tax is too high and confusing.
The Evidence: Why Should We Worry?
The author looked at 47 studies and analyzed past financial disasters to see how bad the risk is. Here is what they found, using simple comparisons:
- The "Glass House" Effect: 68% of the assets in this new DeFi system are "illiquid." Imagine a house made entirely of glass; it looks valuable, but if you need to sell it quickly in an emergency, you can't. It's fragile.
- The "Shockwave" Correlation: When the digital market panics, the traditional market panics right along with it. The paper found a 0.73 correlation (a very strong link) during crises like the collapse of TerraUSD (2022) and the First Brands bankruptcy (2025). It's like two people holding hands; if one trips, the other falls immediately.
- The Risk Score: The author gave the "DeFi + Real World Assets" mix a risk score of 4.8 out of 5. That is almost as dangerous as a ticking time bomb, especially compared to traditional banking, which is much more stable.
The Proposed Solution: A Three-Layer Safety Net
The paper suggests Peru needs a new rulebook that brings the four "keyholders" together. Think of it as building a Three-Layer Safety Net for the financial system:
Layer 1: The Iron Vault (SBS Supervision)
- Rule: Anyone issuing these digital coins backed by real assets must keep 100% of their money in liquid, safe cash (like gold in a vault) that the bank supervisor (SBS) can check anytime.
- Why: This stops the "glass house" problem. If everyone has 100% cash ready, the system won't collapse if people want to sell.
Layer 2: The Fair Price Tag (SUNAT Tax Reform)
- Rule: Lower the tax on regulated, safe digital coins from 30% down to 15%.
- Why: The current 30% tax is like a toll so high that drivers (investors) take a dangerous backroad (the illegal market) to avoid it. Lowering the toll encourages them to stay on the safe, legal highway. The author predicts this could actually increase tax collection by 42% because more people will finally pay up.
Layer 3: The Fast-Track Rescue (INDECOPI Protection)
- Rule: If a consumer has a problem or a scam, INDECOPI must solve it within 30 days.
- Why: Currently, digital transactions are like sending a letter that can't be recalled. If you get scammed, you need a fast rescue team. This rule ensures consumers aren't left waiting for months.
The Expected Outcome
If Peru adopts this plan, the author claims two main things will happen:
- Safety: The risk of the whole financial system collapsing due to a crypto crash would drop by 38%.
- Revenue: The government would collect 42% more tax because the rules would be fair enough that people want to play by them.
Summary
The paper is a warning and a blueprint. It says: "Peru, your digital financial bridge is connecting to the real world, but it's built on shaky ground and your regulators are arguing over who owns the keys. If you don't build a stronger safety net (100% reserves), lower the tax toll (15%), and speed up consumer protection (30 days), you risk a massive crash that could drag your entire banking system down."
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.