Token bonding curves. You may have heard about them being used in DeFi on platforms such as UniSwap and Curve Finance. They are the mathematical models that define the relationship between a token’s supply and its price. As more tokens are bought, the price increases according to the curve; as they are sold, the price decreases according to the curve. There are multiple types of curves that can be created based on various parameters. These parameters dictate the exact relationship between the token supply and its price. To learn more about the different curve types and why they matter, check out this brief article by Veronica Coutts. These bonding curves have emerged as a fundamental tool for ensuring liquidity, fair distribution, and automated pricing of digital assets.
However, these bonding curves can go far beyond decentralized finance. They can also be used in the tokenization of real-world assets and services. I’d like to preface the rest of this article by noting that the following ideas are still largely theoretical. The intricacies of legal systems and current societal norms are being navigated to bring these concepts to life. As with any innovation, long periods of trial and error are inevitable, and that is the stage we are currently in for these ideas. With that said, it’s important to consider the implementation and security considerations of real-world token bonding curves due to the number of Web3 contributors looking to pursue them.
Now onto the fun stuff. Real estate, art, and other tangible assets can be tokenized, with their tokens priced according to a bonding curve. As demand for these asset-backed tokens grows, the price increases, reflecting the underlying asset’s appreciation. This applies to service-based tokens as well. Organizations can issue tokens tied to their services and as the demand for their expertise rises, the token price increases. This helps to align compensation price with the service-provider’s true market value. To take it one step further, tokens distributed through bonding curves can be utilized to fund, reward, and complete social initiatives that benefit our communities and our world at large.
Although this relatively new concept will require much trial and error before achieving seamless integration in the physical world, there is significant incentive to pursue such integration. Jeff Emmett, in his article “Rewriting the Story of Human Collaboration,” does a fantastic job at explaining some of the primary incentives for bringing token bonding curves into the real world. He addresses issues such as government inefficiencies, environmental destruction resulting from capitalism, and global social inequality as catalysts for adopting bonding curve-based systems. Emmet suggests that we can look to nature to better align our capitalist goals with environmental and social outcomes. He argues that by utilizing curation markets, bonding curves, and a crypto-enabled population, we can create networked bounties — essentially micro-economies that use asset-backed or service-backed tokens to fund and complete projects. These projects can range from small initiatives, like beach cleanups, to tackling the largest challenges facing humanity, such as climate change or world hunger.
As stated above, token bonding curves being utilized to tackle real-world problems is a relatively new idea (only about 5 years old). With new ideas comes rapid iteration by projects and organizations to carve out their place as a pioneer in a new market. And with rapid iteration usually comes holes in security as teams prioritize their growth and innovation. So what are the security considerations when it comes to token bonding curves and their implementation in the real world? I’d like to highlight four main areas of concern:
- Smart Contracts
- The People Part
- Force Majeure
- Legal Considerations
The smart contracts underpinning these curves must be rigorously audited to protect against vulnerabilities. Comprehensive auditing and testing before deployment aids in preventing hackers from manipulating the contracts or draining their associated funds. A common vulnerability in these types of contracts is logic errors, which can lead to incorrect token pricing and supply dynamics. Another issue is reentrancy attacks, where malicious actors siphon off funds by making repeated calls before the previous execution is completed. Overflow or underflow bugs can result in incorrect allocation of tokens. Front-running is also a concern, where bad actors place their transactions strategically in front of large buys or sells to benefit from impending price changes. Finally, poorly designed access controls can allow unauthorized users to modify contract parameters or withdraw funds. To mitigate these risks, extensive modeling, testing, and auditing must happen to design appropriate curve contracts that behave predictably under various market conditions.
Beyond the tech that supports this idea, we must take into account the people who run the operation. People, both inside and outside the organization, can cause major issues for bonding curve systems. Malicious actors can engage in market manipulation by artificially inflating or deflating token prices, which creates volatility and undermines trust in the system. Protecting against this issue may include implementing rate limiting of transactions and employing reliable oracle services for external data. Rate limiting can prevent market manipulation by restricting the number of transactions that occur within a given timeframe. This helps mitigate sudden market movements, pump-and-dump schemes, and automated manipulation efforts. Reliable oracles ensure that the external data feeding into the smart contract is accurate and trustworthy. Continuous monitoring of the market and setting up automated alerts for unusual activities is critical for the early detection and halting of these manipulative behaviors.
What about when things happen outside of our control? Depreciation or total loss of value is a decisive point to consider when dealing with physical items. Returning to the original examples of art and real estate, if a piece of art is vandalized, its physical value may decrease substantially or be lost entirely, directly impacting its associated tokens’ value. Similarly, if a property burns down, its value plummets or is completely negated, causing the corresponding tokens to lose value as well. There are ways to protect against these force majeure situations, though they will need to navigate the legal process before adoption. One approach is to insure tokenized assets against such events. Insurance payouts could potentially mitigate losses, with token holders receiving compensation proportionate to their holdings. However, the specifics would depend on the insurance terms, coverage extent, and how the tokenization framework integrates with insurance claims. Another method is for token issuers to establish predefined terms and conditions that outline how such events are handled during the tokenization process. Lastly, smart contracts governing tokenized assets could incorporate mechanisms to address these events. These mechanisms would need to be defined in collaboration with legal teams to ensure that the automatic execution aligns with the appropriate legal actions.
As is apparent in the paragraph above, legal compliance adds another layer of complexity to the real-world implementation of bonding curves. Tokenizing real-world assets often requires navigating a labyrinth of securities laws, KYC/AML regulations, and consumer protection laws. Ensuring transparency and providing clear information about the underlying assets, bonding curve mechanics, and token holder rights are essential not only for building trust, but also for complying with legal standards. Comprehensive disclosures help potential investors understand the risks and benefits. Establishing proper mechanisms for handling asset custody, legal ownership transfers, and dispute resolution is also crucial for compliance. This often involves creating clear processes for how assets are managed and transferred, as well as defining how conflicts will be resolved. Adhering to these legal requirements not only mitigates the risk of regulatory penalties, but also enhances the credibility and legitimacy of the tokenized assets in the eyes of investors, regulators, and the community alike.
While the integration of token bonding curves into real-world applications is a nascent and rapidly evolving field, it holds immense potential to revolutionize how we manage, distribute, and value assets and services. From enhancing liquidity and automated pricing in DeFi to enabling the tokenization of tangible assets and services, bonding curves offer innovative solutions to complex problems. However, this promising technology is not without its challenges. Addressing the security risks associated with smart contracts, human-driven market manipulation, and navigating intricate legal landscapes are vital steps to ensure their safe and effective implementation. As pioneers in this space continue to innovate and refine these systems, the successful adoption of token bonding curves could lead to more transparent, efficient, and equitable economic models that align with both capitalist and social goals. The journey will undoubtedly involve significant trial and error, but the potential rewards make it a pursuit worth undertaking.
References
Coutts, Veronica. “An Introduction to Bonding Curves, Shapes and Use Cases.” Medium, Linum Labs Blog, 2 Aug. 2019, medium.com/linum-labs/intro-to-bonding-curves-and-shapes-bf326bc4e11a.
de la Rouviere, Simon. “Funding Network Effects on Donations, Bounties, Grants & Patronage.” Medium, Medium, 23 May 2018, medium.com/@simondlr/funding-network-effects-on-donations-bounties-grants-patronage-e9dac7a857e4.
de la Rouviere, Simon. “Introducing Curation Markets: Trade Popularity of Memes & Information (with Code)!” Medium, Medium, 22 May 2017, medium.com/@simondlr/introducing-curation-markets-trade-popularity-of-memes-information-with-code-70bf6fed9881.
de la Rouviere, Simon. “Tokens 2.0: Curved Token Bonding in Curation Markets.” Medium, Medium, 21 Nov. 2017, medium.com/@simondlr/tokens-2–0-curved-token-bonding-in-curation-markets-1764a2e0bee5.
Emmett, Jeff. “Rewriting the Story of Human Collaboration.” Medium, Good Audience, 11 Sept. 2018, blog.goodaudience.com/rewriting-the-story-of-human-collaboration-c33a8a4cd5b8.
Sergeenkov, Andrey. “Bonding Curves in Defi, Explained.” Cointelegraph, Cointelegraph, 15 Feb. 2024, cointelegraph.com/explained/bonding-curves-in-defi-explained.
Titcomb, Abbey. “Deep Dive: Augmented Bonding Curves.” Medium, Giveth, 10 Apr. 2019, blog.giveth.io/deep-dive-augmented-bonding-curves-3f1f7c1fa751.
About the Author:
Grace Dees is the Cybersecurity Business Analyst at Resonance Security. She specializes in the intersection of traditional and Web3 security.
In her role at Resonance, Grace excels in bridging the gap between technology and business objectives. Whether that’s assisting in security auditing or fostering cross-functional collaboration to deliver impactful solutions aligned with client needs, she is dedicated to driving business success through a holistic approach.
