## 4 Discussion
### Economic Implications and Strategic Value  
While precise quantitative cost-benefit analysis requires real-world deployment data beyond the scope of this simulation study, the economic implications of implementing blockchain-based circular traceability systems merit systematic consideration. The proposed WEave framework generates strategic value through multiple channels that directly impact operational efficiency and risk mitigation. First, enhanced traceability capabilities enable more targeted and cost-effective product recalls by precisely identifying affected batches, potentially reducing recall scope compared to broad-based recalls under information-poor scenarios. This precision translates to substantial cost savings given that the cost of product recalls can reach up to USD 100 million depending on industry and scale [42]. Second, verified circular content documentation supports premium pricing strategies for sustainable products, with recent market research indicating 9.7% price premiums for products made sustainably [43]. Third, blockchain-enabled supplier visibility facilitates dynamic reconfiguration during disruptions, reducing procurement costs and minimizing production delays through alternative sourcing strategies informed by real-time material availability data.  
It is worth noting that blockchain is one among many approaches to supply chain transparency. Others include centralized databases, consortia platforms, or even non-tech solutions (certifications, audits). Blockchain's unique value is in decentralization and immutability--fostering a higher level of trust. Our framework assumes a blockchain-based consortium model where multiple parties run the network. If an enterprise tried to do this alone (with all data in its own server), it could achieve similar traceability but then others would have to trust that enterprise not to tamper with data. In high-trust consortia, a centralized solution could suffice and might be simpler. But in global supply chains with unknown actors, blockchain stands out by providing a shared source of truth. Another alternative is tokenization and incentive systems to encourage returns (some have proposed giving tokens to consumers for recycling [44]). Our framework did not include a token or cryptocurrency, but it could be extended with token economics if needed (e.g., each recycled lot could generate a reward token to the recycler or consumer). That could drive adoption of circular practices; however, it introduces regulatory complexity and is beyond our current scope.  
Compared to centralized traceability solutions, blockchain-based systems require higher initial infrastructure investment but offer superior long-term value through reduced intermediary costs, enhanced multi-party trust, and elimination of single points of failure that can compromise data integrity. While centralized systems may incur lower implementation costs initially, they may generate higher ongoing operational expenses due to third-party verification requirements and limited scalability across complex multi-tier supply networks. The distributed nature of blockchain systems also enables cost-sharing mechanisms among consortium members, distributing infrastructure expenses while providing universal access to verified data. These economic advantages become particularly pronounced in circular economy contexts where material flows span multiple ownership transitions and require sustained provenance tracking across product lifecycles.