# A Review on Decentralized Finance Ecosystems
## 3 Methodology
### Information Discovery
What are the ethnographic aspects of DeFi adoption, e.g., user behavior and regulatory view? 6. What DeFi products/services could disrupt or collaborate with TradFi-compatible products/services? 7. What are the threats of adopting DeFi in the financial industry? 8. How do we manage the risks of DeFi adoption threats? \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline
**Sources** & **Total Publication Number** & **Filtered Publication** \\ \hline
**Academic Sources:ScienceDirect, Google** & & \\ _Scholar, MDPI, IEEE, Emerald Insight,_ & 4.248 & 50 \\ _SSRN, and Springer Science_ & & \\ \hline
**Product/Services Sources:White papers** & 10 & 10 \\ \hline
**Nonacademic Sources:Websites, Medium,** & & \\ _CoinGecko, CoinMarketCap, and Ethereum_ & & \\ \hline
**Total** & 4.266 & 68 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Publication source. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline
**Topic Categories** & **Authors/Year** & **Reference** \\ \hline
**Knowledge and Use Case of the DeFi Ecosystem** & ([PERSON] et al., 2002; [PERSON], 2002; [PERSON] et al., 2020; [PERSON] \& \& \\  & [PERSON], 2022; [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2021; [PERSON], 2022; [PERSON] et al., 2020); & [15; 17; 31; 42; 46; 47; 48; 49; 50; 51]. \\  & [PERSON], 2021; [PERSON], 2021; [PERSON] et al., 2022; [PERSON] et al., 2020) & \\ \hline
**DeFi/Technology** & ([PERSON] et al., 2023; [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2016; [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2022; \\  & [PERSON], 2019; [PERSON], [PERSON], et al., 2020; [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2021; \\  & [PERSON] et al., 2021; [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2022; [PERSON], 2022; \\  & [PERSON] \& [PERSON], 2022; [PERSON] et al., 2023; [PERSON] et al., 2019; \\  & [PERSON] et al., 2022; [PERSON], 2020; [PERSON] et al., 2019; [PERSON] \& [4; 5; 6; 13; 23; 24; 53; 54; 55; 56; 57; 58; 59; 60; 61; 62; 63; 64; 65; 66; 67; 68; 69; 70; 71; 72; 73; 74; 75; 76; 77; 78; 79; 80; 81; 82; 83; 84; 85; 86; 87; 88; 89; 90; 91; 92; 93; 94; 95; 96; 97; 98; 99; 100; 101; 102; 103; 104; 105; 106; 107; 1 After systematically reviewing references using these questions, we categorized them into five groups. This process refined our focus and laid the groundwork for constructing a comprehensive DeFi taxonomy. The eight questions, stemming from academic, product/service, and nonacademic sources, represent general knowledge frequently discussed. These questions have been organized into the following five categories:  
1. Knowledge and Use Case of DeFi Ecosystem: This category encompasses journals, conference papers, and white papers that discuss information or knowledge about DeFi systems, as well as the various use cases that occur within the DeFi ecosystem. 2. DeFi Technology: In this category, we explore the foundational technologies in DeFi, including blockchain, smart contracts, and other relevant technologies that underpin the functioning of DeFi platforms. 3. Challenges and Opportunities of DeFi: This category addresses the challenges faced by DeFi, such as regulatory hurdles, and also explores the opportunities that DeFi presents, including transparency, accessibility, low-cost services, and self-custody options. 4. DeFi and TradFi: This category focuses on the relationship between DeFi and TradFi and provides a comparative analysis of the two financial systems. 5. Risk in DeFi: In this category, we examine the various risks associated with DeFi, including bugs, hackers, and fraud, and analyze their potential impacts on the DeFi ecosystem. The publications listed in Table 2 cover distinctions in every aspect, presenting topics not discussed by other publications. Although there is some overlap, certain publications diverge significantly. For instance, in the DeFi Technology category, publication [6] explores automated market makers and decentralized exchanges more extensively than DeFi, while publication [60] concentrates broadly on decentralized autonomous organizations--evolution, challenges, and opportunities.