Proposes a framework enabling secure energy transactions across borders, highlighting implications for regulatory coordination.
Global decarbonization and the rapid growth of distributed energy resources increase the need for information-centric mechanisms that can support secure, scalable, cross-border coordination under heterogeneous technical and regulatory conditions. This paper proposes a Global Virtual Prosumer (GVP) framework that integrates IoT sensing, multi-agent coordination, and permissioned blockchain smart contracts to operationalize cross-border energy services as auditable service commitments rather than physical power exchange. Building on prior work that validated MAS-based power management and blockchain-secured operation within individual Virtual Prosumers, the present contribution lies in the cross-border coordination layer and its associated contractual and evaluation mechanisms, not in the constituent technologies themselves. A layered IoT–AI–blockchain architecture is introduced, where off-chain optimization produces allocations and admissibility indicators and on-chain contracts enforce identity, feasibility guards, delegation and partner-assignment rules, oracle verification, and settlement time compliance outcomes. The contractual lifecycle is formalized through four smart-contract algorithms covering trade registration, conditional delegation, cooperative fulfillment, and cross-border settlement with explicit failure semantics and event-based audit trails. The framework is evaluated on a global case study with seven Virtual Prosumers and quantified using contract-centric KPIs that capture registration time rejections, settlement success versus non-compliance, oracle-driven failure attribution, and full lifecycle traceability. The results demonstrate internal consistency of the proposed lifecycle and the practical value of KPI-driven accountability for cross-border energy service coordination. At the same time, the evaluation is based on synthetic parameterization and an emulated contract environment; realistic deployment constraints—including consensus latency, cross-region communication reliability, and regulatory overlap—are discussed as explicit limitations and directions for future empirical validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
N. Sifakis (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: