Traditional finance developed the XVA framework — encompassing Credit Valuation Adjustment (CVA), Funding Valuation Adjustment (FVA), Margin Valuation Adjustment (MVA), and related components — in direct response to the systemic failures exposed by the 2008 financial crisis. The framework's central insight is that derivatives cannot be priced in isolation from the costs imposed by counterparty default risk, collateral funding, and regulatory capital. These adjustments are now standard practice at every major financial institution. As institutional capital increasingly flows into digital asset markets, and as the intersection of decentralized finance (DeFi) and traditional finance (TradFi) deepens structurally, a critical pricing gap has emerged: the absence of a rigorous Crypto XVA™ framework that addresses the unique risk characteristics of blockchain-based financial instruments. Prior scholarship has examined smart contracts as potential eliminators of counterparty risk (Morini Fries neither addresses measurement. Crypto XVA provides the missing measurement architecture, in which jurisdictional regulatory divergence itself enters fair value as a priced input through LCVA and the Tier III network correlations. The paper also examines what we term the Smart Contract XVA Paradox: prior claims that smart contracts eliminate counterparty risk are technically accurate but misleading. The correct statement is that DeFi transforms counterparty risk into smart contract risk; the net effect on total valuation adjustment depends on protocol-specific characteristics and cannot be assumed directionally. Because oracle parameters in DeFi are endogenous and programmable, Crypto XVA operates not only as a measurement architecture but as a control framework for protocol governance.
David Martin (Tue,) studied this question.