WWW.Serve: Interconnecting Global LLM Services through Decentralization

Existing decentralized frameworks predominantly emphasize the rights and protections of users and the cooperative aspect among GPU providers while overlooking the inherent competitive dynamics.

“Fundamentally, they predominantly emphasize the rights and protections of users and the cooperative aspect among GPU providers while overlooking the inherent competitive dynamics”

• Also stated in: § Abstract · plain

  “existing decentralized frameworks predominantly emphasize the rights and protections of users and the cooperative aspect among GPU providers, while overlooking the inherent competitive dynamics”

• cites Fang et al., 2025 sourceCould not verify

  Section 8 (Related Works; page not given) describes Petals as collaborative and identifies challenges other systems do not address, but it does not characterize existing frameworks as predominantly focused on user protections and provider cooperation. Section 2.2 discusses PlanetServe’s own incentives for cooperation. Searches for competition and prior frameworks found no passage addressing the claim that those frameworks overlook competitive dynamics. (LLM, conf=0.72)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Existing decentralized frameworks impose constraints on GPU providers such as excessive platform-level oversight and fixed software/hardware configurations.

“requiring them to accept excessive platform-level oversight (Fang et al., 2025; Wu et al., 2025) and to execute all assigned requests with fixed software stacks (Mei et al., 2025a; Borzunov et al., 2023; Mei et al., 2025b) on fixed hardware configurations.”

• Also stated in: § Abstract · plain

  “imposing substantial constraints on GPU providers, such as requiring them to accept excessive platform-level oversight and to execute all assigned requests with fixed software stacks on fixed hardware configurations.”

• cites Fang et al., 2025 sourceCould not verify

  The Fang et al. citation is attached to the claim about excessive platform-level oversight, not the later claims about fixed software or hardware. The Introduction describes PlanetServe as independent of centralized cloud control, while §3.4 describes its own decentralized verification committee. Neither passage says that existing decentralized frameworks require GPU providers to accept excessive platform-level oversight; searches for provider restrictions and platform control found no such passage. (LLM, conf=0.73)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Wu et al., 2025Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Mei et al., 2025aNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Peer-to-peer communication improves scalability.

“By relying on peer-to-peer communication (Kermarrec and Täıani, 2015), it improves scalability”

• cites Kermarrec and Täıani, 2015 sourceSupported

Peer-to-peer communication adapts to dynamic participation.

“adapts to dynamic participation”

• cites Kermarrec and Täıani, 2015 sourceSupported

Peer-to-peer communication preserves anonymity and privacy.

“and preserves anonymity and privacy (Li and Palanisamy, 2019; Ma et al., 2024).”

• cites Li and Palanisamy, 2019 sourcePartly supported

  The Protocol overview (p. 3) says user–trustee communications use encrypted private channels, and User schedule (p. 5) says selected trustees’ identities are known only to the user during scheduling. This supports privacy and limited identity protection in the paper’s protocol, but not the broader claim that peer-to-peer communication generally preserves anonymity and privacy; the paper also says trustees’ identities can later be revealed. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Ma et al., 2024Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Existing frameworks rely on a small central organization to impose constraints on GPU providers.

“Existing frameworks (Fang et al., 2025) attempt to rely on a small central organization to impose substantial constraints on GPU providers”

• cites Fang et al., 2025 sourcePartly supported

  Section 3.3 says prior frameworks such as SGLang and Preble assume a centralized scheduler or request router, while PlanetServe has no central coordinator. It does not say that a small central organization imposes substantial constraints on GPU providers. (LLM, conf=0.82)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Peer-to-peer communication enhances robustness by eliminating single points of failure.

“enhances robustness by eliminating single points of failure”

• cites Kermarrec and Täıani, 2015 sourcePartly supported

  The Introduction says P2P systems can function without a central authority, and §2.3 says decentralized key-value stores are resilient to ongoing failures. These passages support the general link between decentralization and robustness, but the paper does not establish that P2P communication eliminates all single points of failure. (LLM, conf=0.82)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

WWW.Serve incentivizes higher-quality services to obtain greater profit.

“Empirically, we show that WWW.Serve incentivizes higher-quality services to obtain greater profit”

WWW.Serve improves global SLO attainment by up to 1.5×.

“improving global SLO (service-level-objective) attainment by up to 1.5×”

• Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain

  “improving global SLO attainment by up to 1.5×”

In the model capacity experiment, credit accumulated progressively faster as model size increased from 0.6B to 8B.

“This advantage is reflected in the credit trajectories, with credit accumulating progressively faster as model size increases from 0.6B to 8B.”

Excessive offloading can hinder long-term credit accumulation as nodes spend more credits to delegate requests.

“Excessive offloading can even hinder long-term credit accumulation as nodes spend more credits to delegate requests.”

In the model capacity experiment, larger Qwen3 models achieved higher duel-and-judge win rates: 8B 0.57, 4B 0.53, and 0.6B 0.39.

“Nodes serve Qwen3 models of different sizes (8B, 4B, and 0.6B). Larger models consistently achieve higher duel-and-judge win rates (0.57, 0.53, and 0.39), indicating superior response quality.”

In the offloading-frequency ablation under sustained high request pressure, increasing offloading improves SLO attainment by redistributing workloads from overloaded nodes.

“As illustrated in Figure 8c, increasing offloading improves SLO attainment by redistributing workloads from overloaded nodes.”

In the quantization experiment, more aggressive quantization resulted in lower duel-and-judge win rates: fp8wo 0.54, int4wo-128 0.49, and int4wo-32 0.47.

“Nodes serve the same Qwen3-8B model under different quantization strategies based on TorchAO (torchao, 2024): fp8wo, int4wo-128, and int4wo-32. More aggressive quantization degrades response quality, resulting in lower duel-and-judge win rates (0.54, 0.49, and 0.47).”

• cites torchao, 2024Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

In the quantization experiment, nodes with heavier quantization exhibited slower credit accumulation.

“Consequently, nodes with heavier quantization exhibit slower credit accumulation.”

In the node-leave experiment starting with four nodes, as two nodes leave sequentially and average load increases, the remaining nodes become increasingly saturated, resulting in a sharp rise in overall latency.

“Conversely, Figure 5b starts with four nodes and two leave the network sequentially. As the average load increases, the remaining nodes become increasingly saturated, resulting in a sharp rise in overall latency.”

In the hardware experiment, nodes with higher computational capacity and larger GPU memory served more concurrent requests: A100 1717, RTX4090 1195, and RTX3090 1088.

“Nodes serve the same Qwen3-8B model on different GPUs: A100, RTX4090, and RTX3090. Nodes equipped with higher computational capacity and larger GPU memory achieve higher request throughput and serve more concurrent requests (1717, 1195, and 1088), which in turn leads to faster credit accumulation.”

The benefit of increasing offloading saturates at moderate offloading rates: the improvement between rates of 50%, 75%, and 100% is marginal.

“However, the benefit saturates at moderate offloading rates: the improvement between rates of 50%, 75%, and 100% is marginal.”

In the serving efficiency experiment, FlashInfer, Triton, and SDPA served 788, 786, and 426 requests respectively.

“Nodes serve the same Qwen3-8B model using different attention backends: FlashInfer (Ye et al., 2025), Triton (OpenAI, 2021), and SDPA (Vaswani et al., 2023). More efficient backends achieve substantially higher request throughput and serve more requests (788, 786, and 426).”

• cites Ye et al., 2025Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites OpenAI, 2021Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Vaswani et al., 2023Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

In the node-join experiment, request latencies initially rise when the workload temporarily exceeds available resources.

“When the workload temporarily exceeds available resources, request latencies initially rise.”

More efficient attention backends achieve substantially higher request throughput.

“More efficient backends achieve substantially higher request throughput and serve more requests (788, 786, and 426).”

WWW.Serve sustains robustness under dynamic participation.

“while sustaining robustness under dynamic participation”

WWW.Serve achieves near-centralized efficiency.

“Empirical results demonstrate that WWW.Serve achieves near-centralized efficiency”

In the user-level policy ablation, nodes with higher stake or higher acceptance frequency handle a larger share of delegated requests.

“Figure 8a and 8b show that nodes with higher stake or higher acceptance frequency handle a larger share of delegated requests.”

In the hardware experiment, nodes with higher computational capacity and larger GPU memory exhibited faster credit accumulation.

“Nodes equipped with higher computational capacity and larger GPU memory achieve higher request throughput and serve more concurrent requests (1717, 1195, and 1088), which in turn leads to faster credit accumulation.”

WWW.Serve integrates a duel-and-judge mechanism for robust contributor evaluation.

“a duel-and-judge mechanism for robust contributor evaluation”

• Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain

  “a duel-and-judge mechanism for contributor evaluation”

WWW.Serve integrates gossip-driven peer synchronization for flexible participation.

“gossip-driven peer synchronization for flexible participation”

• Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain

  “a gossip-driven protocol for dynamic peer synchronization”

WWW.Serve preserves the flexibility of service providers to decide when, under what policies, and with what resources they join the decentralized network.

“It preserves the flexibility of service providers, allowing them to decide when, under what policies, and with what resources they join the decentralized network”

• Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain

  “allowing providers to decide when, under what policies, and with what resources they join the decentralized network.”

WWW.Serve integrates a blockchain-inspired credit system for trustless collaboration.

“a blockchain-inspired credit system for trustless collaboration”

• Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain

  “a credit-based transaction system for trustless request delegation”

WWW.Serve fully preserves the benefits of decentralization.

“while fully preserving the benefits of decentralization”

Across all four quality-incentivization experiments, WWW.Serve consistently aligns credit accumulation with both service quality and serving efficiency.

“Across all four experiments, WWW.Serve consistently aligns credit accumulation with both service quality and serving efficiency: nodes with higher-quality models or less aggressive quantization achieve higher duel-and-judge win rates, while nodes with more efficient serving systems or stronger hardware serve more requests.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Duel-and-judge win rates are a valid measure of LLM response quality.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Credit accumulation is a valid proxy for provider incentives to deliver high-quality service.

The gossip protocol ensures stable and reliable service despite the volatility of global-scale resources.

“ensuring stable and reliable service despite the volatility of global-scale resources.”

WWW.Serve adapts effectively to dynamic resource availability.

“Experimental results show that WWW.Serve achieves scheduling efficiency comparable to centralized baselines while adapting effectively to dynamic resource availability, highlighting its potential as a scalable and privacy-preserving foundation for next-generation LLM services.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Real-world LLM service deployments face highly dynamic and unpredictable resource availability.

The gossip-driven protocol enables dynamic online and offline participation.

“we design a lightweight gossip-driven protocol that enables dynamic online and offline participation.”

The duel-and-judge mechanism enables dynamic credit redistribution based on service quality.

“This design enables dynamic credit redistribution based on service quality.”

WWW.Serve has potential as a scalable and privacy-preserving foundation for next-generation LLM services.

“Experimental results show that WWW.Serve achieves scheduling efficiency comparable to centralized baselines while adapting effectively to dynamic resource availability, highlighting its potential as a scalable and privacy-preserving foundation for next-generation LLM services.”

The collaborative framework converges to equilibria that sustain high-quality LLM service even under full anonymity.

“We provide a game-theoretic analysis proving that our collaborative framework converges to equilibria that sustain high-quality LLM service even under full anonymity.”

WWW.Serve effectively incentivizes better LLM service.

“Together, these factors drive credit accumulation, showing that WWW.Serve effectively incentivizes better LLM service.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Credit accumulation is a valid proxy for provider incentives to deliver high-quality service.

The extra request load introduced by the duel-and-judge mechanism remains modest compared to the overall serving workload.

“which remains modest compared to the overall serving workload.”

The higher duel-and-judge win rates indicate superior response quality for larger models.

“Larger models consistently achieve higher duel-and-judge win rates (0.57, 0.53, and 0.39), indicating superior response quality.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Duel-and-judge win rates are a valid measure of LLM response quality.

By accumulating credits through contributions, participants engage in a decentralized market for computing power.

“By accumulating credits through contributions, participants effectively engage in a decentralized market for computing power.”

PoS-based request routing uses participants' staked credits to determine their likelihood of being selected to execute delegated requests.

“Request routing is then guided via a Proof-of-Stake-based (PoS) mechanism, in which participants' staked credits, freely adjust according to their own strategy, determine their likelihood of being selected to execute delegated requests.”

Through the gossip protocol, newly joined resources can be quickly integrated into the network.

“Through this protocol, newly joined resources can be quickly integrated into the network”

The credit-based transaction system provides trustless request delegation.

“a credit-based transaction system for trustless request delegation”

The gossip-driven protocol provides dynamic peer synchronization.

“a gossip-driven protocol for dynamic peer synchronization”

Under Assumptions 5.1-5.4, the network converges to a high-quality equilibrium, driven by a subset of superior nodes.

“Theorem 5.8 (High-quality equilibrium). Under Assumptions 5.1–5.4, the network converges to a high-quality equilibrium, driven by a subset of superior nodes, thereby promoting reliable and high-quality LLM services.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Assumption 5.1 (Node parameters): each node i has intrinsic quality qi, cost ci, stake si(t).
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Assumption 5.2 (System parameters): λ, R, pd, Radd, P.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Assumption 5.3 (PoS-based selection and duel-and-judge mechanism): PoS selection probability and win probability model.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Assumption 5.4 (Stake adjustment): rational participants adjust their stakes proportionally to realized expected payoffs.

WWW.Serve achieves scheduling efficiency comparable to centralized baselines.

“Experimental results show that WWW.Serve achieves scheduling efficiency comparable to centralized baselines while adapting effectively to dynamic resource availability, highlighting its potential as a scalable and privacy-preserving foundation for next-generation LLM services.”

WWW.Serve establishes a fully decentralized peer-to-peer network connecting users with LLM service providers.

“WWW.Serve establishes a fully decentralized peer-to-peer network connecting users with LLM service providers.”

More aggressive quantization degrades response quality.

“More aggressive quantization degrades response quality, resulting in lower duel-and-judge win rates (0.54, 0.49, and 0.47).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Duel-and-judge win rates are a valid measure of LLM response quality.

The expected number of extra requests introduced by the duel-and-judge mechanism is Nαpd(1+k).

“Thus, the expected number of extra requests introduced by the duel-and-judge mechanism is Nαpd (1 + k),”

When combined with PoS-based request scheduling, low-quality nodes are gradually phased out of active participation.

“When combined with PoS-based request scheduling, it can be proved that low-quality nodes are gradually phased out of active participation”

WWW.Serve supports flexible collaboration policies.

“and supporting flexible collaboration policies.”