The Automotive Data-Equity Loop: Converting Telemetry into Consumer-Owned Resale Value Through Verifiable Digital Passports
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22399/ijcesen.5032Keywords:
Automotive Telemetry, Verified Credentials, Data Equity, Consumer Privacy, Behavioral EconomicsAbstract
The transformation of vehicles into software-defined platforms creates a fundamental trust gap between consumers and entities seeking detailed telemetry data. Traditional incentive models, including direct payments and feature personalization, fail to motivate sustained telemetric sharing because they cannot overcome consumer concerns about surveillance, fairness, and asymmetric value extraction. This article introduces the Automotive Data-Equity Loop, a socio-technical framework that reframes telemetry sharing from data extraction to asset protection by converting operational data into durable, consumer-owned verified credentials that enhance resale value. The framework operates through three interconnected phases: value creation during ordinary vehicle use, value crystallization through privacy-preserving conversion of raw telemetry into tamper-resistant cryptographic credentials, and value realization when verified history reduces buyer uncertainty in resale transactions. The hybrid asset conceptual model positions vehicles as composite assets integrating physical components with verifiable digital history layers, leveraging behavioral-economic principles, including loss aversion and endowment effects, to align long-term consumer interests with platform data requirements. The transparency slider interface operationalizes graduated consent through multi-level controls mapping sharing choices to certification outcomes, while purpose-bound certificates restrict secondary use by design. Comparative analysis establishes testable hypotheses predicting that asset value enhancement outperforms alternative incentive structures through increased perceived fairness and reduced exploitation concerns. The governance blueprint addresses multi-stakeholder trust through explicit role definitions for credential issuers, verifiers, and marketplace participants, alongside threat models addressing consumer gaming, forgery attacks, and marketplace pressure dynamics. Implementation requires empirical validation through controlled experiments measuring adoption rates, persistence duration, and depth of consent, complemented by observational market studies assessing effects on resale prices, transaction velocity, and buyer confidence indicators. The framework demonstrates how consumer-generated data ecosystems can align with autonomy and long-term value creation when systems treat individuals as asset owners rather than extractable data sources, with implications extending beyond automotive contexts to broader Internet of Things and smart asset domains.
References
[1] Juan Contreras-Castillo et al., "Internet of Vehicles: Architecture, Protocols, and Security," IEEE Xplore, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7892008
[2] Alessandro Acquisti et al., "Privacy and human behavior in the age of information," Science, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1465
[3] Konstantinos Christidis, Michael Devetsikiotis, "Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things," IEEE Access, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7467408
[4] Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky, "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," The Econometric Society, 1979. [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1914185
[5] Alessandro Acquisti et al., "The Economics of Privacy," Journal of Economic Literature, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jel.54.2.442
[6] Richard H. Thaler, Cass R. Sunstein. "Libertarian paternalism," American Economic Review, 2003. [Online]. Available: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/000282803321947001
[7] Helen Nissenbaum, "Privacy as Contextual Integrity," Washington Law Review, 2004. [Online]. Available: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol79/iss1/10/
[8] Noah Apthorpe et al., "A Smart Home is No Castle: Privacy Vulnerabilities of Encrypted IoT Traffic," arXiv:1705.06805 [cs.CR], 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.06805
[9] Ali Dorri et al., "Blockchain for IoT security and privacy: The case study of a smart home," IEEE Xplore, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7917634
[10] Cynthia Dwork, Aaron Roth, "The Algorithmic Foundations of Differential Privacy," Emerald Insight, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.emerald.com/fttcs/article-abstract/9/3-4/211/1332491/The-Algorithmic-Foundations-of-Differential?redirectedFrom=fulltext
[11] Helen Nissenbaum, "Privacy as Contextual Integrity," Washington Law Review, 2004. [Online]. Available: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol79/iss1/10/
[12] W3C Recommendation, "Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0" 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/
[13] Feng Tian, "An agri-food supply chain traceability system for China based on RFID & blockchain technology," IEEE Xplore, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7538424
[14] Giulio Zanella, "Discrete Choice with Social Interactions and Endogenous Memberships," Journal of the European Economic Association, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40005163
[15] Gary S. Becker, Casey B. Mulligan, "The Endogenous Determination of Time Preference," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1997. [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2951254
[16] C. Adams et al., "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP)," RFC 3161, 2001. [Online]. Available: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3161
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Computational and Experimental Science and Engineering

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.