Mechanism Design and Blockchains

Game theory is often used as a tool to analyze decentralized systems and their properties, in particular, blockchains. In this note, we take the opposite view. We argue that blockchains can and should be used to implement economic mechanisms because they can help to overcome problems that occur if trust in the mechanism designer cannot be assumed. Mechanism design deals with the allocation of resources to agents, often by extracting private information from them. Some mechanisms are immune to early information disclosure, while others may heavily depend on it. Some mechanisms have to randomize to achieve fairness and efficiency. Both issues, information disclosure, and randomness require trust in the mechanism designer. If there is no trust, mechanisms can be manipulated. We claim that mechanisms that use randomness or sequential information disclosure are much harder, if not impossible, to audit. Therefore, centralized implementation is often not a good solution. We consider some of the most frequently used mechanisms in practice and identify circumstances under which manipulation is possible. We propose a decentralized implementation of such mechanisms, that can be, in practical terms, realized by blockchain technology. Moreover, we argue in which environments a decentralized implementation of a mechanism brings a significant advantage.

[1]  Daniel Davis Wood,et al.  ETHEREUM: A SECURE DECENTRALISED GENERALISED TRANSACTION LEDGER , 2014 .

[2]  Satoshi Nakamoto Bitcoin : A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System , 2009 .

[3]  Stuart G. Stubblebine,et al.  Publicly Verifiable Lotteries: Applications of Delaying Functions , 1998, Financial Cryptography.

[4]  Donald E. Eastlake,et al.  US Secure Hash Algorithm 1 (SHA1) , 2001, RFC.

[5]  Atila Abdulkadiroglu,et al.  School Choice: A Mechanism Design Approach , 2003 .

[6]  Dan Boneh,et al.  Verifiable Delay Functions , 2018, IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch..

[7]  Dmitry I. Ivanov,et al.  Identifying Bid Leakage in Procurement Auctions: Machine Learning Approach , 2019, EC.

[8]  Mohammad Akbarpour,et al.  Credible Mechanisms , 2018, EC.

[9]  Benjamin Wesolowski,et al.  Efficient Verifiable Delay Functions , 2019, Journal of Cryptology.

[10]  Judd B. Kessler,et al.  Course Match: A Large-Scale Implementation of Approximate Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes for Combinatorial Allocation , 2015, Oper. Res..

[11]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  An Axiomatic Approach to Block Rewards , 2019, AFT.

[12]  Bhaskar Krishnamachari,et al.  Solving the Buyer and Seller’s Dilemma: A Dual-Deposit Escrow Smart Contract for Provably Cheat-Proof Delivery and Payment for a Digital Good without a Trusted Mediator , 2018, 2019 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC).

[13]  Tilman Börgers,et al.  An introduction to the theory of mechanism design , 2015 .

[14]  Ronald L. Rivest,et al.  The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm , 1992, RFC.

[15]  Pasha Andreyanov,et al.  Detecting Auctioneer ’ s Corruption : Evidence from Russian Procurement Auctions ̊ , 2017 .

[16]  Polly S Nichols,et al.  Agreeing to disagree. , 2005, General dentistry.

[17]  Jun Sakuma,et al.  Round-Efficient Private Stable Matching from Additive Homomorphic Encryption , 2013, ISC.

[18]  Silvio Micali,et al.  The Round Complexity of Secure Protocols (Extended Abstract) , 1990, STOC 1990.

[19]  Krzysztof Pietrzak,et al.  Simple Verifiable Delay Functions , 2018, IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch..

[20]  Oriol Tejada,et al.  The Effect of Handicaps on Turnout for Large Electorates: An Application to Assessment Voting , 2021, J. Econ. Theory.

[21]  Thomas Heinz Meitinger,et al.  Smart Contracts , 2017, Informatik-Spektrum.