Liquidity in Credit Networks with Constrained Agents

In order to scale transaction rates for deployment across the global web, many cryptocurrencies have deployed so-called ”Layer-2” networks of private payment channels. An idealized payment network behaves like a Credit Network, a model for transactions across a network of bilateral trust relationships. Credit Networks capture many aspects of traditional currencies as well as new virtual currencies and payment mechanisms. In the traditional credit network model, if an agent defaults, every other node that trusted it is vulnerable to loss. In a cryptocurrency context, trust is manufactured by capital deposits, and thus there arises a natural tradeoff between network liquidity (i.e. the fraction of transactions that succeed) and the cost of capital deposits. In this paper, we introduce constraints that bound the total amount of loss that the rest of the network can suffer if an agent (or a set of agents) were to default - equivalently, how the network changes if agents can support limited solvency guarantees. We show that these constraints preserve the analytical structure of a credit network. Furthermore, we show that aggregate borrowing constraints greatly simplify the network structure and in the payment network context achieve the optimal tradeoff between liquidity and amount of escrowed capital.

[1]  Ashish Goel,et al.  Connectivity in Random Forests and Credit Networks , 2015, SODA.

[2]  David Mazières The Stellar Consensus Protocol : A Federated Model for Internet-level Consensus , 2015 .

[3]  Hans L. Bodlaender,et al.  A Partial k-Arboretum of Graphs with Bounded Treewidth , 1998, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[4]  Conrad Burchert,et al.  Scalable funding of Bitcoin micropayment channel networks , 2017, Royal Society Open Science.

[5]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Ostra: Leveraging Trust to Thwart Unwanted Communication , 2008, NSDI.

[6]  Earl T. Barr,et al.  TrustDavis: a non-exploitable online reputation system , 2005, Seventh IEEE International Conference on E-Commerce Technology (CEC'05).

[7]  Daniel J. Kleitman,et al.  Forests and score vectors , 1981, Comb..

[8]  Michael P. Wellman,et al.  Strategic formation of credit networks , 2012, WWW.

[9]  D. Welsh,et al.  On the computational complexity of the Jones and Tutte polynomials , 1990, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[10]  Charles Semple,et al.  Negative Correlation in Graphs and Matroids , 2008, Comb. Probab. Comput..

[11]  David M. Pennock,et al.  Mechanism Design on Trust Networks , 2007, WINE.

[12]  Anna Nagurney,et al.  On a Paradox of Traffic Planning , 2005, Transp. Sci..

[13]  M. Mobius,et al.  Trust and Social Collateral , 2007 .

[14]  Simina Brânzei,et al.  How to Charge Lightning , 2017, ArXiv.

[15]  Keith W. Ross,et al.  P2P Trading in Social Networks: The Value of Staying Connected , 2010, 2010 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM.

[16]  Ramesh Govindan,et al.  Liquidity in credit networks: a little trust goes a long way , 2011, EC '11.

[17]  David G. Wagner,et al.  Rayleigh Matroids , 2006, Comb. Probab. Comput..

[18]  Steven D. Noble,et al.  Evaluating the Tutte Polynomial for Graphs of Bounded Tree-Width , 1998, Combinatorics, Probability and Computing.