Strategic formation of credit networks

Credit networks are an abstraction for modeling trust between agents in a network. Agents who do not directly trust each other can transact through exchange of IOUs (obligations) along a chain of trust in the network. Credit networks are robust to intrusion, can enable transactions between strangers in exchange economies, and have the liquidity to support a high rate of transactions. We study the formation of such networks when agents strategically decide how much credit to extend each other. When each agent trusts a fixed set of other agents, and transacts directly only with those it trusts, the formation game is a potential game and all Nash equilibria are social optima. Moreover, the Nash equilibria of this game are equivalent in a very strong sense: the sequences of transactions that can be supported from each equilibrium credit network are identical. When we allow transactions over longer paths, the game may not admit a Nash equilibrium, and even when it does, the price of anarchy may be unbounded. Hence, we study two special cases. First, when agents have a shared belief about the trustworthiness of each agent, the networks formed in equilibrium have a star-like structure. Though the price of anarchy is unbounded, myopic best response quickly converges to a social optimum. Similar star-like structures are found in equilibria of heuristic strategies found via simulation. In addition, we simulate a second case where agents may have varying information about each others' trustworthiness based on their distance in a social network. Empirical game analysis of these scenarios suggests that star structures arise only when defaults are relatively rare, and otherwise, credit tends to be issued over short social distances conforming to the locality of information.

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

[2]  David C. Parkes,et al.  A study of Nash equilibrium in contribution games for peer-to-peer networks , 2006, OPSR.

[3]  M. Barnard Needle sharing in context: patterns of sharing among men and women injectors and HIV risks. , 1993, Addiction.

[4]  Ramesh Govindan,et al.  Liquidity in credit networks: a little trust goes a long way , 2010, EC '11.

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

[6]  Michael P. Wellman,et al.  Approximate Strategic Reasoning through Hierarchical Reduction of Large Symmetric Games , 2005, AAAI.

[7]  M. Jackson,et al.  A Strategic Model of Social and Economic Networks , 1996 .

[8]  Scott Shenker,et al.  On a network creation game , 2003, PODC '03.

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

[10]  Mohammad Mahdian Fighting Censorship with Algorithms , 2010, FUN.

[11]  A. Neyman Correlated equilibrium and potential games , 1997 .

[12]  Martin Hoefer,et al.  Contribution Games in Networks , 2010, Algorithmica.

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

[14]  Éva Tardos,et al.  Network Formation in the Presence of Contagious Risk , 2011, TEAC.

[15]  Lisa Sattenspiel,et al.  Modeling and analyzing HIV transmission: the effect of contact patterns , 1988 .

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

[17]  Sanjeev Goyal,et al.  A Noncooperative Model of Network Formation , 2000 .

[18]  M. Jackson,et al.  Social Capital and Social Quilts: Network Patterns of Favor Exchange , 2011 .