Dynamic posted-price mechanisms for the blockchain transaction-fee market

In recent years, prominent blockchain systems such as Bitcoin and Ethereum have experienced explosive growth in transaction volume, leading to frequent surges in demand for limited block space and causing transaction fees to fluctuate by orders of magnitude. The status quo auctions sell space using a first-price auction [27]; however, users find it difficult to estimate how much they need to bid in order to get their transactions accepted onto the chain. If they bid too low, their transactions can have long confirmation times. If they bid too high, they pay larger fees than necessary. In light of these issues, new transaction fee mechanisms have been proposed, most notably EIP-1559 [4], aiming to provide better usability. EIP-1559 is a history-dependent mechanism that relies on block utilization to adjust a base fee. We propose an alternative design - a dynamic posted-price mechanism - which uses not only block utilization but also observable bids from past blocks to compute a posted-price for subsequent blocks. We show its potential to reduce price volatility by providing examples for which the prices of EIP-1559 are unstable while the prices of the proposed mechanism are stable. More generally, whenever the demand for the blockchain stabilizes, we ask if our mechanism is able to converge to a stable state. Our main result provides sufficient conditions in a probabilistic setting for which the proposed mechanism is approximately welfare optimal and the prices are stable. Our main technical contribution towards establishing stability is an iterative algorithm that, given oracle access to a Lipschitz continuous and strictly concave function f, converges to a fixed point of f.

[1]  Emin Gün Sirer,et al.  StableFees: A Predictable Fee Market for Cryptocurrencie , 2019, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[2]  Mohammad Taghi Hajiaghayi,et al.  Online auctions with re-usable goods , 2005, EC '05.

[3]  John Kennan,et al.  Uniqueness of Positive Fixed Points for Increasing Concave Functions on Rn: An Elementary Result , 2001 .

[4]  S. Matthew Weinberg,et al.  Credible, Strategyproof, Optimal, and Bounded Expected-Round Single-Item Auctions for All Distributions , 2022, ITCS.

[5]  Aviv Zohar,et al.  Optimal Selfish Mining Strategies in Bitcoin , 2015, Financial Cryptography.

[6]  Jason D. Hartline,et al.  Multi-parameter mechanism design and sequential posted pricing , 2009, STOC '10.

[7]  Shuchi Chawla,et al.  Multi-parameter mechanism design and sequential posted pricing , 2010, BQGT.

[8]  Emin Gün Sirer,et al.  Majority Is Not Enough: Bitcoin Mining Is Vulnerable , 2013, Financial Cryptography.

[9]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Efficient Mechanisms with Dynamic Populations and Dynamic Types , 2009 .

[10]  S. Matthew Weinberg,et al.  Proof-of-Stake Mining Games with Perfect Randomness , 2021, EC.

[11]  Mohammad Akbarpour,et al.  Credible Auctions: A Trilemma , 2019, Econometrica.

[12]  C. Daskalakis,et al.  Simple, Credible, and Approximately-Optimal Auctions , 2020, EC.

[13]  S. Matthew Weinberg,et al.  On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward , 2016, CCS.

[14]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Specification faithfulness in networks with rational nodes , 2004, PODC '04.

[15]  Joan Feigenbaum,et al.  Distributed algorithmic mechanism design: recent results and future directions , 2002, DIALM '02.

[16]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Competitive analysis of incentive compatible on-line auctions , 2000, EC '00.

[17]  G. Herzog,et al.  A Fixed Point Theorem for Decreasing Functions , 2013 .

[18]  Benjamin Edelman,et al.  Strategic bidder behavior in sponsored search auctions , 2007, Decis. Support Syst..

[19]  S. Matthew Weinberg,et al.  Matroid prophet inequalities , 2012, STOC '12.

[20]  Roger B. Myerson,et al.  Optimal Auction Design , 1981, Math. Oper. Res..

[21]  S. Nakamoto,et al.  Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System , 2008 .

[22]  Or Sattath,et al.  Redesigning Bitcoin’s Fee Market , 2017, ACM Trans. Economics and Comput..

[23]  Jacob D. Leshno,et al.  Monopoly without a Monopolist: An Economic Analysis of the Bitcoin Payment System , 2017, The Review of Economic Studies.

[24]  D. Bergemann,et al.  The Dynamic Pivot Mechanism , 2008 .

[25]  Stefanos Leonardos,et al.  Dynamical analysis of the EIP-1559 Ethereum fee market , 2021, AFT.

[26]  L. Collatz Functional analysis and numerical mathematics , 1968 .

[27]  Andrew Chi-Chih Yao,et al.  An Incentive Analysis of some Bitcoin Fee Designs , 2018, ICALP.

[28]  Anna R. Karlin,et al.  Competitive auctions , 2006, Games Econ. Behav..

[29]  Kellen Petersen August Real Analysis , 2009 .

[30]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Algorithmic Game Theory , 2007 .

[31]  D.C. Parkes,et al.  Distributed implementations of Vickrey-Clarke-Groves mechanisms , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[32]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Transaction Fee Mechanism Design for the Ethereum Blockchain: An Economic Analysis of EIP-1559 , 2020, ArXiv.

[33]  S. Matthew Weinberg,et al.  Credible, Truthful, and Two-Round (Optimal) Auctions via Cryptographic Commitments , 2020, EC.

[34]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Distributed Games: From Mechanisms to Protocols , 1999, AAAI/IAAI.

[35]  David C. Parkes,et al.  An MDP-Based Approach to Online Mechanism Design , 2003, NIPS.