-
Competition Complexity in Multi-Item Auctions: Beyond VCG and Regularity
Authors:
Hedyeh Beyhaghi,
Linda Cai,
Yiding Feng,
Yingkai Li,
S. Matthew Weinberg
Abstract:
We quantify the value of the monopoly's bargaining power in terms of competition complexity--that is, the number of additional bidders the monopoly must attract in simple auctions to match the expected revenue of the optimal mechanisms (c.f., Bulow and Klemperer, 1996, Eden et al., 2017)--within the setting of multi-item auctions. We show that for simple auctions that sell items separately, the co…
▽ More
We quantify the value of the monopoly's bargaining power in terms of competition complexity--that is, the number of additional bidders the monopoly must attract in simple auctions to match the expected revenue of the optimal mechanisms (c.f., Bulow and Klemperer, 1996, Eden et al., 2017)--within the setting of multi-item auctions. We show that for simple auctions that sell items separately, the competition complexity is $Θ(\frac{n}α)$ in an environment with $n$ original bidders under the slightly stronger assumption of $α$-strong regularity, in contrast to the standard regularity assumption in the literature, which requires $Ω(n \cdot \ln \frac{m}{n})$ additional bidders (Feldman et al., 2018). This significantly reduces the value of learning the distribution to design the optimal mechanisms, especially in large markets with many items for sale. For simple auctions that sell items as a grand bundle, we establish a constant competition complexity bound in a single-bidder environment when the number of items is small or when the value distribution has a monotone hazard rate. Some of our competition complexity results also hold when we compete against the first best benchmark (i.e., optimal social welfare).
△ Less
Submitted 10 June, 2025;
originally announced June 2025.
-
Revisiting the Primitives of Transaction Fee Mechanism Design
Authors:
Aadityan Ganesh,
Clayton Thomas,
S. Matthew Weinberg
Abstract:
Transaction Fee Mechanism Design studies auctions run by untrusted miners for transaction inclusion in a blockchain. Under previously-considered desiderata, an auction is considered `good' if, informally-speaking, each party (i.e., the miner, the users, and coalitions of both miners and users) has no incentive to deviate from the fixed and pre-determined protocol.
In this paper, we propose a nov…
▽ More
Transaction Fee Mechanism Design studies auctions run by untrusted miners for transaction inclusion in a blockchain. Under previously-considered desiderata, an auction is considered `good' if, informally-speaking, each party (i.e., the miner, the users, and coalitions of both miners and users) has no incentive to deviate from the fixed and pre-determined protocol.
In this paper, we propose a novel desideratum for transaction fee mechanisms. We say that a TFM is off-chain influence proof when the miner cannot achieve additional revenue by running a separate auction off-chain. While the previously-highlighted EIP-1559 is the gold-standard according to prior desiderata, we show that it does not satisfy off-chain influence proofness. Intuitively, this holds because a Bayesian revenue-maximizing miner can strictly increase profits by persuasively threatening to censor any bids that do not transfer a tip directly to the miner off-chain.
On the other hand, we reconsider the Cryptographic (multi-party computation assisted) Second Price Auction mechanism, which is technically not `simple for miners' according to previous desiderata (since miners may wish to set a reserve by fabricating bids). We show that, in a slightly different model where the miner is allowed to set the reserve directly, this auction satisfies simplicity for users and miners, and off-chain influence proofness.
Finally, we prove a strong impossibility result: no mechanism satisfies all previously-considered properties along with off-chain influence proofness, even with unlimited supply, and even after soliciting input from the miner.
△ Less
Submitted 9 October, 2024;
originally announced October 2024.
-
Computing Optimal Manipulations in Cryptographic Self-Selection Proof-of-Stake Protocols
Authors:
Matheus V. X. Ferreira,
Aadityan Ganesh,
Jack Hourigan,
Hannah Huh,
S. Matthew Weinberg,
Catherine Yu
Abstract:
Cryptographic Self-Selection is a paradigm employed by modern Proof-of-Stake consensus protocols to select a block-proposing "leader." Algorand [Chen and Micali, 2019] proposes a canonical protocol, and Ferreira et al. [2022] establish bounds $f(α,β)$ on the maximum fraction of rounds a strategic player can lead as a function of their stake $α$ and a network connectivity parameter $β$. While both…
▽ More
Cryptographic Self-Selection is a paradigm employed by modern Proof-of-Stake consensus protocols to select a block-proposing "leader." Algorand [Chen and Micali, 2019] proposes a canonical protocol, and Ferreira et al. [2022] establish bounds $f(α,β)$ on the maximum fraction of rounds a strategic player can lead as a function of their stake $α$ and a network connectivity parameter $β$. While both their lower and upper bounds are non-trivial, there is a substantial gap between them (for example, they establish $f(10\%,1) \in [10.08\%, 21.12\%]$), leaving open the question of how significant of a concern these manipulations are. We develop computational methods to provably nail $f(α,β)$ for any desired $(α,β)$ up to arbitrary precision, and implement our method on a wide range of parameters (for example, we confirm $f(10\%,1) \in [10.08\%, 10.15\%]$).
Methodologically, estimating $f(α,β)$ can be phrased as estimating to high precision the value of a Markov Decision Process whose states are countably-long lists of real numbers. Our methodological contributions involve (a) reformulating the question instead as computing to high precision the expected value of a distribution that is a fixed-point of a non-linear sampling operator, and (b) provably bounding the error induced by various truncations and sampling estimations of this distribution (which appears intractable to solve in closed form). One technical challenge, for example, is that natural sampling-based estimates of the mean of our target distribution are \emph{not} unbiased estimators, and therefore our methods necessarily go beyond claiming sufficiently-many samples to be close to the mean.
△ Less
Submitted 21 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
Contracting with a Learning Agent
Authors:
Guru Guruganesh,
Yoav Kolumbus,
Jon Schneider,
Inbal Talgam-Cohen,
Emmanouil-Vasileios Vlatakis-Gkaragkounis,
Joshua R. Wang,
S. Matthew Weinberg
Abstract:
Many real-life contractual relations differ completely from the clean, static model at the heart of principal-agent theory. Typically, they involve repeated strategic interactions of the principal and agent, taking place under uncertainty and over time. While appealing in theory, players seldom use complex dynamic strategies in practice, often preferring to circumvent complexity and approach uncer…
▽ More
Many real-life contractual relations differ completely from the clean, static model at the heart of principal-agent theory. Typically, they involve repeated strategic interactions of the principal and agent, taking place under uncertainty and over time. While appealing in theory, players seldom use complex dynamic strategies in practice, often preferring to circumvent complexity and approach uncertainty through learning. We initiate the study of repeated contracts with a learning agent, focusing on agents who achieve no-regret outcomes.
Optimizing against a no-regret agent is a known open problem in general games; we achieve an optimal solution to this problem for a canonical contract setting, in which the agent's choice among multiple actions leads to success/failure. The solution has a surprisingly simple structure: for some $α> 0$, initially offer the agent a linear contract with scalar $α$, then switch to offering a linear contract with scalar $0$. This switch causes the agent to ``free-fall'' through their action space and during this time provides the principal with non-zero reward at zero cost. Despite apparent exploitation of the agent, this dynamic contract can leave \emph{both} players better off compared to the best static contract. Our results generalize beyond success/failure, to arbitrary non-linear contracts which the principal rescales dynamically.
Finally, we quantify the dependence of our results on knowledge of the time horizon, and are the first to address this consideration in the study of strategizing against learning agents.
△ Less
Submitted 29 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
-
Optimal Stopping with Multi-Dimensional Comparative Loss Aversion
Authors:
Linda Cai,
Joshua Gardner,
S. Matthew Weinberg
Abstract:
Despite having the same basic prophet inequality setup and model of loss aversion, conclusions in our multi-dimensional model differs considerably from the one-dimensional model of Kleinberg et al. For example, Kleinberg et al. gives a tight closed-form on the competitive ratio that an online decision-maker can achieve as a function of $λ$, for any $λ\geq 0$. In our multi-dimensional model, there…
▽ More
Despite having the same basic prophet inequality setup and model of loss aversion, conclusions in our multi-dimensional model differs considerably from the one-dimensional model of Kleinberg et al. For example, Kleinberg et al. gives a tight closed-form on the competitive ratio that an online decision-maker can achieve as a function of $λ$, for any $λ\geq 0$. In our multi-dimensional model, there is a sharp phase transition: if $k$ denotes the number of dimensions, then when $λ\cdot (k-1) \geq 1$, no non-trivial competitive ratio is possible. On the other hand, when $λ\cdot (k-1) < 1$, we give a tight bound on the achievable competitive ratio (similar to Kleinberg et al.). As another example, Kleinberg et al. uncovers an exponential improvement in their competitive ratio for the random-order vs. worst-case prophet inequality problem. In our model with $k\geq 2$ dimensions, the gap is at most a constant-factor. We uncover several additional key differences in the multi- and single-dimensional models.
△ Less
Submitted 26 September, 2023; v1 submitted 25 September, 2023;
originally announced September 2023.
-
Optimal Strategic Mining Against Cryptographic Self-Selection in Proof-of-Stake
Authors:
Matheus V. X. Ferreira,
Ye Lin Sally Hahn,
S. Matthew Weinberg,
Catherine Yu
Abstract:
Cryptographic Self-Selection is a subroutine used to select a leader for modern proof-of-stake consensus protocols, such as Algorand. In cryptographic self-selection, each round $r$ has a seed $Q_r$. In round $r$, each account owner is asked to digitally sign $Q_r$, hash their digital signature to produce a credential, and then broadcast this credential to the entire network. A publicly-known func…
▽ More
Cryptographic Self-Selection is a subroutine used to select a leader for modern proof-of-stake consensus protocols, such as Algorand. In cryptographic self-selection, each round $r$ has a seed $Q_r$. In round $r$, each account owner is asked to digitally sign $Q_r$, hash their digital signature to produce a credential, and then broadcast this credential to the entire network. A publicly-known function scores each credential in a manner so that the distribution of the lowest scoring credential is identical to the distribution of stake owned by each account. The user who broadcasts the lowest-scoring credential is the leader for round $r$, and their credential becomes the seed $Q_{r+1}$. Such protocols leave open the possibility of a selfish-mining style attack: a user who owns multiple accounts that each produce low-scoring credentials in round $r$ can selectively choose which ones to broadcast in order to influence the seed for round $r+1$. Indeed, the user can pre-compute their credentials for round $r+1$ for each potential seed, and broadcast only the credential (among those with a low enough score to be the leader) that produces the most favorable seed.
We consider an adversary who wishes to maximize the expected fraction of rounds in which an account they own is the leader. We show such an adversary always benefits from deviating from the intended protocol, regardless of the fraction of the stake controlled. We characterize the optimal strategy; first by proving the existence of optimal positive recurrent strategies whenever the adversary owns last than $38\%$ of the stake. Then, we provide a Markov Decision Process formulation to compute the optimal strategy.
△ Less
Submitted 16 July, 2022;
originally announced July 2022.
-
Credible, Strategyproof, Optimal, and Bounded Expected-Round Single-Item Auctions for all Distributions
Authors:
Meryem Essaidi,
Matheus V. X. Ferreira,
S. Matthew Weinberg
Abstract:
We consider a revenue-maximizing seller with a single item for sale to multiple buyers with i.i.d. valuations. Akbarpour and Li (2020) show that the only optimal, credible, strategyproof auction is the ascending price auction with reserves which has unbounded communication complexity. Recent work of Ferreira and Weinberg (2020) circumvents their impossibility result assuming the existence of crypt…
▽ More
We consider a revenue-maximizing seller with a single item for sale to multiple buyers with i.i.d. valuations. Akbarpour and Li (2020) show that the only optimal, credible, strategyproof auction is the ascending price auction with reserves which has unbounded communication complexity. Recent work of Ferreira and Weinberg (2020) circumvents their impossibility result assuming the existence of cryptographically secure commitment schemes, and designs a two-round credible, strategyproof, optimal auction. However, their auction is only credible when buyers' valuations are MHR or $α$-strongly regular: they show their auction might not be credible even when there is a single buyer drawn from a non-MHR distribution. In this work, under the same cryptographic assumptions, we identify a new single-item auction that is credible, strategyproof, revenue optimal, and terminates in constant rounds in expectation for all distributions with finite monopoly price.
△ Less
Submitted 29 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
-
Proof-of-Stake Mining Games with Perfect Randomness
Authors:
Matheus V. X. Ferreira,
S. Matthew Weinberg
Abstract:
Proof-of-Stake blockchains based on a longest-chain consensus protocol are an attractive energy-friendly alternative to the Proof-of-Work paradigm. However, formal barriers to "getting the incentives right" were recently discovered, driven by the desire to use the blockchain itself as a source of pseudorandomness \cite{brown2019formal}.
We consider instead a longest-chain Proof-of-Stake protocol…
▽ More
Proof-of-Stake blockchains based on a longest-chain consensus protocol are an attractive energy-friendly alternative to the Proof-of-Work paradigm. However, formal barriers to "getting the incentives right" were recently discovered, driven by the desire to use the blockchain itself as a source of pseudorandomness \cite{brown2019formal}.
We consider instead a longest-chain Proof-of-Stake protocol with perfect, trusted, external randomness (e.g. a randomness beacon). We produce two main results.
First, we show that a strategic miner can strictly outperform an honest miner with just $32.5\%$ of the total stake. Note that a miner of this size {\em cannot} outperform an honest miner in the Proof-of-Work model. This establishes that even with access to a perfect randomness beacon, incentives in Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake longest-chain protocols are fundamentally different.
Second, we prove that a strategic miner cannot outperform an honest miner with $30.8\%$ of the total stake. This means that, while not quite as secure as the Proof-of-Work regime, desirable incentive properties of Proof-of-Work longest-chain protocols can be approximately recovered via Proof-of-Stake with a perfect randomness beacon.
The space of possible strategies in a Proof-of-Stake mining game is {\em significantly} richer than in a Proof-of-Work game. Our main technical contribution is a characterization of potentially optimal strategies for a strategic miner, and in particular, a proof that the corresponding infinite-state MDP admits an optimal strategy that is positive recurrent.
△ Less
Submitted 14 December, 2021; v1 submitted 8 July, 2021;
originally announced July 2021.
-
Prior-free Dynamic Mechanism Design With Limited Liability
Authors:
Mark Braverman,
Jon Schneider,
S. Matthew Weinberg
Abstract:
We study the problem of repeatedly auctioning off an item to one of $k$ bidders where: a) bidders have a per-round individual rationality constraint, b) bidders may leave the mechanism at any point, and c) the bidders' valuations are adversarially chosen (the prior-free setting). Without these constraints, the auctioneer can run a second-price auction to "sell the business" and receive the second…
▽ More
We study the problem of repeatedly auctioning off an item to one of $k$ bidders where: a) bidders have a per-round individual rationality constraint, b) bidders may leave the mechanism at any point, and c) the bidders' valuations are adversarially chosen (the prior-free setting). Without these constraints, the auctioneer can run a second-price auction to "sell the business" and receive the second highest total value for the entire stream of items. We show that under these constraints, the auctioneer can attain a constant fraction of the "sell the business" benchmark, but no more than $2/e$ of this benchmark.
In the course of doing so, we design mechanisms for a single bidder problem of independent interest: how should you repeatedly sell an item to a (per-round IR) buyer with adversarial valuations if you know their total value over all rounds is $V$ but not how their value changes over time? We demonstrate a mechanism that achieves revenue $V/e$ and show that this is tight.
△ Less
Submitted 2 March, 2021;
originally announced March 2021.
-
Exponential Communication Separations between Notions of Selfishness
Authors:
Aviad Rubinstein,
Raghuvansh R. Saxena,
Clayton Thomas,
S. Mathew Weinberg,
Junyao Zhao
Abstract:
We consider the problem of implementing a fixed social choice function between multiple players (which takes as input a type $t_i$ from each player $i$ and outputs an outcome $f(t_1,\ldots, t_n)$), in which each player must be incentivized to follow the protocol. In particular, we study the communication requirements of a protocol which: (a) implements $f$, (b) implements $f$ and computes payments…
▽ More
We consider the problem of implementing a fixed social choice function between multiple players (which takes as input a type $t_i$ from each player $i$ and outputs an outcome $f(t_1,\ldots, t_n)$), in which each player must be incentivized to follow the protocol. In particular, we study the communication requirements of a protocol which: (a) implements $f$, (b) implements $f$ and computes payments that make it ex-post incentive compatible (EPIC) to follow the protocol, and (c) implements $f$ and computes payments in a way that makes it dominant-strategy incentive compatible (DSIC) to follow the protocol.
We show exponential separations between all three of these quantities, already for just two players. That is, we first construct an $f$ such that $f$ can be implemented in communication $c$, but any EPIC implementation of $f$ (with any choice of payments) requires communication $\exp(c)$. This answers an open question of [FS09, BBS13]. Second, we construct an $f$ such that an EPIC protocol implements $f$ with communication $C$, but all DSIC implementations of $f$ require communication $\exp(C)$.
△ Less
Submitted 2 June, 2021; v1 submitted 29 December, 2020;
originally announced December 2020.
-
Credible, Truthful, and Two-Round (Optimal) Auctions via Cryptographic Commitments
Authors:
Matheus V. X. Ferreira,
S. Matthew Weinberg
Abstract:
We consider the sale of a single item to multiple buyers by a revenue-maximizing seller. Recent work of Akbarpour and Li formalizes \emph{credibility} as an auction desideratum, and prove that the only optimal, credible, strategyproof auction is the ascending price auction with reserves (Akbarpour and Li, 2019).
In contrast, when buyers' valuations are MHR, we show that the mild additional assum…
▽ More
We consider the sale of a single item to multiple buyers by a revenue-maximizing seller. Recent work of Akbarpour and Li formalizes \emph{credibility} as an auction desideratum, and prove that the only optimal, credible, strategyproof auction is the ascending price auction with reserves (Akbarpour and Li, 2019).
In contrast, when buyers' valuations are MHR, we show that the mild additional assumption of a cryptographically secure commitment scheme suffices for a simple \emph{two-round} auction which is optimal, strategyproof, and credible (even when the number of bidders is only known by the auctioneer).
We extend our analysis to the case when buyer valuations are $α$-strongly regular for any $α> 0$, up to arbitrary $\varepsilon$ in credibility. Interestingly, we also prove that this construction cannot be extended to regular distributions, nor can the $\varepsilon$ be removed with multiple bidders.
△ Less
Submitted 25 May, 2020; v1 submitted 3 April, 2020;
originally announced April 2020.
