Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.26570

Bayesian Analysis of Inclusion Transaction Fee Mechanisms with Multiple Concurrent Proposers

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to distill insight around the trade-offs present on Bayesian equilibria of transaction fee mechanism (TFM) design under $n$ multiple concurrent proposers (MCP). We conceptualize a technical toolkit that unlocks the analysis of hard-to-characterize equilibria of finite Bayesian MCP TFM games by examining sequences of joint user--proposer mixed equilibria as the number of users increases and keeping the relative congestion $ρ$ that they cause fixed in the sequence limit. We first consider the popular mechanisms of "pay-once" (which charges transactions its bid only once regardless of the duplicate copies that end up being included by proposers) and "pay-per-inclusion" (PPI in short, which charges a transaction for each copy that appears). We prove that PPI is efficient in the limit of equilibria sequences, and incentivizes users to route to only one proposer. We characterize $m$ users' asymptotic behavior in PPI even in finite markets varying with $O(\sqrt{m})$, where we show users in a $Θ(n\sqrt{ρ(1-ρ)/m})$ window near an efficient cutoff exhibit fixed inclusion probability akin to a normal distribution's CDF. We additionally show that on a value-dependent basis, pay-once exhibits a higher degree of duplication and lower probability of inclusion for higher-value transactions than PPI. Pay-once's inefficiency persists even in the large market limit and even in regimes with ample blockspace where all transactions fit across all blocks. We study interpolations between these two mechanisms proving that some higher coefficients (towards PPI) reduce duplication and increase inclusion probability. We then use our tools to show that exclusive proposer payments yield inefficient equilibria (in fact, with maximal possible duplication), even if users still pay multiple times when included more than once and their payment is burnt when non-exclusive.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jason Milionis, Kushal Babel. 2026-10-19. Bayesian Analysis of Inclusion Transaction Fee Mechanisms with Multiple Concurrent Proposers. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.26570

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Matching Markets: Equilibrium Computation, Indivisible Goods, and Positional Externalities

Matching markets provide a mathematical framework for allocating scarce resources among strategic agents with heterogeneous preferences. While matching without money relies on ordinal stability and Pareto efficiency, Fisher and Arrow--Debreu markets mediate allocation through budgets and market-clearing prices. In this paper, we study the convex-analytic foundations, computational complexity, and external-utility extensions of Fisher matching markets. First, we formulate fractional resource allocation and linear Fisher markets via Fenchel conjugate duality and the Karush--Kuhn--Tucker (KKT) conditions of the Eisenberg--Gale convex program, showing how budget-weighted Nash social welfare characterizes competitive equilibria across linear and homothetic utility families. Second, we review topological existence via Sperner's lemma alongside polynomial-time combinatorial algorithms for divisible markets, including the Devanur--Papadimitriou--Saberi--Vazirani (DPSV) primal-dual max-flow algorithm and Orlin's strongly polynomial scaling algorithm. Third, we contrast the tractability of divisible markets with the $\mathsf{NP}$-hardness and $\mathsf{PPAD}$-completeness of indivisible Fisher markets and Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes (CEEI), comparing $\varepsilon$-approximate equilibria, CEEI-FRAC, and Budish's Approximate CEEI mechanism. Finally, we analyze Fisher markets with positional (snob-effect) externalities, where buyer $i$'s utility for good $j$ scales with her relative share $(x_{ij}/\sum_{k} x_{kj})^{α_i}$ for $α_i > 0$. We prove that positional utility summands are convex on the nonnegative orthant, so utilitarian social welfare is maximized at exclusive corner allocations, whereas decentralized price-taking admits a unique budget-proportional equilibrium in single-good snob markets with a Price of Anarchy of $n^α$ among $n$ symmetric buyers.

cs.GT↗

Blockchain Participation Games with Upfront Contribution Commitment

Blockchain participation games combine costly entry, random participation selection, and threshold success into consideration. Their retraction variants charge task-completion costs only to selected contributors. We consider committee tasks whose operators reserve costly computing or communication capacity before assignment, so preparation costs are incurred even when that capacity is not selected. We characterize all pure Nash equilibria under homogeneous selection and analyze how heterogeneous selection shapes who commits. We characterize how the homogeneous minimum-outlay reward scheme supports full contribution, where every user commits, as a Nash equilibrium. Moreover, under heterogeneous selection, requiring zero registration reward can increase the minimum outlay. Finally, when full contribution is a positive-welfare social optimum, the homogeneous zero-registration-reward design attains price of stability one; and under independent Bernoulli selection, every full-contribution Nash equilibrium is also a strong equilibrium.

cs.GT↗

Adversarial procurement in blockchains

An emerging blockchain protocol design pattern leverages the asymmetry between the computational effort in performing versus verifying tasks. For example, cryptographic validity proofs (e.g., SNARKS) require the prover to expend significant effort demonstrating the correctness of their claim, while the verifiers benefit from extremely easy validation. The operationalization of this paradigm requires efficiently soliciting the performance of expensive tasks in pseudonymous, adversarial environments. We formalize this as a mechanism design question. The protocol balances the economic cost of a liveness fault, where the work is not completed, with the payments required to incentivize specific behavior from candidate suppliers. We show that the loss of the optimal protocol scales logarithmically in the cost of a liveness fault, scaled up by the adversarial fraction of the network. Further, we find that the optimal equilibria have an intuitive structure, allowing us to provide concrete advice to practitioners. Specifically, in many regimes, the optimum designates a single, random node as the primary worker and a committee as a fallback, which is reminiscent of leader-based consensus mechanisms. We also characterize the asymptotic regimes where having negative payments (i.e., slashing in blockchain parlance) is especially helpful.

cs.GT↗