IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/restud/v88y2021i6p3011-3040..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Monopoly without a Monopolist: An Economic Analysis of the Bitcoin Payment System
[Blockchain Economics]

Author

Listed:
  • Gur Huberman
  • Jacob D Leshno
  • Ciamac Moallemi

Abstract

Bitcoin provides its users with transaction-processing services which are similar to those of traditional payment systems. This article models the novel economic structure implied by Bitcoin’s innovative decentralized design, which allows the payment system to be reliably operated by unrelated parties called miners. We find that this decentralized design protects users from monopoly pricing. Competition among service providers within the platform and free entry imply no entity can profitably affect the level of fees paid by users. Instead, a market for transaction-processing determines the fees users pay to gain priority and avoid transaction-processing delays. The article (i) derives closed-form formulas of the fees and waiting times and studies their properties, (ii) compares pricing under the Bitcoin Payment System to that under a traditional payment system operated by a profit-maximizing firm, and (iii) suggests protocol design modifications to enhance the platform’s efficiency. The Appendix describes and explains the main attributes of Bitcoin and the underlying blockchain technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Gur Huberman & Jacob D Leshno & Ciamac Moallemi, 2021. "Monopoly without a Monopolist: An Economic Analysis of the Bitcoin Payment System [Blockchain Economics]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(6), pages 3011-3040.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:88:y:2021:i:6:p:3011-3040.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/restud/rdab014
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julian Wright, 2012. "Why payment card fees are biased against retailers," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(4), pages 761-780, December.
    2. Julien Prat & Benjamin Walter, 2021. "An Equilibrium Model of the Market for Bitcoin Mining," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(8), pages 2415-2452.
    3. Lui, Francis T, 1985. "An Equilibrium Queuing Model of Bribery," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(4), pages 760-781, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hunt, Jennifer & Laszlo, Sonia, 2005. "Bribery: Who Pays, Who Refuses, What are the Payoffs?," CEPR Discussion Papers 5251, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Dendi Ramdani & Arjen Witteloostuijn, 2012. "The Shareholder–Manager Relationship and Its Impact on the Likelihood of Firm Bribery," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 495-507, July.
    3. Bruno, August & Weber, Paige & Yates, Andrew J., 2023. "Can Bitcoin mining increase renewable electricity capacity?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    4. Maria Kravtsova & Aleksey Oshchepkov, 2019. "Market And Network Corruption," HSE Working papers WP BRP 209/EC/2019, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    5. Hanna Halaburda & Guillaume Haeringer & Joshua Gans & Neil Gandal, 2022. "The Microeconomics of Cryptocurrencies," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 60(3), pages 971-1013, September.
    6. Hunt, Jennifer, 2004. "Trust and Bribery: The Role of the Quid Pro Quo and the Link With Crime," CEPR Discussion Papers 4567, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Petra Koudelkova & Wadim Strielkowski & Denisa Hejlova, 2015. "Corruption and System Change in the Czech Republic: Firm-level Evidence," DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, European Association Comenius - EACO, issue 1, pages 25-46, March.
    8. Hu, Juncheng, 2021. "Do facilitation payments affect earnings management? Evidence from China," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    9. Di Guardo, Maria Chiara & Marrocu, Emanuela & Paci, Raffaele, 2016. "The effect of local corruption on ownership strategy in cross-border mergers and acquisitions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4225-4241.
    10. Marjit, Sugata & Mukherjee, Vivekananda & Mukherjee, Arijit, 2000. "Harassment, corruption and tax policy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 75-94, March.
    11. Shrabani Saha & Kunal Sen, 2019. "The corruption-growth relationship: Do political institutions matter?," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2019-65, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    12. Ghulam Shabbir & Mumtaz Anwar & Shahid Adil, 2016. "Corruption, Political Stability and Economic Growth," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 55(4), pages 689-702.
    13. Zhimeng Yang & Ariah Klages-Mundt & Lewis Gudgeon, 2023. "Oracle Counterpoint: Relationships between On-chain and Off-chain Market Data," Papers 2303.16331, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    14. Lin William Cong & Zhiguo He & Jiasun Li & Wei Jiang, 2021. "Decentralized Mining in Centralized Pools [Concentrating on the fall of the labor share]," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 34(3), pages 1191-1235.
    15. Lurdes Martins & Jorge Cerdeira & Aurora A.C. Teixeira, 2020. "Does corruption boost or harm firms’ performance in developing and emerging economies? A firm‐level study," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(8), pages 2119-2152, August.
    16. Jacob D. Leshno & Elaine Shi & Rafael Pass, 2024. "On the Viability of Open-Source Financial Rails: Economic Security of Permissionless Consensus," Papers 2409.08951, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2025.
    17. Marjit, Sugata & Shi, Heling, 1998. "On controlling crime with corrupt officials," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 163-172, January.
    18. Thomas Kittsteiner & Benny Moldovanu, 2005. "Priority Auctions and Queue Disciplines That Depend on Processing Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(2), pages 236-248, February.
    19. Huang, Shaoqing & Xie, Weisi & Xu, Xiaoshu, 2024. "Bureaucracy-business relationship, corruption and the implications for marketization," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 634-644.
    20. John Bennett & Matthew D. Rablen, 2021. "Bribery, hold‐up, and bureaucratic structure," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(3), pages 880-903, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:88:y:2021:i:6:p:3011-3040.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/restud .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.