IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2405.00235.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Blockchain Price vs. Quantity Controls

Author

Listed:
  • Abdoulaye Ndiaye

Abstract

This paper studies the optimal transaction fee mechanisms for blockchains, focusing on the distinction between price-based ($\mathcal{P}$) and quantity-based ($\mathcal{Q}$) controls. By analyzing factors such as demand uncertainty, validator costs, cryptocurrency price fluctuations, price elasticity of demand, and levels of decentralization, we establish criteria that determine the selection of transaction fee mechanisms. We present a model framed around a Nash bargaining game, exploring how blockchain designers and validators negotiate fee structures to balance network welfare with profitability. Our findings suggest that the choice between $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ mechanisms depends critically on the blockchain's specific technical and economic features. The study concludes that no single mechanism suits all contexts and highlights the potential for hybrid approaches that adaptively combine features of both $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ to meet varying demands and market conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Abdoulaye Ndiaye, 2024. "Blockchain Price vs. Quantity Controls," Papers 2405.00235, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2405.00235
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.00235
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin L. Weitzman, 1974. "Prices vs. Quantities," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 41(4), pages 477-491.
    2. Ricardo Reis, 2006. "Inattentive Producers," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 73(3), pages 793-821.
    3. Tim Roughgarden, 2021. "Transaction Fee Mechanism Design," Papers 2106.01340, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    4. Mohammad Akbarpour & Shengwu Li, 2020. "Credible Auctions: A Trilemma," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 425-467, March.
    5. Klemperer, Paul D & Meyer, Margaret A, 1989. "Supply Function Equilibria in Oligopoly under Uncertainty," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(6), pages 1243-1277, November.
    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. Markus Reisinger & Ludwig Ressner, 2006. "The Choice of Prices vs. Quantities under Uncertainty," Working Papers 007, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    2. Newbery, David M. & Greve, Thomas, 2017. "The strategic robustness of oligopoly electricity market models," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 124-132.
    3. Andrew Komo & Scott Duke Kominers & Tim Roughgarden, 2024. "Shill-Proof Auctions," Papers 2404.00475, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2024.
    4. Alexander Teytelboym & Shengwu Li & Scott Duke Kominers & Mohammad Akbarpour & Piotr Dworczak, 2021. "Discovering Auctions: Contributions of Paul Milgrom and Robert Wilson," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 123(3), pages 709-750, July.
    5. Paul Klemperer, 2010. "The Product-Mix Auction: A New Auction Design for Differentiated Goods," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 8(2-3), pages 526-536, 04-05.
    6. Joshua S. Gans & Richard Holden, 2022. "Mechanism Design Approaches to Blockchain Consensus," Papers 2206.10065, arXiv.org.
    7. Brown, Murray & Chiang, Shin-Hwan, 2002. "Unsystematic risk and coalition formation in product markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 313-338, March.
    8. Meryem Essaidi & Matheus V. X. Ferreira & S. Matthew Weinberg, 2022. "Credible, Strategyproof, Optimal, and Bounded Expected-Round Single-Item Auctions for all Distributions," Papers 2205.14758, arXiv.org.
    9. Maryam Bahrani & Pranav Garimidi & Tim Roughgarden, 2023. "Transaction Fee Mechanism Design with Active Block Producers," Papers 2307.01686, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    10. John Bennett & Ioana Chioveanu, 2019. "Pro‐Consumer Price Ceilings under Regulatory Uncertainty," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(4), pages 1757-1784, October.
    11. Matheus V. X. Ferreira & David C. Parkes, 2022. "Credible Decentralized Exchange Design via Verifiable Sequencing Rules," Papers 2209.15569, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    12. Paul Klemperer, 2018. "Product-Mix Auction," Economics Papers 2018-W07, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    13. Ekundayo Shittu & Geoffrey Parker & Xiaoyue Jiang, 2015. "Energy technology investments in competitive and regulatory environments," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 453-471, December.
    14. Mohammad Rasouli & Demosthenis Teneketzis, 2021. "Economizing the Uneconomic: Markets for Reliable, Sustainable, and Price Efficient Electricity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-38, April.
    15. Fankhauser, Samuel & Hepburn, Cameron, 2010. "Designing carbon markets. Part I: Carbon markets in time," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4363-4370, August.
    16. Evan F. Koenig, 1985. "Indirect Methods for Regulating Externalities Under Uncertainty," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 100(2), pages 479-493.
    17. Wallace E. Oates, 1990. "Economics, Economists, and Environmental Policy," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 16(4), pages 289-296, Oct-Dec.
    18. Inés Macho-Stadler, 2008. "Environmental regulation: choice of instruments under imperfect compliance," Spanish Economic Review, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, March.
    19. Carvalho, Carlos & Schwartzman, Felipe, 2015. "Selection and monetary non-neutrality in time-dependent pricing models," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 141-156.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:arx:papers:2405.00235. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.