arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2609.20017

Who Aggregates Information? Screening, Rent, and the Coexistence of CLOB and AMM Prediction Markets

Abstract

Prediction-market shares differ from traditional financial products in that, with no information or outside utility, classical delta-neutral Central Limit Order Book~(CLOB) market making cannot be financed by payoff-uninformative noise flow. Transaction-level evidence from a major prediction-market CLOB platform shows makers profiting not from spread but from carrying an under-priced side to settlement --- the empirical signature of behavioral tail demand rather than classical, randomized noise. We build this tail demand directly into the model and study an LMSR and a CLOB on the same event. A pre-shock CLOB quote inside the common-signal band is picked off; competitive quotes therefore screen informed traders out of the book. CLOB makers earn screening rent by carrying the under-priced side to resolution, while informed flow routes to the LMSR. The venues coexist: the CLOB supplies the tail-demand rent margin that lets the LMSR recover part of its loss to informed flow, and AMM depth moves the CLOB premium with a sign set by maker-side contestability---widening it where standing quotes can be undercut, compressing it where a committed maker carries the book. With three or more outcomes, binary-book CLOBs pin switch prices but leave implied beliefs indeterminate, whereas the LMSR prices the outcome simplex coherently and uses collateral more efficiently.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Chengqi Zang, Gabriel P. Andrade, Tomoyuki Nakajima. 2026-09-17. Who Aggregates Information? Screening, Rent, and the Coexistence of CLOB and AMM Prediction Markets. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.20017

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN