arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.26570

Bayesian Analysis of Inclusion Transaction Fee Mechanisms with Multiple Concurrent Proposers

Jason Milionis·Kushal Babel
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

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

cs.GT

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

arXiv2026

Sealed-bid Auctions on Blockchain with Timed Commitment Outsourcing

Sealed-bid auctions play a crucial role in blockchain ecosystems. Previous works introduced viable blockchain sealed-bid auction protocols, leveraging timed commitments for bid encryption. However, a crucial challenge remains unresolved in these works: Who should bear the cost of decrypting these timed commitments? This work introduces a timed commitment outsourcing market as a solution to this challenge. We first introduce an aggregation scheme for timed commitments, which combines all bidders' timed commitments into one while ensuring security and correctness and allowing a varying number of bidders. Next, we remodel the utility of auctioneers and timed commitment solvers, developing a new timed commitment competition mechanism and combining it with the sealed-bid auction to form a two-sided market. The protocol includes bid commitment collection, timed commitment solving, and payment. Through game-theoretical analysis, we prove that our protocol satisfies Dominant Strategy Incentive Compatibility (DSIC) for bidders and Bayesian Incentive Compatibility (BIC) for solvers, and achieves optimal revenue for the auctioneer among a large class of mechanisms. Finally, in the forced-opening-only model in which bidders cannot self-open, we prove that no mechanism can achieve positive expected revenue for the auctioneer while satisfying DSIC and Individual Rationality (IR) for both bidders and solvers, together with ex-post IR for the auctioneer.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Improved Weighted Maximin Share Guarantees for Indivisible Chores

We consider the problem of assigning indivisible chores to agents with different entitlements in the maximin share (\MMS) context. While constant-\MMS\ allocations are guaranteed to exist for both goods and chores in the symmetric setting, the situation becomes much more complex when agents have different entitlements. For the allocation of indivisible goods, it has been proven that an $n$-\WMMS\ (weighted \MMS) guarantee is the best one can hope for. For indivisible chores, however, it was recently proved that an $O(\log n)$-\WMMS\ assignment is guaranteed to exist. In this work, we improve this upper bound to a constant-\WMMS\ guarantee. We prove the existence of a $\tfrac{54}{5}$-$\WMMS$ assignment using a combinatorial layered moving-knife algorithm.\footnote{For concurrent and independent work by Li, Wang, and Xing~\cite{li2025constant}, see the \hyperref[remark:parallel-work]{remark on parallel work} in the introduction.} For every fixed $ε>0$, this yields a $(\tfrac{54}{5}+ε)$-$\WMMS$ assignment in polynomial time. Using a faster estimate of the weighted maximin shares instead gives a $\tfrac{108}{5}\cdot (1+ε)$-$\WMMS$ assignment in almost linear time. We also develop a chore-oblivious analysis that guarantees\linebreak $\WMMS$ approximation factors of approximately $2.06447$, $2.475855$, and $2.732051$ for three, four, and five agents, respectively.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Envy Cycle Elimination with Strategic Agents: Best Responses and Fairness Guarantees

With strong evidence in the literature showing that fairness and truthfulness are incompatible, there is a recent line of work focusing on the fairness properties of equilibria of simple fair division mechanisms, especially Round-Robin. We consider the Envy Cycle Elimination (E-C-E) procedure of Lipton et al. EC 2024, one of the most versatile tools in fair division. While this simple and intuitive algorithm achieves allocations that are envy-free up to one item (EF1) for any number of agents and general monotone valuation functions, surprisingly little is known about its behavior when agents act strategically. We demonstrate how the presence of incentives, although highly natural and relevant for the majority of applications, completely removes the intuitive clarity in the algorithm's execution, even for a few agents and very simple valuation functions. Additionally, while in the standard algorithmic setting there is great flexibility in how the details of E-C-E are implemented, here additional specifications are needed before the procedure is clearly defined, the choice of which has a potentially huge impact on the agents' behavior. Despite these obstacles, for various natural versions of E-C-E, we give the first results on the existence of Pure Nash Equilibria of the resulting mechanisms, and show there exist versions where fairness guarantees are approximately preserved for agents who play best responses\newx{, as long as there are at most three agents; for four or more agents, no such guarantee can hold for every best response, even at a pure Nash equilibrium. Our guarantees extend to monotone subadditive valuation functions. Moreover, best-responding additive agents always secure a constant fraction of their maximin share in the variants where the selected agent chooses her item.

cs.GT↗