IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2303.00208.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Myersonian Framework for Optimal Liquidity Provision in Automated Market Makers

Author

Listed:
  • Jason Milionis
  • Ciamac C. Moallemi
  • Tim Roughgarden

Abstract

In decentralized finance ("DeFi"), automated market makers (AMMs) enable traders to programmatically exchange one asset for another. Such trades are enabled by the assets deposited by liquidity providers (LPs). The goal of this paper is to characterize and interpret the optimal (i.e., profit-maximizing) strategy of a monopolist liquidity provider, as a function of that LP's beliefs about asset prices and trader behavior. We introduce a general framework for reasoning about AMMs based on a Bayesian-like belief inference framework, where LPs maintain an asset price estimate. In this model, the market maker (i.e., LP) chooses a demand curve that specifies the quantity of a risky asset to be held at each dollar price. Traders arrive sequentially and submit a price bid that can be interpreted as their estimate of the risky asset price; the AMM responds to this submitted bid with an allocation of the risky asset to the trader, a payment that the trader must pay, and a revised internal estimate for the true asset price. We define an incentive-compatible (IC) AMM as one in which a trader's optimal strategy is to submit its true estimate of the asset price, and characterize the IC AMMs as those with downward-sloping demand curves and payments defined by a formula familiar from Myerson's optimal auction theory. We generalize Myerson's virtual values, and characterize the profit-maximizing IC AMM. The optimal demand curve generally has a jump that can be interpreted as a "bid-ask spread," which we show is caused by a combination of adverse selection risk (dominant when the degree of information asymmetry is large) and monopoly pricing (dominant when asymmetry is small). This work opens up new research directions into the study of automated exchange mechanisms from the lens of optimal auction theory and iterative belief inference, using tools of theoretical computer science in a novel way.

Suggested Citation

  • Jason Milionis & Ciamac C. Moallemi & Tim Roughgarden, 2023. "A Myersonian Framework for Optimal Liquidity Provision in Automated Market Makers," Papers 2303.00208, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2303.00208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.00208
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jason D. Hartline, 2012. "Approximation in Mechanism Design," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(3), pages 330-336, May.
    2. Roger B. Myerson, 1981. "Optimal Auction Design," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 58-73, February.
    3. Chawla, Shuchi & Hartline, Jason D. & Sivan, Balasubramanian, 2019. "Optimal crowdsourcing contests," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 80-96.
    4. Glosten, Lawrence R, 1989. "Insider Trading, Liquidity, and the Role of the Monopolist Specialist," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62(2), pages 211-235, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guillermo Angeris & Tarun Chitra & Theo Diamandis & Alex Evans & Kshitij Kulkarni, 2023. "The Geometry of Constant Function Market Makers," Papers 2308.08066, arXiv.org.
    2. Michael J. Curry & Zhou Fan & David C. Parkes, 2024. "Optimal Automated Market Makers: Differentiable Economics and Strong Duality," Papers 2402.09129, arXiv.org.

    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. Alaei, Saeed & Hartline, Jason & Niazadeh, Rad & Pountourakis, Emmanouil & Yuan, Yang, 2019. "Optimal auctions vs. anonymous pricing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 494-510.
    2. Babaioff, Moshe & Blumrosen, Liad & Roth, Aaron, 2015. "Auctions with online supply," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 227-246.
    3. Noldeke, Georg & Samuelson, Larry, 2007. "Optimal bunching without optimal control," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 405-420, May.
    4. Marco Battaglini & Rohit Lamba, 2012. "Optimal Dynamic Contracting," Working Papers 1431, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Econometric Research Program..
    5. Mailath, George J. & Nöldeke, Georg, 2006. "Extreme Adverse Selection, Competitive Pricing, and Market Breakdown," Working papers 2006/09, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    6. Mailath, George J. & Nöldeke, Georg, 2008. "Does competitive pricing cause market breakdown under extreme adverse selection?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 97-125, May.
    7. Fupeng Sun & Yanwei Sun & Chiwei Yan & Li Jin, 2022. "Restricting Entries to All-Pay Contests," Papers 2205.08104, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    8. Zhuoqiong Chen, 2021. "All-pay auctions with private signals about opponents’ values," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 25(1), pages 33-64, June.
    9. Li, Yunan, 2017. "Approximation in mechanism design with interdependent values," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 225-253.
    10. Liu, Bin & Lu, Jingfeng, 2023. "Optimal orchestration of rewards and punishments in rank-order contests," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    11. Carmen Beviá & Luis Corchón, 2022. "Contests with dominant strategies," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 74(4), pages 1-19, November.
    12. Wasser, Cédric & Zhang, Mengxi, 2023. "Differential treatment and the winner's effort in contests with incomplete information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 90-111.
    13. Devanur, Nikhil R. & Hartline, Jason D. & Yan, Qiqi, 2015. "Envy freedom and prior-free mechanism design," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 103-143.
    14. Hemant K. Bhargava & Gergely Csapó & Rudolf Müller, 2020. "On Optimal Auctions for Mixing Exclusive and Shared Matching in Platforms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(6), pages 2653-2676, June.
    15. Saeed Alaei & Ali Makhdoumi & Azarakhsh Malekian & Rad Niazadeh, 2022. "Descending Price Auctions with Bounded Number of Price Levels and Batched Prophet Inequality," Papers 2203.01384, arXiv.org.
    16. Konstantinos I. Stouras & Jeremy Hutchison-Krupat & Raul O. Chao, 2022. "The Role of Participation in Innovation Contests," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4135-4150, June.
    17. Lazzati, Natalia & Van Essen, Matt, 2014. "A nearly optimal auction for an uninformed seller," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 396-399.
    18. Kleinberg, Robert & Weinberg, S. Matthew, 2019. "Matroid prophet inequalities and applications to multi-dimensional mechanism design," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 97-115.
    19. Nima Anari & Rad Niazadeh & Amin Saberi & Ali Shameli, 2018. "Linear Programming Based Near-Optimal Pricing for Laminar Bayesian Online Selection," Papers 1807.05477, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    20. Mengxi Zhang, 2023. "Optimal Contests with Incomplete Information and Convex Effort Costs," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2023_156v2, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.

    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:2303.00208. 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.