IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2610.18812.html

The Geography of (Concurrent) Block Proposing

Author

Listed:
  • Ciamac C. Moallemi
  • Mallesh M. Pai
  • Dan Robinson
  • Christoph Schlegel

Abstract

The resilience and censorship resistance of a blockchain depend on where the validators and proposers of that blockchain physically operate. We study the economic incentives behind this location choice, both with a single proposer and with multiple concurrent proposers. Formally, we study a game where proposers first choose locations and then compete in a first-price auction for an opportunity whose common value is driven by information from geographically dispersed sources. A single proposer minimizes variance-weighted delay, locating at a weighted median of the sources and co-locating with any dominant one. By contrast, with two proposers, information both observe equally early earns no rent, and each proposer's expected profit is proportional to the standard deviation of the information it receives before its rival. We show that the location game admits the jointly unobserved variance as an ordinal potential, so global solutions of a weighted two-median problem are equilibria. With two sources, one proposer locates at each, however weak one is. With more proposers and at least as many sources, equilibrium locations are distinct under regular bidding. Multiple concurrent proposers thus do more than limit any single proposer's control over inclusion: by rewarding exclusive rather than shared information, they create an economic force toward geographic decentralization.

Suggested Citation

  • Ciamac C. Moallemi & Mallesh M. Pai & Dan Robinson & Christoph Schlegel, 2026. "The Geography of (Concurrent) Block Proposing," Papers 2610.18812, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2610.18812
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.18812
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ciamac C. Moallemi & Mallesh M. Pai & Dan Robinson, 2025. "Latency Advantages in Common-Value Auctions," Papers 2504.02077, arXiv.org, revised May 2026.
    2. Jason Milionis & Jens Ernstberger & Joseph Bonneau & Scott Duke Kominers & Tim Roughgarden, 2025. "Incentive-Compatible Recovery from Manipulated Signals, with Applications to Decentralized Physical Infrastructure," Papers 2503.07558, arXiv.org.
    3. Engelbrecht-Wiggans, Richard & Milgrom, Paul R. & Weber, Robert J., 1983. "Competitive bidding and proprietary information," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 161-169, April.
    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. Subir Bose & George Deltas, 2002. "Exclusive Dealing through Resellers in Auctions with Stochastic Bidder Participation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(1), pages 109-127, July.
    2. Matoso, Rafael & Rezende, Marcelo, 2014. "Asymmetric information in oil and gas lease auctions with a national company," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 72-82.
    3. John H. Kagel & Colin M. Campbell & Dan Levin, 1999. "The Winner's Curse and Public Information in Common Value Auctions: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 325-334, March.
    4. Malueg, David A. & Orzach, Ram, 2009. "Revenue comparison in common-value auctions: Two examples," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 177-180, November.
    5. Mitchell Berlin & Alexander W. Butler, 2002. "Collateral and competition," Working Papers 02-22, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    6. Fluck, Zsuzsanna & John, Kose & Ravid, S. Abraham, 2007. "Privatization as an agency problem: Auctions versus private negotiations," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(9), pages 2730-2750, September.
    7. Jianpei Li & Yi Xue & Weixing Wu, 2013. "Partnership dissolution and proprietary information," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 495-527, February.
    8. Gustavo Rodríguez, 1997. "First price auctions: Monotonicity and uniqueness," Economics Working Papers 208, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    9. Virag, Gabor, 2007. "Repeated common value auctions with asymmetric bidders," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 156-177, October.
    10. De Silva, Dakshina G. & Gertsberg, Marina & Kosmopoulou, Georgia & Pownall, Rachel A.J., 2022. "Evolution of a dealer trading network and its effects on art auction prices," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    11. Hernando-Veciana, Angel, 2004. "Successful uninformed bidding," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 29-53, July.
    12. Philippe Jehiel & Laurent Lamy, 2020. "On the Benefits of Set-Asides," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(4), pages 1655-1696.
    13. Kim, Jinwoo, 2008. "The value of an informed bidder in common value auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 143(1), pages 585-595, November.
    14. Zhou, Nan, 2003. "Bidding between incumbent and entrant," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 295-303, September.
    15. Robert Hauswald & Robert Marquez, 2000. "Relationship Banking and Competition under Differentiated Asymmetric Information," Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers 00-13, Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania.
    16. GlennW. Harrison & JohnA. List, 2008. "Naturally Occurring Markets and Exogenous Laboratory Experiments: A Case Study of the Winner's Curse," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(528), pages 822-843, April.
    17. Régis Breton, 2003. "A Smoke Screen Theory of Financial Intermediation," Post-Print halshs-00257188, HAL.
    18. Virág, Gábor, 2009. "Efficiency and competition in the long run: The survival of the unfit," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 315-330, September.
    19. Abraham, Ittai & Athey, Susan & Babaioff, Moshe & Grubb, Michael D., 2020. "Peaches, lemons, and cookies: Designing auction markets with dispersed information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 454-477.
    20. Daniel Quint, 2010. "Looking smart versus playing dumb in common-value auctions," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 44(3), pages 469-490, September.

    More about this item

    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:2610.18812. 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: https://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.