Complexity-Approximation Trade-Offs in Exchange Mechanisms: AMMs vs. LOBs

被引:1
|
作者
Milionis, Jason [1 ]
Moallemi, Ciamac C. [2 ]
Roughgarden, Tim [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Columbia Univ, Dept Comp Sci, New York, NY 10027 USA
[2] Columbia Univ, Grad Sch Business, New York, NY 10027 USA
[3] Crypto, A16z, New York, NY 10010 USA
关键词
Blockchain; Decentralized Finance; Automated Market Makers;
D O I
10.1007/978-3-031-47754-6_19
中图分类号
F8 [财政、金融];
学科分类号
0202 ;
摘要
This paper presents a general framework for the design and analysis of exchange mechanisms between two assets that unifies and enables comparisons between the two dominant paradigms for exchange, constant function market markers (CFMMs) and limit order books (LOBs). In our framework, each liquidity provider (LP) submits to the exchange a downward-sloping demand curve, specifying the quantity of the risky asset it wishes to hold at each price; the exchange buys and sells the risky asset so as to satisfy the aggregate submitted demand. In general, such a mechanism is budget-balanced (i.e., it stays solvent and does not make or lose money) and enables price discovery (i.e., arbitrageurs are incentivized to trade until the exchange's price matches the external market price of the risky asset). Different exchange mechanisms correspond to different restrictions on the set of acceptable demand curves. The primary goal of this paper is to formalize an approximation-complexity trade-off that pervades the design of exchange mechanisms. For example, CFMMs give up expressiveness in favor of simplicity: the aggregate demand curve of the LPs can be described using constant space (the liquidity parameter), but most demand curves cannot be well approximated by any function in the corresponding single-dimensional family. LOBs, intuitively, make the opposite trade-off: any downward-slowing demand curve can be well approximated by a collection of limit orders, but the space needed to describe the state of a LOB can be large. This paper introduces a general measure of exchange complexity, defined by the minimal set of basis functions that generate, through their conical hull, all of the demand functions allowed by an exchange. With this complexity measure in place, we investigate the design of optimally expressive exchange mechanisms, meaning the lowest complexity mechanisms that allow for arbitrary downward-sloping demand curves to be approximated to within a given level of precision. Our results quantify the fundamental trade-off between simplicity and expressivity in exchange mechanisms. As a case study, we interpret the complexity-approximation trade-offs in the widely-used Uniswap v3 AMM through the lens of our framework.
引用
收藏
页码:326 / 343
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Sustainable performance in manufacturing operations: The cumulative approach vs. trade-offs approach
    Henao, Rafael
    Sarache, William
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS, 2022, 244
  • [22] Quality vs. quantity: energetic and nutritional trade-offs in parental provisioning strategies
    Wright, J
    Both, C
    Cotton, PA
    Bryant, D
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY, 1998, 67 (04) : 620 - 634
  • [23] Functional trade-offs in the limb muscles of dogs selected for running vs. fighting
    Pasi, BM
    Carrier, DR
    JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, 2003, 16 (02) : 324 - 332
  • [24] Yield vs. Quality trade-offs for wheat in response to carbon dioxide and ozone
    Pleijel, Hakan
    Uddling, Johan
    GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 2012, 18 (02) : 596 - 605
  • [25] Heuristic vs. Analytical Energy Hub Optimization: Design, Implementation, and Trade-Offs
    Grafenhorst, Simon
    Ohm, Jakob
    Poppenborg, Rafael
    Foerderer, Kevin
    Hagenmeyer, Veit
    2024 IEEE 12TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SMART ENERGY GRID ENGINEERING, SEGE 2024, 2024, : 145 - 150
  • [26] Efficiency vs. Immersion: Interface Design Trade-offs for an Exploratory Learning Environment
    Dragon, Toby
    Floryan, Mark
    Wilkins, Grayson
    Sparks, Thomas
    INTELLIGENT TUTORING SYSTEMS, ITS 2016, 2016, 9684 : 523 - 525
  • [27] Green Wireless Access Virtualization Implementation: Cost vs. QoS Trade-Offs
    Rahman, M. M.
    Despins, Charles
    Affes, Sofiene
    2014 3RD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ECO-FRIENDLY COMPUTING AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS (ICECCS 2014), 2014, : 79 - 84
  • [28] INTERCONNECT TRADE-OFFS - CPLD VS FPGA
    AMOS, D
    ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING, 1995, 67 (819): : 81 - &
  • [29] Phytoplankton defence mechanisms: traits and trade-offs
    Pancic, Marina
    Kiorboe, Thomas
    BIOLOGICAL REVIEWS, 2018, 93 (02) : 1269 - 1303
  • [30] DRAM Refresh Mechanisms, Penalties, and Trade-Offs
    Bhati, Ishwar
    Chang, Mu-Tien
    Chishti, Zeshan
    Lu, Shih-Lien
    Jacob, Bruce
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTERS, 2016, 65 (01) : 108 - 121