-
TierDrop: Harnessing Airdrop Farmers for User Growth
Authors:
Aviv Yaish,
Benjamin Livshits
Abstract:
Blockchain platforms attempt to expand their user base by awarding tokens to users, a practice known as issuing airdrops. Empirical data and related work implies that previous airdrops fall short of their stated aim of attracting long-term users, partially due to adversarial farmers who game airdrop mechanisms and receive an outsize share of rewards. In this work, we argue that given the futility…
▽ More
Blockchain platforms attempt to expand their user base by awarding tokens to users, a practice known as issuing airdrops. Empirical data and related work implies that previous airdrops fall short of their stated aim of attracting long-term users, partially due to adversarial farmers who game airdrop mechanisms and receive an outsize share of rewards. In this work, we argue that given the futility of fighting farmers, the airdrop business model should be reconsidered: farmers should be harnessed to generate activity that attracts real users, i.e., strengthens network effects. To understand the impact of farmers on airdrops, we analyze their performance in a market inhabited by two competing platforms and two tiers of users: real users and farmers. We show that counterintuitively, farmers sometimes represent a necessary evil-it can be revenue-optimal for airdrop issuers to give some tokens to farmers, even in the hypothetical case where platforms could costlessly detect and banish all farmers. Although we focus on airdrops, our results generally apply to activity-based incentive schemes.
△ Less
Submitted 1 July, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
-
Mechanism Design for ZK-Rollup Prover Markets
Authors:
Wenhao Wang,
Lulu Zhou,
Aviv Yaish,
Fan Zhang,
Ben Fisch,
Benjamin Livshits
Abstract:
In ZK-Rollups, provers spend significant computational resources to generate validity proofs. Their costs should be compensated properly, so a sustainable prover market can form over time. Existing transaction fee mechanisms (TFMs) such as EIP-1559, however, do not work in this setting, as EIP-1559 only generates negligible revenue because of burning, while provers often create or purchase special…
▽ More
In ZK-Rollups, provers spend significant computational resources to generate validity proofs. Their costs should be compensated properly, so a sustainable prover market can form over time. Existing transaction fee mechanisms (TFMs) such as EIP-1559, however, do not work in this setting, as EIP-1559 only generates negligible revenue because of burning, while provers often create or purchase specialized hardware in hopes of creating long-term revenue from proving, somewhat reminiscent of proof-of-work miners in the case of chains like Bitcoin. In this paper, we explore the design of transaction fee mechanisms for prover markets. The desiderata for such mechanisms include efficiency (social welfare is maximized), incentive compatibility (it is rational to bid honestly), collusion resistance (no profitable collusion among provers exists), and off-chain agreement proofness (no profitable collusion between users and provers exists). To demonstrate the difficulties of our new setting, we put forward several simple strawman mechanisms, and show they suffer from notable deficiencies.
△ Less
Submitted 26 April, 2024; v1 submitted 9 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
Strategic Vote Timing in Online Elections With Public Tallies
Authors:
Aviv Yaish,
Svetlana Abramova,
Rainer Böhme
Abstract:
We study the effect of public tallies on online elections, in a setting where voting is costly and voters are allowed to strategically time their votes. The strategic importance of choosing \emph{when} to vote arises when votes are public, such as in online event scheduling polls (e.g., Doodle), or in blockchain governance mechanisms. In particular, there is a tension between voting early to influ…
▽ More
We study the effect of public tallies on online elections, in a setting where voting is costly and voters are allowed to strategically time their votes. The strategic importance of choosing \emph{when} to vote arises when votes are public, such as in online event scheduling polls (e.g., Doodle), or in blockchain governance mechanisms. In particular, there is a tension between voting early to influence future votes and waiting to observe interim results and avoid voting costs if the outcome has already been decided.
Our study draws on empirical findings showing that "temporal" bandwagon effects occur when interim results are revealed to the electorate: late voters are more likely to vote for leading candidates. To capture this phenomenon, we analyze a novel model where the electorate consists of informed voters who have a preferred candidate, and uninformed swing voters who can be swayed according to the interim outcome at the time of voting. In our main results, we prove the existence of equilibria where both early and late voting occur with a positive probability, and we characterize conditions that lead to the appearance of "last minute" voting behavior, where all informed voters vote late.
△ Less
Submitted 18 February, 2024; v1 submitted 15 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Barriers to Collusion-resistant Transaction Fee Mechanisms
Authors:
Yotam Gafni,
Aviv Yaish
Abstract:
To allocate transactions to blocks, cryptocurrencies use an auction-like transaction fee mechanism (TFM). A conjecture of Roughgarden [44] asks whether there is a TFM that is incentive compatible for both the users and the miner, and is also resistant to off-chain agreements (OCAs) between these parties, a collusion notion that captures the ability of users and the miner to jointly deviate for pro…
▽ More
To allocate transactions to blocks, cryptocurrencies use an auction-like transaction fee mechanism (TFM). A conjecture of Roughgarden [44] asks whether there is a TFM that is incentive compatible for both the users and the miner, and is also resistant to off-chain agreements (OCAs) between these parties, a collusion notion that captures the ability of users and the miner to jointly deviate for profit. The work of Chung and Shi [12] tackles the problem using the different collusion resistance notion of side-channel proofness (SCP), and shows an impossibility given this notion. We show that OCA-proofness and SCP are different, with SCP being strictly stronger. We then fully characterize the intersection of deterministic dominant strategy incentive-compatible (DSIC) and OCA-proof mechanisms, as well as deterministic MMIC and OCA-proof ones, and use this characterization to show that only the trivial mechanism is DSIC, myopic miner incentive-compatible (MMIC) and OCA-proof. We also show that a randomized mechanism can be at most 0.842-efficient in the worst case, and that the impossibility of a non-trivial DSIC, MMIC and OCA-proof extends to a couple of natural classes of randomized mechanisms.
△ Less
Submitted 13 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Competitive Revenue Extraction from Time-Discounted Transactions in the Semi-Myopic Regime
Authors:
Yotam Gafni,
Aviv Yaish
Abstract:
Decentralized cryptocurrencies are payment systems that rely on aligning the incentives of users and miners to operate correctly and offer a high quality of service to users. Recent literature studies the mechanism design problem of the auction serving as a cryptocurrency's transaction fee mechanism (TFM). We find that a non-myopic modelling of miners falls close to another well-known problem: tha…
▽ More
Decentralized cryptocurrencies are payment systems that rely on aligning the incentives of users and miners to operate correctly and offer a high quality of service to users. Recent literature studies the mechanism design problem of the auction serving as a cryptocurrency's transaction fee mechanism (TFM). We find that a non-myopic modelling of miners falls close to another well-known problem: that of online buffer management for packet switching. The main difference is that unlike packets which are of a fixed size throughout their lifetime, in a financial environment, user preferences (and therefore revenue extraction) may be time-dependent. We study the competitive ratio guarantees given a certain discount rate, and show how existing methods from packet scheduling, which we call "the undiscounted case", perform suboptimally in the more general discounted setting. Most notably, we find a novel, simple, memoryless, and optimal deterministic algorithm for the semi-myopic case, when the discount factor is up to ~0.770018. We also present a randomized algorithm that achieves better performance than the best possible deterministic algorithm, for any discount rate.
△ Less
Submitted 13 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Airdrops: Giving Money Away Is Harder Than It Seems
Authors:
Johnnatan Messias,
Aviv Yaish,
Benjamin Livshits
Abstract:
Airdrops are used by blockchain applications and protocols to attract an initial user base, and to grow the user base over time. In the case of many airdrops, tokens are distributed to select users as a "reward" for interacting with the underlying protocol, with a long-term goal of creating a loyal community that will generate genuine economic activity well after the airdrop. Although airdrops are…
▽ More
Airdrops are used by blockchain applications and protocols to attract an initial user base, and to grow the user base over time. In the case of many airdrops, tokens are distributed to select users as a "reward" for interacting with the underlying protocol, with a long-term goal of creating a loyal community that will generate genuine economic activity well after the airdrop. Although airdrops are widely used by the blockchain industry, a proper understanding of the factors contributing to an airdrop's success is generally lacking. In this work, we outline the design space for airdrops, and specify a reasonable list of outcomes that an airdrop should ideally result in. We then analyze on-chain data from several larger-scale airdrops to empirically evaluate the success of previous airdrops, with respect to our desiderata. In our analysis, we demonstrate that airdrop farmers frequently dispose of the lion's share of airdrops proceeds via exchanges. Our analysis is followed by an overview of common pitfalls that common airdrop designs lend themselves to, which are then used to suggest concrete guidelines for better airdrops.
△ Less
Submitted 24 May, 2024; v1 submitted 5 December, 2023;
originally announced December 2023.
-
The Vulnerable Nature of Decentralized Governance in DeFi
Authors:
Maya Dotan,
Aviv Yaish,
Hsin-Chu Yin,
Eytan Tsytkin,
Aviv Zohar
Abstract:
Decentralized Finance (DeFi) platforms are often governed by Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) which are implemented via governance protocols. Governance tokens are distributed to users of the platform, granting them voting rights in the platform's governance protocol. Many DeFi platforms have already been subject to attacks resulting in the loss of millions of dollars in user funds.…
▽ More
Decentralized Finance (DeFi) platforms are often governed by Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) which are implemented via governance protocols. Governance tokens are distributed to users of the platform, granting them voting rights in the platform's governance protocol. Many DeFi platforms have already been subject to attacks resulting in the loss of millions of dollars in user funds.
In this paper we show that governance tokens are often not used as intended and may be harmful to the security of DeFi platforms. We show that (1) users often do not use governance tokens to vote, (2) that voting rates are negatively correlated to gas prices, (3) voting is very centralized.
We explore vulnerabilities in the design of DeFi platform's governance protocols and analyze different governance attacks, focusing on the transferable nature of voting rights via governance tokens. Following the movement and holdings of governance tokens, we show they are often used to perform a single action and then sold off. We present evidence of DeFi platforms using other platforms' governance protocols to promote their own agenda at the expense of the host platform.
△ Less
Submitted 8 August, 2023;
originally announced August 2023.
-
Blockchain Censorship
Authors:
Anton Wahrstätter,
Jens Ernstberger,
Aviv Yaish,
Liyi Zhou,
Kaihua Qin,
Taro Tsuchiya,
Sebastian Steinhorst,
Davor Svetinovic,
Nicolas Christin,
Mikolaj Barczentewicz,
Arthur Gervais
Abstract:
Permissionless blockchains promise to be resilient against censorship by a single entity. This suggests that deterministic rules, and not third-party actors, are responsible for deciding if a transaction is appended to the blockchain or not. In 2022, the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned a Bitcoin mixer and an Ethereum application, putting the neutrality of permissionless blo…
▽ More
Permissionless blockchains promise to be resilient against censorship by a single entity. This suggests that deterministic rules, and not third-party actors, are responsible for deciding if a transaction is appended to the blockchain or not. In 2022, the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned a Bitcoin mixer and an Ethereum application, putting the neutrality of permissionless blockchains to the test.
In this paper, we formalize quantify and analyze the security impact of blockchain censorship. We start by defining censorship, followed by a quantitative assessment of current censorship practices. We find that 46% of Ethereum blocks were made by censoring actors that intend to comply with OFAC sanctions, indicating the significant impact of OFAC sanctions on the neutrality of public blockchains.
We further uncover that censorship not only impacts neutrality, but also security. We show how after Ethereum's move to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) and adoption of Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) the inclusion of censored transactions was delayed by an average of 85%. Inclusion delays compromise a transaction's security by, e.g., strengthening a sandwich adversary. Finally we prove a fundamental limitation of PoS and Proof-of-Work (PoW) protocols against censorship resilience.
△ Less
Submitted 2 June, 2023; v1 submitted 29 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Discrete & Bayesian Transaction Fee Mechanisms
Authors:
Yotam Gafni,
Aviv Yaish
Abstract:
Cryptocurrencies employ auction-esque transaction fee mechanisms (TFMs) to allocate transactions to blocks, and to determine how much fees miners can collect from transactions. Several impossibility results show that TFMs that satisfy a standard set of "good" properties obtain low revenue, and in certain cases, no revenue at all. In this work, we circumvent previous impossibilities by showing that…
▽ More
Cryptocurrencies employ auction-esque transaction fee mechanisms (TFMs) to allocate transactions to blocks, and to determine how much fees miners can collect from transactions. Several impossibility results show that TFMs that satisfy a standard set of "good" properties obtain low revenue, and in certain cases, no revenue at all. In this work, we circumvent previous impossibilities by showing that when desired TFM properties are reasonably relaxed, simple mechanisms can obtain strictly positive revenue. By discretizing fees, we design a TFM that satisfies the extended TFM desiderata: it is dominant strategy incentive-compatible (DSIC), myopic miner incentive-compatible (MMIC), side-contract-proof (SCP) and obtains asymptotically optimal revenue (i.e., linear in the number of allocated bids), and optimal revenue when considering separable TFMs. If instead of discretizing fees we relax the DSIC and SCP properties, we show that Bitcoin's TFM, after applying the revelation principle, is Bayesian incentive-compatible (BIC), MMIC, off-chain-agreement (OCA) proof, and approximately revenue-optimal. We reach our results by characterizing the class of multi-item OCA-proof mechanisms, which may be of independent interest.
△ Less
Submitted 22 May, 2024; v1 submitted 14 October, 2022;
originally announced October 2022.
-
Pricing ASICs for Cryptocurrency Mining
Authors:
Aviv Yaish,
Aviv Zohar
Abstract:
Cryptocurrencies that are based on Proof-of-Work (PoW) often rely on special purpose hardware to perform so-called mining operations that secure the system, with miners receiving freshly minted tokens as a reward for their work. A notable example of such a cryptocurrency is Bitcoin, which is primarily mined using application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) based machines. Due to the supposed pr…
▽ More
Cryptocurrencies that are based on Proof-of-Work (PoW) often rely on special purpose hardware to perform so-called mining operations that secure the system, with miners receiving freshly minted tokens as a reward for their work. A notable example of such a cryptocurrency is Bitcoin, which is primarily mined using application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) based machines. Due to the supposed profitability of cryptocurrency mining, such hardware has been in great demand in recent years, in-spite of high associated costs like electricity. In this work, we show that because mining rewards are given in the mined cryptocurrency, while expenses are usually paid in some fiat currency such as the United States Dollar (USD), cryptocurrency mining is in fact a bundle of financial options. When exercised, each option converts electricity to tokens. We provide a method of pricing mining hardware based on this insight, and prove that any other price creates arbitrage. Our method shows that contrary to the popular belief that mining hardware is worth less if the cryptocurrency is highly volatile, the opposite effect is true: volatility increases value. Thus, if a coin's volatility decreases, some miners may leave, affecting security. We compare the prices produced by our method to prices obtained from popular tools currently used by miners and show that the latter only consider the expected returns from mining, while neglecting to account for the inherent risk in mining, which is due to the high exchange-rate volatility of cryptocurrencies. Finally, we show that the returns made from mining can be imitated by trading in bonds and coins, and create such imitating investment portfolios. Historically, realized revenues of these portfolios have outperformed mining, showing that indeed hardware is mispriced.
△ Less
Submitted 19 October, 2023; v1 submitted 18 February, 2020;
originally announced February 2020.
