Competitive Policies for Online Collateral Maintenance

Authors Ghada Almashaqbeh, Sixia Chen, Alexander Russell



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.AFT.2024.26.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.63 MB
  • 16 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Ghada Almashaqbeh
  • University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA
Sixia Chen
  • Adelphi University, Garden City, NY, USA
Alexander Russell
  • University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA
  • IOG, Singapore

Acknowledgements

We thank Mathias Fitzi for conversations that led to the original formulation of these questions.

Cite AsGet BibTex

Ghada Almashaqbeh, Sixia Chen, and Alexander Russell. Competitive Policies for Online Collateral Maintenance. In 6th Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies (AFT 2024). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 316, pp. 26:1-26:16, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2024)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.AFT.2024.26

Abstract

Layer-two blockchain protocols emerged to address scalability issues related to fees, storage cost, and confirmation delay of on-chain transactions. They aggregate off-chain transactions into fewer on-chain ones, thus offering immediate settlement and reduced transaction fees. To preserve security of the underlying ledger, layer-two protocols often work in a collateralized model; resources are committed on-chain to backup off-chain activities. A fundamental challenge that arises in this setup is determining a policy for establishing, committing, and replenishing the collateral in a way that maximizes the value of settled transactions. In this paper, we study this problem under two settings that model collateralized layer-two protocols. The first is a general model in which a party has an on-chain collateral C with a policy to decide on whether to settle or discard each incoming transaction. The policy also specifies when to replenish C based on the remaining collateral value. The second model considers a discrete setup in which C is divided among k wallets, each of which is of size C/k, such that when a wallet is full, and so cannot settle any incoming transactions, it will be replenished. We devise several online policies for these models, and show how competitive they are compared to optimal (offline) policies that have full knowledge of the incoming transaction stream. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to study and formulate online competitive policies for collateral and wallet management in the blockchain setting.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Online algorithms
  • Applied computing → Digital cash
Keywords
  • Blockchain layer-two solutions
  • Wallets
  • Collateral management
  • Online algorithms
  • Competitive analysis

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. Filecoin. URL: https://filecoin.io/.
  2. Golem. URL: https://golem.network/.
  3. Livepeer. URL: https://livepeer.com/.
  4. Uniswap protocol. URL: https://uniswap.org/.
  5. Ghada Almashaqbeh, Allison Bishop, and Justin Cappos. Microcash: Practical concurrent processing of micropayments. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 227-244. Springer, 2020. Google Scholar
  6. Manuel MT Chakravarty, Sandro Coretti, Matthias Fitzi, Peter Gazi, Philipp Kant, Aggelos Kiayias, and Alexander Russell. Hydra: Fast isomorphic state channels. Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2020. Google Scholar
  7. Alessandro Chiesa, Matthew Green, Jingcheng Liu, Peihan Miao, Ian Miers, and Pratyush Mishra. Decentralized anonymous micropayments. In Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, pages 609-642. Springer, 2017. Google Scholar
  8. Yoga Jaideep Darapuneni. A survey of classical and recent results in bin packing problem. UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones, 2012. Google Scholar
  9. Christian Decker and Roger Wattenhofer. A fast and scalable payment network with bitcoin duplex micropayment channels. In Symposium on Self-Stabilizing Systems, pages 3-18. Springer, 2015. Google Scholar
  10. Stefan Dziembowski, Sebastian Faust, and Kristina Hostáková. General state channel networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 949-966, 2018. Google Scholar
  11. Rundong Gan, Le Wang, Xiangyu Ruan, and Xiaodong Lin. Understanding flash-loan-based wash trading. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, pages 74-88, 2022. Google Scholar
  12. Alex Gluchowski. Zk rollup: scaling with zero-knowledge proofs. Matter Labs, 2019. Google Scholar
  13. Andrew Miller, Iddo Bentov, Surya Bakshi, Ranjit Kumaresan, and Patrick McCorry. Sprites and state channels: Payment networks that go faster than lightning. In International conference on financial cryptography and data security, pages 508-526. Springer, 2019. Google Scholar
  14. Rafael Pass and Abhi Shelat. Micropayments for decentralized currencies. In CCS, pages 207-218. ACM, 2015. Google Scholar
  15. Joseph Poon and Vitalik Buterin. Plasma: Scalable autonomous smart contracts. White paper, pages 1-47, 2017. Google Scholar
  16. Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja. The bitcoin lightning network: Scalable off-chain instant payments. Technical Report (draft), 2015. Google Scholar
  17. Kanis Saengchote. Decentralized lending and its users: Insights from compound. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 87:101807, 2023. Google Scholar
  18. Steven S Seiden. On the online bin packing problem. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 49(5):640-671, 2002. Google Scholar
  19. Jiahua Xu, Krzysztof Paruch, Simon Cousaert, and Yebo Feng. Sok: Decentralized exchanges (dex) with automated market maker (amm) protocols. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(11):1-50, 2023. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail