跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.05505 · v1

The Power and Limits of Money Burning in Bilateral Trade

首次提交 2026-11-04 03:03
版本更新 2026-11-04 03:03
雷达观测 2026-11-05 10:08
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

We study the power of money burning in bilateral trade. In this problem, a seller owns an indivisible item, a buyer would like to acquire it, and each of these two traders has a private value for the item and the values are sampled from independent distributions. We ask whether the traders can benefit from a mechanism that burns money, that is, one that charges the buyer more than it pays the seller, so that neither trader enjoys the difference (money burnt is a loss for the traders). Is it possible that the traders will ever be better off if the trade mechanism can burn money? For Bayesian incentive-compatible mechanisms and for deterministic dominant-strategy incentive-compatible (DSIC) mechanisms, it is known that money burning is always a waste and can only hurt the traders. Maybe surprisingly, we show that once a DSIC mechanism can use randomization, money burning can significantly benefit the traders, and the gain of each of them can be arbitrarily large. In contrast, we show that the power of DSIC randomized mechanisms that burn money is still very limited in the sense that they cannot guarantee any constant fraction of the first-best gains-from-trade.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-04 03:03 · 最新观测版本

The Power and Limits of Money Burning in Bilateral Trade

We study the power of money burning in bilateral trade. In this problem, a seller owns an indivisible item, a buyer would like to acquire it, and each of these two traders has a private value for the item and the values are sampled from independent distributions. We ask whether the traders can benefit from a mechanism that burns money, that is, one that charges the buyer more than it pays the seller, so that neither trader enjoys the difference (money burnt is a loss for the traders). Is it possible that the traders will ever be better off if the trade mechanism can burn money? For Bayesian incentive-compatible mechanisms and for deterministic dominant-strategy incentive-compatible (DSIC) mechanisms, it is known that money burning is always a waste and can only hurt the traders. Maybe surprisingly, we show that once a DSIC mechanism can use randomization, money burning can significantly benefit the traders, and the gain of each of them can be arbitrarily large. In contrast, we show that the power of DSIC randomized mechanisms that burn money is still very limited in the sense that they cannot guarantee any constant fraction of the first-best gains-from-trade.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗