Abstract:This paper studies the optimal transaction fee mechanisms for blockchains, focusing on the distinction between price-based ($\mathcal{P}$) and quantity-based ($\mathcal{Q}$) controls. By analyzing factors such as demand uncertainty, validator costs, cryptocurrency price fluctuations, price elasticity of demand, and levels of decentralization, we establish criteria that determine the selection of transaction fee mechanisms. We present a model framed around a Nash bargaining game, exploring how blockchain designers and validators negotiate fee structures to balance network welfare with profitability. Our findings suggest that the choice between $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ mechanisms depends critically on the blockchain's specific technical and economic features. The study concludes that no single mechanism suits all contexts and highlights the potential for hybrid approaches that adaptively combine features of both $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ to meet varying demands and market conditions.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is: in the blockchain system, how to select the optimal transaction fee mechanism (i.e., price - based control \(P\) and quantity - based control \(Q\)) to balance network welfare and profitability. Specifically, the author determines which transaction fee mechanism is more suitable for specific blockchain technology characteristics and economic environments by analyzing factors such as user demand uncertainty, validator cost, cryptocurrency price fluctuation, price elasticity of demand, and the degree of decentralization.
### Core Problems of the Paper
1. **Demand Uncertainty**: When user demand fluctuates greatly, price - based control \(P\) can better adjust the block size to match the demand fluctuation.
2. **Validator Cost Uncertainty**: For proof - of - work (PoW) blockchains, such as Bitcoin, due to the significant positive correlation between demand uncertainty and marginal cost, quantity - based control \(Q\) is more appropriate.
3. **Cryptocurrency Price Fluctuation**: When the cryptocurrency price fluctuates significantly, quantity - based control \(Q\) can avoid excessive base fees, thus maintaining more stable transaction fees.
4. **Price Elasticity of Demand**: For blockchains where demand is highly sensitive to price changes (such as Ethereum), price - based control \(P\) can adjust the block size more quickly to better meet user demand.
5. **Degree of Decentralization**: In highly decentralized blockchains, validators have less bargaining power, so it is easier to implement and enforce policies such as block size limits.
### Conclusion
The paper points out that no single transaction fee mechanism is suitable for all situations. The best choice depends on the specific technology and economic characteristics of the blockchain. For example, Ethereum adopts a price - based control mechanism similar to EIP - 1559, while Bitcoin continues to use quantity - based block size limits. In addition, future research can further quantify these choices and explore the optimal supply plan that combines the advantages of \(P\) and \(Q\) mechanisms to provide a more flexible and robust fee structure.
### Formula Summary
- **Social Welfare Maximization Formula**:
\[
\max_{\bar{q} \in \mathbb{R}^+} \mathbb{E}_{\Psi, \eta}[B(\bar{q}, \Psi)-C(\bar{q}, \eta)]
\]
\[
\max_{p \in \mathbb{R}^+} \mathbb{E}_{\Psi, \eta}[B(q_{adj}(p, \Psi), \Psi)-C(q_{adj}(p, \Psi), \eta)]
\]
- **Demand Function**:
\[
q = \frac{\Psi}{p^\varepsilon}
\]
- **Minimum gas Price Adjustment Formula (EIP - 1559)**:
\[
p_t = p_{t - 1}\cdot\left(1 + d\cdot\frac{q_{t - 1}-q_{target}}{q_{target}}\right)
\]
These formulas help to understand how different factors affect the choice of blockchain transaction fee mechanisms.