Latency Advantages in Common-Value Auctions

Ciamac C. Moallemi; Dan Robinson; Mallesh M. Pai

arxiv: 2504.02077 · v2 · submitted 2025-04-02 · 💰 econ.TH

Latency Advantages in Common-Value Auctions

Ciamac C. Moallemi , Mallesh M. Pai , Dan Robinson This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 21:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💰 econ.TH

keywords common-value auctionlatency advantagelast-mover advantageequilibrium strategiesauction revenuereserve priceblockchain auctionsBlack-Scholes model

0 comments

The pith

In common-value auctions with reserve prices, a last-mover latency advantage does not cause complete degeneration and the seller still captures positive value.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper models a common-value auction in which some bidders receive additional signals about the item's value because they can act later, such as by observing price movements on other exchanges. It characterizes the resulting equilibrium bidding strategies and shows that informed later movers earn positive expected profits without driving all other bidders out or reducing seller revenue to zero. The analysis includes comparative statics on how the size of the timing advantage affects profits and revenue, plus explicit formulas derived under Black-Scholes dynamics for the last mover's profit and its sensitivity to small time differences. These results are then applied to the design of on-chain auctions for financial assets.

Core claim

In a common-value auction with a reserve price, bidders who move later and therefore receive an additional independent signal about the common value bid according to an equilibrium strategy in which the seller's expected revenue remains strictly positive; the auction does not collapse to zero revenue for the seller even as the last mover's information advantage grows.

What carries the argument

Equilibrium bidding strategies that incorporate differential information sets arising from sequential timing, with the later bidder conditioning on both a private signal and an additional public signal observed after earlier bids.

If this is right

The last mover earns positive expected profit that rises continuously with the size of the timing edge.
Seller revenue declines with greater latency advantage but stays positive for any finite advantage.
Under Black-Scholes dynamics the last mover's profit and its derivative with respect to time delay admit closed-form expressions.
In blockchain auction settings the same incentives create pressure toward centralization to capture timing edges.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Auction platforms could counteract the effect by inserting random delays or batching submissions to reduce effective latency differences.
The framework could be extended to cases where the later signal is only partially informative about the common value.
Welfare losses to early bidders may create demand for side contracts or insurance against being out-timed.

Load-bearing premise

The latency advantage gives the later bidder an extra independent signal about the common value without letting that bidder directly observe earlier bids or actions.

What would settle it

A controlled auction experiment or simulation in which increasing the last mover's time delay causes measured seller revenue to fall to zero while keeping the reserve price fixed.

read the original abstract

In financial applications, latency advantages -- the ability to make decisions later than others, even without the ability to see what others have done -- can provide individual participants with an edge by allowing them to gather additional relevant information. For example, a trader who is able to act even milliseconds after another trader may receive information about changing prices on other exchanges that lets them make a profit at the expense of the latter. To better understand the economics of latency advantages, we consider a common-value auction with a reserve price in which some bidders may have more information about the value of the item than others, e.g., by bidding later. We provide a characterization of the equilibrium strategies, and study the welfare and auctioneer revenue implications of the last-mover advantage. We show that the auction does not degenerate completely and that the seller is still able to capture some value. We study comparative statics of the equilibrium under different assumptions about the nature of the latency advantage. Under the assumptions of the Black-Scholes model, we derive formulas for the last mover's expected profit, as well as for the sensitivity of that profit to their timing advantage. We apply our results to the design of blockchain protocols that aim to run auctions for financial assets on-chain, where incentives to increase timing advantages can put pressure on the decentralization of the system.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper shows a last-mover information edge in common-value auctions does not wipe out seller revenue and supplies Black-Scholes formulas for the profit and its timing sensitivity.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper models latency advantages in common-value auctions as an information edge for the last mover and shows the auction does not degenerate—the seller still captures some value in equilibrium. They characterize the bidding strategies when one bidder acts later and observes extra signals about the common value, such as price changes elsewhere. They then trace the effects on welfare and auctioneer revenue, with comparative statics across different assumptions about how the latency edge works. Under Black-Scholes dynamics they derive closed forms for the last mover's expected profit and how sensitive that profit is to the size of the timing gap. The blockchain application follows directly: on-chain auctions create incentives for speed that could centralize participation, yet the model indicates the seller is not left with zero revenue. The equilibrium work and the explicit formulas are the parts that stand out as usable. The non-degeneration result looks consistent with the setup and the reserve-price interaction does not appear to create hidden contradictions. The main soft spot is the information structure itself—the late bidder gets value signals but does not observe other bids directly. This keeps the model tractable but could miss dynamics that arise when latency also lets a bidder react to visible actions. The results might shift under other stochastic processes beyond Black-Scholes, though the paper flags the assumption clearly. This is for auction theorists working on information asymmetries and for economists focused on mechanism design for decentralized finance. A reader who wants to see how classic common-value models extend to timing will get concrete expressions and comparative statics out of it. It deserves serious peer review because the formal characterization and closed forms give referees something specific to check and extend.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper models a common-value auction with a reserve price in which some bidders possess a latency advantage that supplies additional signals about the common value without direct observation of others' bids. It characterizes the resulting equilibrium bidding strategies, derives welfare and revenue consequences, establishes that the mechanism does not fully degenerate and that the seller continues to extract positive expected revenue, obtains closed-form expressions for the last mover's expected profit and its sensitivity to the timing gap under Black-Scholes dynamics, and discusses implications for the design of on-chain auctions in blockchain protocols.

Significance. The non-degeneration result and the explicit Black-Scholes formulas for last-mover profit and timing sensitivity constitute the main contributions. These provide concrete, falsifiable expressions that link a bidder's information advantage directly to expected payoffs and to the seller's revenue, which is useful for both theoretical auction design and practical mechanism design in high-frequency and decentralized settings. The application to blockchain protocols supplies a clear economic rationale for why latency incentives may threaten decentralization.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] The abstract states that the auction 'does not degenerate completely' but does not indicate the quantitative magnitude of the seller's retained value; a brief numerical illustration or bound in the introduction would help readers gauge the result's practical importance.
[Section 2] Notation for the latency parameter (e.g., the time gap Δ) is introduced only after the model setup; moving a compact definition to the first paragraph of Section 2 would improve readability.
[Section 5] The Black-Scholes closed forms are presented without an explicit statement of the risk-neutral measure or the filtration on which the last mover conditions; adding one sentence clarifying the information structure would prevent misinterpretation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive summary of the paper, recognition of the non-degeneration result and Black-Scholes formulas as main contributions, and recommendation of minor revision. No specific major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper provides an equilibrium characterization of a common-value auction with latency advantages, deriving strategies, welfare, and revenue results directly from the information structure and reserve price setup. Closed-form expressions under Black-Scholes assumptions follow from standard option pricing methods applied to the last-mover advantage, without reducing to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations. The non-degeneration result and seller value capture emerge from the equilibrium analysis as independent content, self-contained against external benchmarks in auction theory and stochastic processes.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only access prevents identification of specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; no explicit ones are stated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5762 in / 948 out tokens · 59316 ms · 2026-05-22T21:45:38.135641+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Bob’s expected profit ΠB = E[max(v1−v2,0)] … exchange option (Margrabe 1978); Π′B(T) via Black-Scholes formula under GBM
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/DimensionForcing.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

equilibrium bidding βL(v)=E[ṽ|ṽ<v] for v≥v̄; reserve-price threshold defined by L=E[ṽ|ṽ<v̄]

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.