Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Airdrop Games

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper derives an exact airdrop threshold that, for threshold technologies, selects the successful equilibrium with probability one in the vanishing-noise limit.

desk verdict Solid equilibrium-selection model for airdrop design, but the advertised convergence-time bounds have a real error that needs fixing before the 'expedient launch' guidance is usable. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03428 v1 pith:J5U3OMAL submitted 2025-05-06 cs.GT

Sotiris Georganas , Aggelos Kiayias , Paolo Penna This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GT MSC 91A1091A2691A80
keywords airdropstokenomicsblockchainlaunchgametheorypotentialgameslogitdynamicsequilibriumselectionthresholdtechnologies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper builds a game-theoretic model of airdrops: a designer gives recipients a fraction of newly minted tokens, and each recipient decides whether to contribute, while the token's value is set by how much participation the system actually attracts. The authors prove that these airdrop games are exact potential games, so equilibria always exist and simple noisy best-response (logit) learning selects the equilibria that maximize a single potential function. For “threshold technologies”—systems whose token jumps from a low value to a high value only when at least $\tau$ of the $n$ recipients participate—the model yields a sharp selection rule: with vanishing noise, the good high-value equilibrium is chosen with probability tending to one exactly when the airdrop fraction $\rho$ exceeds $\rho_c = \alpha n\tau/(V_{\mathrm{high}}-V_{\mathrm{low}})$, and the zero-participation equilibrium is chosen below it. If this is right, it gives launch designers a concrete recipe: choose an airdrop just above the critical fraction whenever the total participation cost $\alpha n\tau$ is smaller than the value gap $V_{\mathrm{high}}-V_{\mathrm{low}}$, and skip the airdrop otherwise. The paper also quantifies how long the learning process takes to reach the good region, showing that cheap participation—not merely large rewards—is what makes fast success possible.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the exact potential function $\varphi(a)=\frac{\rho}{n}V(a)-\sum_i c_i a_i$. It makes every airdrop game a potential game, meaning a single numerical quantity changes in step with every player's utility changes, and under logit dynamics it controls the stationary distribution, which is proportional to $\exp(\beta\varphi(a))$; when $\beta\to\infty$ the distribution concentrates on the potential maximizers. For threshold technologies, comparing $\varphi(\tau)$ against $\varphi(0)$ collapses the selection problem to the single inequality $\frac{\rho}{n}(V_{\mathrm{high}}-V_{\mathrm{low}})>\alpha\tau$, which is exactly $\rho>\rho_c$. Birth-and-death process tools then turn this selection criterion into explicit bounds on mixing time and on the time to first reach the threshold, connecting equilibrium selection to launch timing.

What would settle it

Run a controlled participation experiment with $n$ binary contributors, known uniform cost $\alpha$, and a threshold technology at $\tau$, and set the airdrop fraction just below and just above $\rho_c=\alpha n\tau/(V_{\mathrm{high}}-V_{\mathrm{low}})$; if the high-value outcome is selected with probability near one below $\rho_c$, or the zero-participation outcome persists above $\rho_c$ after many revisions, Theorem 6 is falsified. Alternatively, estimate the stationary distribution at finite noise: it must match the logistic form $1/(1+C\exp(-\rho\beta(V_{\mathrm{high}}-V_{\mathrm{low}})/n))$ with $C$ independent of $\rho$, so a robust deviation in how success probability depends on $\rho$ would refute the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that airdrop size acts as a control parameter in a sharp equilibrium-selection transition. For a threshold technology with binary contributions and uniform cost $\alpha$, the potential function $\varphi(a)=\frac{\rho}{n}V(a)-\sum_i c_i a_i$ has only two candidate maxima in the vanishing-noise limit: the zero-participation profile and the profiles with exactly $\tau$ contributors. Comparing $\varphi(\tau)$ with $\varphi(0)$ gives the threshold $\rho_c=\alpha n\tau/(V_{\mathrm{high}}-V_{\mathrm{low}})$, and Theorem 6 states that as $\beta\to\infty$ the logit dynamics select the high-value outcome with probability tending to 1 above $\rho_c$ and the low-value outcome with probability tending to 1 below it; at $\rho=\rho_c$ the distribution splits evenly between the bad state and the $\binom{n}{\tau}$ good states. In the finite-noise regime the transition softens to the logistic form $p_{\mathrm{high}}(\rho)=1/(1+C\exp(-\rho\beta(V_{\mathrm{high}}-V_{\mathrm{low}})/n))$, with $C$ independent of $\rho$ and of the two value levels, which the authors use to characterize the profit-maximizing airdrop.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that players update by logit choice probabilities with a common noise level and that the token price exactly equals fundamental participation value $V(a)/T_{\mathrm{tot}}$; if real learning differs or speculation moves the price, the critical fraction $\rho_c$ no longer governs equilibrium selection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For threshold technologies, a designer who can choose $\rho$ freely can force the good equilibrium: announcing any $\rho>\rho_c$ makes the high-value outcome selected with probability tending to one, provided $\alpha n\tau<V_{\mathrm{high}}-V_{\mathrm{low}}$.
  • If the total cost of reaching the threshold exceeds the value gap, $\alpha n\tau>V_{\mathrm{high}}-V_{\mathrm{low}}$, no airdrop of any size can make the launch succeed in the vanishing-noise limit, and the best the designer can do is give nothing and keep the low value.
  • When $V_{\mathrm{low}}>0$ there is an intermediate cost band in which a sufficiently large airdrop would make the system succeed but the profit-maximizing designer still prefers no airdrop; only below $\alpha n\tau=(V_{\mathrm{high}}-V_{\mathrm{low}})(1-V_{\mathrm{low}}/V_{\mathrm{high}})$ does setting $\rho$ just above $\rho_c$ maximize profit.
  • With finite noise, the success probability is monotone in $\rho$ and follows the logistic law $p_{\mathrm{high}}(\rho)=1/(1+C\exp(-\rho\beta(V_{\mathrm{high}}-V_{\mathrm{low}})/n))$, and for $V_{\mathrm{low}}=0$ the optimal airdrop is either zero or at most $1-n/(\beta V_{\mathrm{high}})$.
  • The time to reach a participation level $\ell^*=n/(1+\exp(\alpha\beta))$ is short, but reaching the threshold $\tau$ takes time exponential in $\tau-\ell^*$ when $\ell^*<\tau$, so low participation costs, not just high rewards, are what make a launch timely.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct extension the authors leave implicit is a calibration recipe for practice: estimate $\tau$ as the minimum viable participation level, $\alpha$ as the recipients' opportunity cost, and $V_{\mathrm{high}}-V_{\mathrm{low}}$ as the value jump, then set the airdrop to the smallest $\rho$ above $\rho_c$; the same formula also predicts which projects are hopeless from the start.
  • Because the potential-game reduction applies to any anonymous technology, the threshold-style analysis can be repeated for quadratic network-value, linear, S-shaped, and concave technologies, and the paper's own appendix suggests each will have its own critical airdrop region.
  • If token prices are set by speculation rather than by participation value, the model's advice should be amended: the relevant value gap would be based on expected future participation, and the sharp threshold would likely become a band whose width depends on market beliefs.
  • The dependence of convergence time on $\alpha$ suggests a testable extension: airdrop campaigns that target low-cost incumbents—existing validators or restakers—should both reach the good equilibrium faster and require a smaller critical airdrop than campaigns aimed at entirely new entrants, a comparison that field data from real launches could check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a game-theoretic model of blockchain airdrops. A designer allocates a fraction ρ of the token supply equally among n potential contributors; each contributor chooses whether to participate (`ai=1` or `ai=0`), incurring a uniform cost `α`, and the token's value is determined by a technology function `V(ℓ)` of the number of contributors. The main results are: (i) the game is an exact potential game with potential `ρ/n·V(a)-SC(a)` (Theorem 1), and the pure Nash equilibria are characterized (Theorem 2); (ii) under logit dynamics with vanishing noise, stochastically stable states are exactly the potential maximizers (Theorem 3); (iii) for threshold technologies, the high-value outcome is selected with probability tending to 1 iff `ρ > ρ_c = αnτ/(V_high−V_low)` (Theorem 6), with a finite-noise logistic characterization `p_high(ρ)=1/(1+C e^{-ρB})` (Theorem 7) and profit-maximizing airdrop rules (Theorem 8); (iv) birth-death arguments give bounds on mixing and hitting times (Theorems 4, 5, 9, 10), used to argue that low costs allow "expedient" convergence to the good outcome. The paper also applies the framework to quadratic (Metcalfe), linear, and S-shaped technologies.

Significance. The model is parameter-free in the sense that the main results are derived without fitted parameters, and the threshold transition (Theorem 6) gives a crisp, falsifiable design rule. The authors report machine-checkable-style derivations from standard tools (Blume logit response, Chen-Saloff-Coste birth-death bounds, Palacios-Tetali hitting-time identities), and Theorems 1-3, 6-8 are, based on my reading, correct; in particular, Theorem 7's derivation of the logistic form is careful and sound. The practical discussion (restaking, partner chains, cost reduction) connects the theory to real airdrop design. The main weakness is the convergence-time part: as stated, Lemma 1, Theorem 9, and Theorem 10(2) contain concrete mathematical errors (a sign error, an inverted stationary ratio, and an exponent error). These errors are localized and appear repairable without changing the model or the equilibrium-selection conclusions, but they currently undermine the paper's claim to provide tight bounds on the speed of convergence, which is part of the announced contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Lemma 1, Appendix A.4] Equation (28) has a sign error. The correct stationary distribution for the birth-death chain with binary efforts and uniform costs is `πhat(ℓ) = πhat(0) * binom(n,ℓ) * exp(βγ(t(ℓ)-t(0)) - αβℓ)`, i.e., the term `exp(-αβℓ)` appears with a negative exponent. As printed, the lemma states `exp(αβℓ)` with a positive exponent, which is false: for a technology with increasing `t(ℓ)`, it would incorrectly predict that the stationary distribution grows with both rewards and costs. The proof in A.4 makes the same sign error when moving from the denominator `exp(βαℓ)` to the final expression. Although the subsequent proofs of Theorems 5 and 9 effectively use the correct negative sign in their ratio computations, the lemma itself and its proof must be corrected, and all references to equation (28) should be rechecked.
  2. [Theorem 9, Section 5.3 and Appendix A.9] The lower bound in (27) is stated as `T_cutoff ≥ exp(αβ(τ-1)) * binom(n,τ-1)`, but the stationary ratio in the proof is `πhat(0)/πhat(τ-1) = exp(αβ(τ-1)) / binom(n,τ-1)`; the binomial factor is inverted. As printed, the theorem is false: for `n=10, τ=5, αβ=10` the claimed bound exceeds the exact birth-death expected hitting quantities by several orders of magnitude. The proof line in (47) therefore needs correction, and the asserted step `Σ_{ℓ=0}^{τ-1} πhat([0,ℓ])/(πhat(ℓ)p(ℓ)) ≥ πhat(0)/πhat(τ-1)` is not self-evident and requires a valid argument. Because the convergence-time results are what the abstract's "expedient manner" rests on, this is a load-bearing error that must be fixed before publication.
  3. [Theorem 10(2), Section 5.3 and Appendix A.11] The exponent in the lower bound should be `τ-1-ℓ`, not `τ-ℓ`. For a threshold technology, `V` is 0-steep only on the interval `[ℓ, τ-1]`, not on `[ℓ, τ]`, because `V(τ)-V(τ-1)=V_high-V_low>0`. Applying Theorem 5 with the correct interval yields `T_hitting(τ) ≥ (exp(αβ)(ℓ+1)/(n-ℓ))^{τ-1-ℓ}`. The stated bound with exponent `τ-ℓ` is stronger than what the proof can establish and is false; for example, with `n=10, τ=5, αβ=10` and a reward term making `p(τ-1)≈1`, the Palacios-Tetali formula gives `E_0 T_τ ≈ 4×10^15`, whereas the claimed lower bound is approximately `5×10^16`. The derived consequence `T_hitting(τ) ≥ (1+1/ℓ*)^{τ-ℓ*-1}` can still be recovered from the corrected exponent by taking `ℓ=ℓ*`, but the statement and proof must be revised accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Theorem 6, edge case] For `ρ = ρ_c`, the probability of selecting the high value outcome should be `binom(n,τ)/(1 + binom(n,τ))`, equivalently `1/(1 + 1/binom(n,τ))`, consistent with the uniform concentration over the `1 + binom(n,τ)` potential maximizers described in the proof of A.6. The printed expression appears to be `1/(1 + binom(n,τ))`, which is inconsistent with that proof.
  2. [Corollary 1, Eq. (14)] The quantity `c^(1)_max` is defined as `max{ci : a_i = 0}` but the text says it is the largest cost among contributing players; it should be `max{ci : a_i = 1}`.
  3. [Theorem 9 statement, Eq. (27)] The summation in the theorem statement runs to `τ`, while the proof in A.9 uses the sum from `ℓ=0` to `τ-1`. These should be aligned.
  4. [Appendix A.4, proof of Lemma 1] The algebra line in the proof of Lemma 1 writes `exp(βαℓ)` in the denominator and then `exp(αβℓ)` in the numerator of the final expression, which is the source of the sign error; the intermediate step showing the cancellation should be written out correctly.
  5. [Theorem 10 proof, Appendix A.11] The phrase "starting tom the state" should read "starting from the state", and the statement "for all `0≤ℓ≤τ`" should be "for all `0≤ℓ<τ`" (or stated with the corrected exponent) to avoid trivial or undefined cases.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the phase-transition ρ_c is derived from the potential, and self-citations are background rather than definitional; the Theorem 10(2) exponent issue is a correctness typo, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: utilities (Eq. 4) determine the exact potential (Eq. 10), and Theorem 6's critical value ρ_c = α n τ/(V_high − V_low) is obtained directly by comparing potential values φ(0) < φ(τ) in the proof (A.6), not by fitting or renaming an input. Stochastic stability (Theorem 3) is imported from Blume's external logit-dynamics theorem, and the mixing/hitting-time bounds rest on Chen–Saloff-Coste and Palacios–Tetali, which are external results. The self-citations (Auletta et al., 2011; Penna, 2018; Georganas, 2011; Chaidos et al., 2023) appear as background or as standard Markov-chain facts and are not used to define the target theorems; the Appendix D.2 β-calibration is illustrative and does not enter the theorem statements. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then 'predicted' as a closely related quantity. The one substantive mathematical concern is not circular: Theorem 10(2) applies Theorem 5(2) to the interval [ℓ,τ], although a threshold technology is 0-steep only on [ℓ,τ−1], so the exponent should be τ−1−ℓ; this is a correctness/typo issue and does not make any stated result equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivations are closed-form from the model; no parameters are fitted to data. The main assumptions are the linear token-pricing rule and the logit learning model. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math In the vanishing noise limit beta approaches infinity, logit dynamics concentrate on the set of potential maximizers (Blume 1993, 2003).
    Used in Theorem 3 to select equilibria; accepted background from the logit dynamics literature.
  • domain assumption Token value equals V(a)/T_tot and airdrop rewards are gamma*t(a) = (rho/n)*V(a) (Eqs. 1-4).
    This linear fundamental-value pricing assumption is the core modeling premise; no secondary-market or speculative dynamics are modeled.
  • domain assumption Technology functions V are monotone non-decreasing (Section 2.1).
    Used in the equilibrium characterization (Theorem 2) and in the steepness arguments (Theorem 5).
  • domain assumption Players use logit response with common inverse-noise beta (Eq. 6).
    Underpins Theorems 3, 4, 7, 9, 10; behavioral assumption about how players revise strategies.
  • standard math Chen-Saloff-Coste birth-death mixing time bounds and Palacios-Tetali expected hitting time formulas.
    Used to derive Theorems 4, 5, 9, 10; standard Markov chain tools cited from the literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Airdrop Games." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J5U3OMAL

@misc{pith2026250503428,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Airdrop Games},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J5U3OMAL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03428}
}
read the original abstract

Launching a new blockchain system or application is frequently facilitated by a so called airdrop, where the system designer chooses a pre-existing set of potentially interested parties and allocates newly minted tokens to them with the expectation that they will participate in the system - such engagement, especially if it is of significant level, facilitates the system and raises its value and also the value of its newly minted token, hence benefiting the airdrop recipients. A number of challenging questions befuddle designers in this setting, such as how to choose the set of interested parties and how to allocate tokens to them. To address these considerations we put forward a game-theoretic model for such airdrop games. Our model can be used to guide the designer's choices based on the way the system's value depends on participation (modeled by a ''technology function'' in our framework) and the costs that participants incur. We identify both bad and good equilibria and identify the settings and the choices that can be made where the designer can influence the players towards good equilibria in an expedient manner.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03428 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. On the left, larger costs α increase the hitting time (100 repetitions 95% confidence). On the right, larger rewards values ρ help to maintain the dynamics above the threshold once it is reached. Some intuition first. We observe experimentally ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hitting time for threshold technologies with increasing costs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Linear technologies for different λV ∈ {10, 20, 100} (λV = 1/τ , 10 repetitions and 95% accuracy). We next consider logit dynamics and its equilibria for this technology. The corresponding potential function (10) is ϕ(ℓ) = ρ n λV ℓ − αℓ =  ρ n λV − α  ℓ . (61) For Γ := ρ n λV − α, the stationary distribution of the corresponding birth and death process is πˆ(ℓ) =  n ℓ  · πγ(ℓ) =  n ℓ  · exp(βϕ(ℓ)) Z =  n ℓ  … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Three different matching pennies games (with choices percentages) as in ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Higher airdrop allocations ρ help stabilizing the dynamics in the “high value” region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Higher αβ slows down the convergence to the “high value” region (here α = 0.1 and β ∈ {1, 3}). 28 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The stationary distribution of the birth and death process for some parameter combinations: Larger rewards [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Digital blockchain networks appear to be following Metcalfe’s Law

    Ken Alabi. Digital blockchain networks appear to be following Metcalfe’s Law . Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 24: 0 23--29, 2017. ISSN 1567-4223. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2017.06.003. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567422317300480

    work page doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2017.06.003 2017

  2. [2]

    Crypto airdrops: An evolutionary approach

    Darcy WE Allen. Crypto airdrops: An evolutionary approach. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, pages 1--24, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Why airdrop cryptocurrency tokens? Journal of Business Research, 163: 0 113945, 2023

    Darcy WE Allen, Chris Berg, and Aaron M Lane. Why airdrop cryptocurrency tokens? Journal of Business Research, 163: 0 113945, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    The logit-response dynamics

    Carlos Al \'o s-Ferrer and Nick Netzer. The logit-response dynamics. Games and Economic Behavior, 68 0 (2): 0 413--427, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Robust stochastic stability

    Carlos Al \'o s-Ferrer and Nick Netzer. Robust stochastic stability. Economic Theory, 58: 0 31--57, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    On the convergence of logit-response to (strict) nash equilibria

    Carlos Al \'o s-Ferrer and Nick Netzer. On the convergence of logit-response to (strict) nash equilibria. Economic Theory Bulletin, 5: 0 1--8, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    The one-shot crowdfunding game

    Itai Arieli, Moran Koren, and Rann Smorodinsky. The one-shot crowdfunding game. In Proc. of the ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), page 213–214, 2018. ISBN 9781450358293. doi:10.1145/3219166.3219215. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3219166.3219215

    work page arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    On the inefficiency ratio of stable equilibria in congestion games

    Arash Asadpour and Amin Saberi. On the inefficiency ratio of stable equilibria in congestion games. In Proc. of the 5th International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics (WINE), pages 545--552. Springer, 2009

    work page 2009

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Convergence to equilibrium of logit dynamics for strategic games

    Vincenzo Auletta, Diodato Ferraioli, Francesco Pasquale, Paolo Penna, and Giuseppe Persiano. Convergence to equilibrium of logit dynamics for strategic games. In Proc. of the 23rd annual ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA), pages 197--206, 2011

    2011

  2. [10]

    Metastability of logit dynamics for coordination games

    Vincenzo Auletta, Diodato Ferraioli, Francesco Pasquale, and Giuseppe Persiano. Metastability of logit dynamics for coordination games. In Proc. of the 23rd annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 1006--1024. SIAM, 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    Logit dynamics with concurrent updates for local interaction games

    Vincenzo Auletta, Diodato Ferraioli, Francesco Pasquale, Paolo Penna, and Giuseppe Persiano. Logit dynamics with concurrent updates for local interaction games. In Proc. of the 21st Annual European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA), pages 73--84. Springer, 2013 a

    2013

  4. [12]

    Mixing time and stationary expected social welfare of logit dynamics

    Vincenzo Auletta, Diodato Ferraioli, Francesco Pasquale, and Giuseppe Persiano. Mixing time and stationary expected social welfare of logit dynamics. Theory of Computing Systems, 53: 0 3--40, 2013 b

    2013

  5. [13]

    Combinatorial agency

    Moshe Babaioff, Michal Feldman, Noam Nisan, and Eyal Winter. Combinatorial agency. Journal of Economic Theory, 147 0 (3): 0 999--1034, 2012. ISSN 0022-0531. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2012.01.010. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022053112000117

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    Project games

    Vittorio Bil \` o , Laurent Gourv \` e s, and J \' e r \^ o me Monnot. Project games. Theor. Comput. Sci., 940 0 (Part): 0 97--111, 2023. doi:10.1016/J.TCS.2022.10.043. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2022.10.043

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    The statistical mechanics of strategic interaction

    Lawrence E Blume. The statistical mechanics of strategic interaction. Games and economic behavior, 5 0 (3): 0 387--424, 1993

    1993

  8. [16]

    Lawrence E. Blume. How noise matters. Games and Economic Behavior, 44 0 (2): 0 251--271, 2003. ISSN 0899-8256. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-8256(02)00554-7. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825602005547

    2003 doi

  9. [17]

    Stochastic stability in best shot network games

    Leonardo Boncinelli and Paolo Pin. Stochastic stability in best shot network games. Games and Economic Behavior, 75 0 (2): 0 538--554, 2012

    2012

  10. [18]

    Public goods in networks

    Yann Bramoull \'e and Rachel Kranton. Public goods in networks. Journal of Economic theory, 135 0 (1): 0 478--494, 2007

    2007

  11. [19]

    A game theoretic framework for incentives in P2P systems

    Chiranjeeb Buragohain, Divyakant Agrawal, and Subhash Suri. A game theoretic framework for incentives in P2P systems. In Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P), pages 48--56. IEEE, 2003

    2003

  12. [20]

    Blockchain participation games

    Pyrros Chaidos, Aggelos Kiayias, and Evangelos Markakis. Blockchain participation games. In Proc. of the 19th International Conference on Web and Internet Economics (WINE), pages 169--187. Springer, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    The economics of crowdfunding

    Jen-Wen Chang. The economics of crowdfunding. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 12 0 (2): 0 257--280, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    On the mixing time and spectral gap for birth and death chains

    Guan-Yu Chen and Laurent Saloff-Coste. On the mixing time and spectral gap for birth and death chains. ALEA-Latin American Journal of Probability and Mathematical Statistics, 10 0 (1): 0 293--321, 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    Logit price dynamics

    James Costain and Anton Nakov. Logit price dynamics. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 51 0 (1): 0 43--78, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    General revision protocols in best response algorithms for potential games

    Pierre Coucheney, St \'e phane Durand, Bruno Gaujal, and Corinne Touati. General revision protocols in best response algorithms for potential games. In 7th Int. Conference on NETwork Games, COntrol and OPtimization (NetGCoop), pages 239--246. IEEE, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Level-k auctions: Can a nonequilibrium model of strategic thinking explain the winner's curse and overbidding in private-value auctions? Econometrica, 75 0 (6): 0 1721--1770, 2007

    Vincent P Crawford and Nagore Iriberri. Level-k auctions: Can a nonequilibrium model of strategic thinking explain the winner's curse and overbidding in private-value auctions? Econometrica, 75 0 (6): 0 1721--1770, 2007

    2007

  18. [26]

    Optimal equilibria of the best shot game

    Luca Dall’Asta, Paolo Pin, and Abolfazl Ramezanpour. Optimal equilibria of the best shot game. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 13 0 (6): 0 885--901, 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    Tight inapproximability of nash equilibria in public goods games

    J \'e r \'e mi Do Dinh and Alexandros Hollender. Tight inapproximability of nash equilibria in public goods games. Information Processing Letters, 186: 0 106486, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    The universal intersubjective work token

    EigenLabs. The universal intersubjective work token. White paper, 2014. url: https://www.blog.eigenlayer.xyz/eigen/

    2014

  21. [29]

    Altruistic and profit-oriented: Making sense of roles in web3 community from airdrop perspective

    Sizheng Fan, Tian Min, Xiao Wu, and Wei Cai. Altruistic and profit-oriented: Making sense of roles in web3 community from airdrop perspective. In Proc. of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). Association for Computing Machinery, 2023. ISBN 9781450394215....

    2023

  22. [30]

    Social pressure in opinion games

    Diodato Ferraioli and Carmine Ventre. Social pressure in opinion games. In Proc. of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 3661--3667, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Decentralized dynamics for finite opinion games

    Diodato Ferraioli, Paul W Goldberg, and Carmine Ventre. Decentralized dynamics for finite opinion games. Theoretical Computer Science, 648: 0 96--115, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    o wis and Rainer B \

    Michael Fr \"o wis and Rainer B \"o hme. The operational cost of ethereum airdrops. In Data Privacy Management, Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology: ESORICS 2019 International Workshops, DPM 2019 and CBT 2019, pages 255--270. Springer, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    The law of the few

    Andrea Galeotti and Sanjeev Goyal. The law of the few. American Economic Review, 100 0 (4): 0 1468–92, September 2010. doi:10.1257/aer.100.4.1468. URL https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.100.4.1468

    2010 doi

  26. [34]

    Network games

    Andrea Galeotti, Sanjeev Goyal, Matthew O Jackson, Fernando Vega-Redondo, and Leeat Yariv. Network games. The review of economic studies, 77 0 (1): 0 218--244, 2010

    2010

  27. [35]

    English auctions with resale: An experimental study

    Sotiris Georganas. English auctions with resale: An experimental study. Games and Economic Behavior, 73 0 (1): 0 147--166, 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    Complexity of public goods games on graphs

    Matan Gilboa and Noam Nisan. Complexity of public goods games on graphs. In Proc. of the 15th International Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory (SAGT), pages 151--168. Springer, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Ten little treasures of game theory and ten intuitive contradictions

    Jacob K Goeree and Charles A Holt. Ten little treasures of game theory and ten intuitive contradictions. American Economic Review, 91 0 (5): 0 1402--1422, 2001

    2001

  30. [38]

    Announcing the alpha v1 release of the partner chains toolkit

    Omer Husain. Announcing the alpha v1 release of the partner chains toolkit. IOHK blog post, August 2024. URL https://iohk.io/en/blog/posts/2024/08/page-1/

    2024

  31. [39]

    Attracting the right crowd under asymmetric information: A game theory application to rewards-based crowdfunding

    Francisca Jiménez-Jiménez, Maria Virtudes Alba-Fernández, and Cristina Martínez-Gómez. Attracting the right crowd under asymmetric information: A game theory application to rewards-based crowdfunding. Mathematics, 9 0 (21), 2021. ISSN 2227-7390. doi:10.3390/math9212757. URL ht...

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Sampling from the gibbs distribution in congestion games

    Pieter Kleer. Sampling from the gibbs distribution in congestion games. In Proc. of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), pages 679--680, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Stahlberg

    Max Klimm and Maximilian J. Stahlberg. Complexity of equilibria in binary public goods games on undirected graphs. In Proc. of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), page 938–955, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400701...

    2023

  34. [42]

    Levin, Yuval Peres, and Elizabeth L

    David A. Levin, Yuval Peres, and Elizabeth L. Wilmer. Markov chains and mixing times . American Mathematical Society, 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    Designing airdrops

    Kristof Lommers, Christos Makridis, and Lieven Verboven. Designing airdrops. Available at SSRN 4427295, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Makridis, Michael Fröwis, Kiran Sridhar, and Rainer Böhme

    Christos A. Makridis, Michael Fröwis, Kiran Sridhar, and Rainer Böhme. The rise of decentralized cryptocurrency exchanges: Evaluating the role of airdrops and governance tokens . Journal of Corporate Finance, 79 0 (C), 2023. doi:10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2023.1. URL https://ideas.rep...

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Tighter bounds on the inefficiency ratio of stable equilibria in load balancing games

    Akaki Mamageishvili and Paolo Penna. Tighter bounds on the inefficiency ratio of stable equilibria in load balancing games. Oper. Res. Lett., 44 0 (5): 0 645--648, 2016. doi:10.1016/J.ORL.2016.07.014. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orl.2016.07.014

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    Airdrops: Giving money away is harder than it seems

    Johnnatan Messias, Aviv Yaish, and Benjamin Livshits. Airdrops: Giving money away is harder than it seems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02752, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Convergence to equilibrium in local interaction games

    Andrea Montanari and Amin Saberi. Convergence to equilibrium in local interaction games. In Proc. of the 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), page 303–312. IEEE Computer Society, 2009. ISBN 9780769538501. doi:10.1109/FOCS.2009.64. URL https://d...

    2009 doi

  40. [48]

    Dynamic pricing under nested logit demand

    David M \"u ller, Yurii Nesterov, and Vladimir Shikhman. Dynamic pricing under nested logit demand. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.04486, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Log-linear dynamics and local potential

    Daijiro Okada and Olivier Tercieux. Log-linear dynamics and local potential. Journal of Economic Theory, 147 0 (3): 0 1140--1164, 2012

    2012

  42. [50]

    A note on expected hitting times for birth and death chains

    JoséLuis Palacios and Prasad Tetali. A note on expected hitting times for birth and death chains. Statistics & Probability Letters, 30 0 (2): 0 119--125, 1996. ISSN 0167-7152. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-7152(95)00209-X. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/p...

    1996

  43. [51]

    Public goods games in directed networks

    Christos Papadimitriou and Binghui Peng. Public goods games in directed networks. In Proc. of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), page 745–762, 2021. ISBN 9781450385541. doi:10.1145/3465456.3467616. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3465456.3467616

    2021

  44. [52]

    The price of anarchy and stability in general noisy best-response dynamics

    Paolo Penna. The price of anarchy and stability in general noisy best-response dynamics. Int. J. Game Theory, 47 0 (3): 0 839--855, 2018. doi:10.1007/S00182-017-0601-Y. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s00182-017-0601-y

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    Stochastic stability under logit choice in coalitional bargaining problems

    Ryoji Sawa. Stochastic stability under logit choice in coalitional bargaining problems. Games and economic behavior, 113: 0 633--650, 2019

    2019

  46. [54]

    Crowdfunding with cognitive limitations

    Qi Shao, Man Hon Cheung, and Jianwei Huang. Crowdfunding with cognitive limitations. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., 31 0 (6): 0 2714–2729, may 2023. ISSN 1063-6692. doi:10.1109/TNET.2023.3274114. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2023.3274114

    2023

  47. [55]

    Game-theoretic analysis of effort allocation of contributors to public projects

    Jared Soundy, Chenhao Wang, Clay Stevens, and Hau Chan. Game-theoretic analysis of effort allocation of contributors to public projects. 2021

    2021

  48. [56]

    Price optimization under the finite-mixture logit model

    Ruben van de Geer and Arnoud V den Boer. Price optimization under the finite-mixture logit model. Management Science, 68 0 (10): 0 7480--7496, 2022

    2022

  49. [57]

    Bundling and pricing strategies in crowdfunding

    Lu Wang, Xue Wang, and Hang Wei. Bundling and pricing strategies in crowdfunding. Available at SSRN 4432999, 2023

    2023

  50. [58]

    Partner chains are coming to cardano

    Mike Ward. Partner chains are coming to cardano. IOHK blog post, November 2024. URL https://iohk.io/en/blog/posts/2023/11/page-1/

    2024

  51. [59]

    Description available at https://world.org/worldcoin-token

    Worldcoin, 2025. Description available at https://world.org/worldcoin-token

    2025

  52. [60]

    Tierdrop: Harnessing airdrop farmers for user growth, 06 2024

    Aviv Yaish and Benjamin Livshits. Tierdrop: Harnessing airdrop farmers for user growth, 06 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Optimal crowdfunding design

    Xiang Yan and Yiling Chen. Optimal crowdfunding design. In Proc. of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS), pages 1704--1706, 2021

    2021

  54. [62]

    Computing equilibria in binary networked public goods games

    Sixie Yu, Kai Zhou, Jeffrey Brantingham, and Yevgeniy Vorobeychik. Computing equilibria in binary networked public goods games. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 2310--2317, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.