⚠️ Paper Alert ⚠️
Remember the Twitter argument between and ?
Recall how it hinged on logarithmic vs. linear utility functions?
Using optimal control, we show utilities are a red herring
joint w/
stanford.edu/~guillean/pape
5
37
185
Conversation
You still have a variance penalty. The point is that at the margin you should have linear utility, especially if you can rebalance to other strategies.
1
6
The arbitrageurs make money, ergo the LP could just decide to run the arbitrage against themselves. If they don't, it's because of risk considerations, ergo utility factors in for your argument. Not a red herring.
1
3
Log vs. Linear is the red herring. Any concave, cadlag utility function will work (c.f. how we use phi)
2
1
heh true but more generally linear doesn't imply that there's any impetus to rebalance
1
1
so I think it's still strictly bad to put $ in an AMM if you have linear utility
2
3
It is indeed possible that this is true; this is simply a claim that small but nonzero fee is generally optimal but we make no claim about its total utility. (Though the PDE and the explicit result we give depends on having a quadratic cost function.)
1
2
1
I think that having a small but nonzero fee is only optimal *if* you have a nonlinear utility function; with a linear one I think infinite fees are optimal
Perhaps; I'm afraid I haven't thought about this specific case carefully. Is there a simple argument that you have for this?
2
1
(Also, is there a reason you would prefer linear utility directly, over, at least, some sort of mean-variance utility?)
1
1
Show replies