note that linear isn't concave :)
Conversation
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
1
1
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
It's not clear to me that expected value wouldn't run straight into St. Petersburg type paradoxes.
1
1
(more seriously:
a) st petersburg isn't a paradox, it's just highlighting how much people instinctively undervalue huge outcomes
b) the limit as t --> inf is irrelevant, and if you instead use realistic time scales it no longer gives crazy numbes
c) see twitter.com/SBF_Alameda/st)
I mean, it's not a paradox, but it loses predictiveness. I also don't agree with (a) and how it interacts with (b) because losses are unbounded on both sides and optional stopping is infinite for St. Petersburg? So I don't think you can have both (a) and (b).
2
1
Otoh, yeah, I mean, if linear utility is all you're going for (and infinite downside losses are fine) then I too suspect that you get a 0-1-type law in the limit. (In the sense that either fee->0 or fee=1 is "optimal.")
1
2
Show replies