Faster Blocks Make Arbitrageurs Richer and Liquidity Pools Shallower — A Theory of Optimal Blockchain Speed

Blockchain exchanges have a speed sweet spot: too slow and prices go stale, too fast and arbitrageurs pocket all the rent. This paper finds the optimum and tests it against a real protocol upgrade.

Imagine a fish market where the auctioneer speeds up the bidding clock. At first, prices track the true catch value more tightly — good for everyone. But keep cranking the clock and something breaks: the professional buyers no longer need to outbid each other aggressively because there's always another auction in seconds. They start lowballing, the auctioneer's cut shrinks, and the small fishermen who used to park inventory at the market pull out because the pros keep sniping their stock before they can adjust prices. That's the core mechanism here — not fish, but liquidity on blockchain decentralized exchanges, and the auctioneer is the block producer collecting priority fees. The committed claim: there exists an interior optimal block speed for blockchain-based exchanges, and exceeding it hurts passive liquidity providers while enriching arbitrageurs. Jia and Yu build a continuous-time game-theoretic model where arbitrageurs compete via priority fees to capture price discrepancies between a decentralized exchange (DEX) and an external reference price. Faster blocks mean the price gap per block is smaller, so the prize per arbitrage shrinks — but critically, the competition among arbitrageurs also weakens because the urgency to win any single block drops. The net effect past the optimum: arbitrageurs keep more, block producers get less, and passive liquidity providers face persistent adverse selection from an active 'cream-skimming' LP that rebalances faster than they can. The model's architecture is a mean-field game with two liquidity provider types — passive (set-and-forget) and active (can rebalance between blocks) — plus a continuum of arbitrageurs bidding in a first-price priority-fee auction each block. The key structural choice is modeling the external price as a Brownian motion and deriving closed-form equilibrium conditions for the arbitrageur bidding strategy, LP pool depth, and the active LP's rebalancing threshold. This is classical microstructure theory (Kyle, Glosten-Milgrom lineage) transplanted onto blockchain mechanics where block time is the discrete-time tick and priority fees replace exchange access fees. The empirical test uses the Base Flashblocks upgrade — a real protocol change on a major L2 chain that cut block times roughly tenfold. This is a clean natural experiment: same chain, same pools, sharp regime change. The authors document that priority-fee bids dropped sharply post-upgrade, arbitrageur net profits rose, the dominant active LP (identified in the data) rebalanced more frequently and earned higher returns, while overall pool depth fell and effective spreads widened. The direction of every effect matches the model's predictions. Integrity-wise, the natural experiment is genuinely strong — protocol upgrades are exogenous to individual pool dynamics, and the before/after design is clean. The weakness is that this is a single event on a single chain. There's no pre-registration, no out-of-sample validation on a second upgrade or a different chain. The 'active LP' is identified empirically but the paper doesn't fully characterize selection effects — did this LP exist before the upgrade with a different strategy, or did the upgrade create its niche? The theoretical model assumes Brownian external prices and identical arbitrageurs, both strong simplifications. The milestone question is practical: what block speed should a chain designer pick? The paper gives a qualitative answer (interior optimum exists) but the exact number depends on volatility, fee structures, and LP composition — parameters that shift across chains and market conditions. The real unlock would be a calibrated tool that lets protocol designers input their chain's parameters and get a recommended block interval. That's implementable today with this model but hasn't been built. The obvious next experiment the authors didn't run: testing the predictions on a second natural experiment (e.g., Ethereum's own block-time changes, or another L2 upgrade). My read is (a) — they used the best available natural experiment and there simply isn't a second clean one yet. The Base Flashblocks upgrade is recent and somewhat unique in its magnitude. A secondary gap: they don't model MEV beyond simple arbitrage (no sandwich attacks, no liquidations), which would change the welfare calculus substantially.