Computational asymmetries — not belief differences — can determine whether AI agents reach a no-trade equilibrium: slight differences in compute stabilize markets, while identical or deliberately under-used compute fuels perpetual strategic churn and trading, making AI-driven markets potentially more volatile than classical theory predicts.

Main Finding

The paper shows a computational inversion of the classic no-trade intuition: when two AI agents share common priors (no informational asymmetry) and always deploy their maximal computational power, a stable no-trade outcome (Nash equilibrium) is obtained if their computational powers are almost identical but differ by a small, persistent amount; by contrast, if their computational powers are perfectly identical (asymptotically equal), equilibrium may fail to exist in some games and agents can engage in persistent strategic adjustment (interpreted as trade). Allowing agents to strategically under‑utilize compute (pretend to be weaker) further undermines equilibrium (e.g., eliminates equilibria in Matching Pennies).

Key Points

• Conceptual inversion: classical no-trade results link trade to informational heterogeneity; here, trade-like instability can arise from computational homogeneity even under common beliefs.
• Model summary:
  • Start from a two-player finite normal‑form game G.
  • Unfold G into an infinite-play game Guf where each player commits to an infinite pure-action sequence; payoffs are long-run average (lim inf of averages).
  • Folding maps an eventually-periodic sequence to a mixed strategy by action frequencies.
• Computational rationality:
  • Players are computationally bounded: each can only generate eventually-repeating sequences whose repeating block (period) length equals their rationality level τ.
  • "Almost rational" agents: sequences τ(n) → ∞ as n → ∞.
  • "Almost identical" rationality means |τ1(n) − τ2(n)| / min{τ1(n), τ2(n)} → 0.
• Equilibrium concept:
  • For fixed τi, define ϵ‑approximate Nash equilibrium in Guf.
  • A sequence of profiles {s(n)} is a Nash equilibrium for almost-rational agents if each s(n) is an ϵn‑NE with ϵn → 0.
• Main theorem (Theorem 3.5):
  • For almost-identical τ1(n), τ2(n), the existence of a Nash-equilibrium sequence for every two-player finite game is equivalent to τ1(n) ≠ τ2(n) for all sufficiently large n (i.e., they remain slightly different).
  • Thus: slight heterogeneity ⇒ existence of equilibrium (no-trade); perfect homogeneity ⇒ equilibrium may fail (trade-like dynamics possible).
• Correspondence (Theorem 3.6):
  • Any Nash equilibrium of the original finite game can be realized as the limit of equilibrium sequences in the unfolding game when τ1, τ2 are almost identical but always slightly different.
• Role of strategic under-utilization:
  • If agents can choose to play with a smaller period than their true capability, they can deliberately disrupt predictability. In matching-pennies style games this can eliminate all Nash equilibria in the unfolding framework.
• Illustrative example: Matching Pennies demonstrates both regimes (coprime periods produce effective mixing → equilibrium; identical periods can produce cyclical, non‑convergent best responses).

Data & Methods

• Methodological approach: formal, theoretical, game-theoretic proofs (no empirical data).
• Key technical devices:
  • Unfolding game formalization to represent static mixed strategies as frequencies of infinite sequences.
  • Restriction to eventually-repeating sequences (x y∞) to model what finite-memory / finite-state inference-phase AI agents can produce.
  • Use of lim inf long-run-average payoffs to handle non-convergent sequences.
  • Definitions of rationality levels, almost-rational sequences, and precise asymptotic comparisons between τ sequences.
  • Construction arguments: folding/unfolding relationships connect equilibrium properties in Guf back to equilibria in G; combinatorial period alignment (LCM, coprime periods) is used in examples and constructions.
• Proofs: formal theorems (3.5, 3.6) proven in the paper; main ideas rely on using differing periods to emulate fixed mixed strategies and on symmetry of periods to build cycles that prevent convergence.

Implications for AI Economics

• New mechanism for trade-like activity: computational limits (and their pattern across agents) can by themselves generate ongoing strategic revisions that resemble trade, even when agents agree on information and priors.
• Policy / market-design insight:
  • Heterogeneity in deployed compute (even slight) can stabilize outcomes; perfect uniformity of compute across agents can make markets more volatile.
  • Regulators or platform designers might prefer (or enforce) some controlled heterogeneity in agent capabilities to reduce perpetual strategic churn.
• Engineering implication:
  • The common industrial push toward uniform, ever-larger inference capacities across agents could unintentionally increase instability in strategic environments (e.g., algorithmic trading, automated negotiations).
  • Monitoring and constraining the ability of agents to strategically under‑utilize compute (or equivalently, to randomize generation patterns) could be critical to ensure predictable equilibria.
• Limitations and directions for further work:
  • Abstract, two-player theoretical model; extensions needed for many-agent markets, richer state dynamics, learning/adaptation during play, or endogenous compute costs.
  • The model assumes eventual periodicity (finite-memory agents); real systems can incorporate stochasticity, learning, and off‑line retraining—bringing analysis of dynamic and stochastic strategies into play.
  • Empirical validation: simulate multi-agent markets with bounded-state agents (finite automata/LLM-style generators) to test how homogeneity/heterogeneity in compute affects market statistics (trade volume, price volatility, convergence).
• Takeaway: computational architecture and the distribution of computational capabilities across agents are first-order determinants of strategic stability and thus of trade dynamics in AI-mediated markets — a complement (and in some cases an inversion) to information-based explanations.