The part of @Dusk_Foundation consensus design I keep coming back to isnt the stake itself.Its what happens after stake becomes eligible for selection.

Dusk uses deterministic sortition to choose the block generator and voting committees. The selection is reproducible, but the weighting is tied to stake. More interestingly, when a provisioner receives a selection credit, its weight is reduced by 1 DUSK for that selection.
That small detail changes the incentive structure.

Without some balancing mechanism, higher-stake participants could keep getting selected simply because they have more economic weight. Dusk instead tries to keep participation frequency proportional to stake over time.

I like that the design acknowledges the obvious tension instead of pretending stake-weighted selection is automatically fair.

But proportional participation still means economic weight matters.
So does reducing a provisioner's selection weight create a genuinely balanced committee process, or does stake still have too much influence over who gets to shape consensus?

#dusk @Dusk $DUSK