#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Someone mentioned DUSK's max supply in the replies almost as a side note last week, and I realized I'd never actually looked at how emission is structured.
Just knew there was a cap somewhere.
500 million DUSK existed at genesis.
Another 500 million gets emitted over time, capped at 1 billion total, spread across 36 years.
Not a straight line either.
It decays geometrically, halving roughly every 4 years, so the early years carry a lot more new supply hitting circulation than the later ones ever will.
The reward split inside each block surprised me more than the emission curve did.
Block generator gets a fixed 70%, plus up to another 10% depending on how many committee votes actually made it into that block's certificate. Development fund takes 10%.
Validation committee splits 5%, ratification committee splits another 5%.
Here's the part I didn't expect. Whatever portion of that variable 10% doesn't get earned, because votes were missing from the certificate, doesn't roll over to anyone.
It just gets burned outright.
That's not a rounding rule.
It's an incentive.
A generator who only cares about their own reward and ignores gathering everyone's votes is quietly leaving money on the table, permanently, not redistributing it to someone else who did the work.
The design punishes sloppiness by deleting Value instead of reassigning it.
Two things I keep turning over🤔.
Does front-loading emission this heavily actually make sense for a chain aiming at long-term institutional use, or does it just mean the earliest stakers capture most of the upside before the real utility even shows up?
And does burning the unearned portion of a reward meaningfully change generator behavior in practice, or is it small enough that nobody actually adjusts what they do because of it?
🤓
Someone mentioned DUSK's max supply in the replies almost as a side note last week, and I realized I'd never actually looked at how emission is structured.
Just knew there was a cap somewhere.
500 million DUSK existed at genesis.
Another 500 million gets emitted over time, capped at 1 billion total, spread across 36 years.
Not a straight line either.
It decays geometrically, halving roughly every 4 years, so the early years carry a lot more new supply hitting circulation than the later ones ever will.
The reward split inside each block surprised me more than the emission curve did.
Block generator gets a fixed 70%, plus up to another 10% depending on how many committee votes actually made it into that block's certificate. Development fund takes 10%.
Validation committee splits 5%, ratification committee splits another 5%.
Here's the part I didn't expect. Whatever portion of that variable 10% doesn't get earned, because votes were missing from the certificate, doesn't roll over to anyone.
It just gets burned outright.
That's not a rounding rule.
It's an incentive.
A generator who only cares about their own reward and ignores gathering everyone's votes is quietly leaving money on the table, permanently, not redistributing it to someone else who did the work.
The design punishes sloppiness by deleting Value instead of reassigning it.
Two things I keep turning over🤔.
Does front-loading emission this heavily actually make sense for a chain aiming at long-term institutional use, or does it just mean the earliest stakers capture most of the upside before the real utility even shows up?
And does burning the unearned portion of a reward meaningfully change generator behavior in practice, or is it small enough that nobody actually adjusts what they do because of it?
🤓