@Dusk_Foundation
I added up Dusk's block reward split expecting it to land on 100%. Block generator 70%, development fund 10%, validation committee 5%, ratification committee 5%. That's 90%. The missing 10% is the piece I had assumed was fixed. It isn't.
That last slice goes to the block generator too — but only up to 10%, based on the credits included in the block certificate. Any undistributed portion is burned.
So emission on Dusk is partly performance-conditional. A block whose certificate carries a full set of committee votes pays the whole reward. A block that gathers fewer credits pays less, and the shortfall isn't held over or redirected — it's destroyed. Every block is a small referendum on committee participation, settled in supply.
Which is why the emission headline and the staker-facing number are two different questions. Dusk emits 500,000,000 DUSK over 36 years on geometric decay, r = 0.5, halving every four years. Period one: 19.8574 DUSK per block across 12,614,400 blocks, 250.48M DUSK total. That's issuance. But 10% of every block reward routes to the development fund, and an unknown fraction of the conditional 10% is burned. "What does the chain emit per block" and "what reaches a staker" resolve differently — and the second depends on how well the network attested that specific block.
I think this is more honest than a fixed APY promise. It prices actual consensus participation instead of advertising a number and hoping the network delivers. But honesty and modelability aren't the same thing. Sizing a validator business now requires an assumption about average certificate completeness — a variable with no marketing page.
Dusk is courting institutional validators for regulated markets. Is performance-conditional, partially-burned reward the right incentive for that audience, or do institutions need predictability more than they need elegance?
#dusk $DUSK
I added up Dusk's block reward split expecting it to land on 100%. Block generator 70%, development fund 10%, validation committee 5%, ratification committee 5%. That's 90%. The missing 10% is the piece I had assumed was fixed. It isn't.
That last slice goes to the block generator too — but only up to 10%, based on the credits included in the block certificate. Any undistributed portion is burned.
So emission on Dusk is partly performance-conditional. A block whose certificate carries a full set of committee votes pays the whole reward. A block that gathers fewer credits pays less, and the shortfall isn't held over or redirected — it's destroyed. Every block is a small referendum on committee participation, settled in supply.
Which is why the emission headline and the staker-facing number are two different questions. Dusk emits 500,000,000 DUSK over 36 years on geometric decay, r = 0.5, halving every four years. Period one: 19.8574 DUSK per block across 12,614,400 blocks, 250.48M DUSK total. That's issuance. But 10% of every block reward routes to the development fund, and an unknown fraction of the conditional 10% is burned. "What does the chain emit per block" and "what reaches a staker" resolve differently — and the second depends on how well the network attested that specific block.
I think this is more honest than a fixed APY promise. It prices actual consensus participation instead of advertising a number and hoping the network delivers. But honesty and modelability aren't the same thing. Sizing a validator business now requires an assumption about average certificate completeness — a variable with no marketing page.
Dusk is courting institutional validators for regulated markets. Is performance-conditional, partially-burned reward the right incentive for that audience, or do institutions need predictability more than they need elegance?
#dusk $DUSK