My tailor in Lahore splits earnings with his two apprentices on a flat percentage every single job, same cut no matter how much work the apprentices actually put in that day. I assumed Dusk's 80/10/10 block reward split worked the same way, fixed shares handed out no matter what.
Only the 10 percent to Dusk and roughly the base structure are fixed. The generator's 80 percent actually splits into two pieces, a locked in 70 percent and a variable 10 percent that depends entirely on how many votes the generator includes in the block certificate. Leave votes out, and that variable slice shrinks. Include every known vote, and the generator earns the full 80.
That detail flipped how I saw this system. It's not really an 80/10/10 split, it's a compliance incentive dressed up as a reward split. The generator is financially pushed to gather as many validator signatures as possible before finalizing a block, which directly strengthens the odds that voters actually get their own 10 percent share too. The voter reward pool is distributed based on credits held, tying back to the weighted committee system I covered before.
What the whitepaper doesn't clarify is how often generators in practice submit blocks with incomplete vote sets, whether that's rare or a real recurring behavior. I can't answer that from the source material.
The real test for DUSK is whether this incentive structure keeps generators including full vote sets once network activity scales up.
Does anyone know if Dusk publishes real generator vote inclusion rates anywhere?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Only the 10 percent to Dusk and roughly the base structure are fixed. The generator's 80 percent actually splits into two pieces, a locked in 70 percent and a variable 10 percent that depends entirely on how many votes the generator includes in the block certificate. Leave votes out, and that variable slice shrinks. Include every known vote, and the generator earns the full 80.
That detail flipped how I saw this system. It's not really an 80/10/10 split, it's a compliance incentive dressed up as a reward split. The generator is financially pushed to gather as many validator signatures as possible before finalizing a block, which directly strengthens the odds that voters actually get their own 10 percent share too. The voter reward pool is distributed based on credits held, tying back to the weighted committee system I covered before.
What the whitepaper doesn't clarify is how often generators in practice submit blocks with incomplete vote sets, whether that's rare or a real recurring behavior. I can't answer that from the source material.
The real test for DUSK is whether this incentive structure keeps generators including full vote sets once network activity scales up.
Does anyone know if Dusk publishes real generator vote inclusion rates anywhere?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
