@Dusk #dusk $DUSK
I noticed something odd while running the DUSK top-up numbers: adding more capital does not mean all of that capital starts working.
A 10,000 DUSK top-up makes 9,000 active immediately, while 1,000 becomes locked. Scale it out and the pattern stays clean: 1K becomes 900 active, 10K becomes 9K, and 100K becomes 90K. After five 10K additions, that is 45K active and 5K locked.
That 90/10 split is simple, but it changes how I read capital efficiency.
The real comparison is active stake vs owned stake, not simply “how much was added.”
One 100K top-up and ten 10K top-ups both leave 90K active and 10K locked before considering transaction costs. So splitting additions does not appear to escape the 10% inactive portion.
Across 100 provisioners each adding 4,000 DUSK, 400,000 enters positions but only 360,000 joins active consensus stake. The remaining 40,000 is still owned, just not participating.
That matters because DUSK rewards depend partly on active stake relative to total active stake.
My question is smaller but uncomfortable: if repeated top-ups keep creating locked balances, when does operational flexibility start costing more than the convenience of adding stake gradually?
I noticed something odd while running the DUSK top-up numbers: adding more capital does not mean all of that capital starts working.
A 10,000 DUSK top-up makes 9,000 active immediately, while 1,000 becomes locked. Scale it out and the pattern stays clean: 1K becomes 900 active, 10K becomes 9K, and 100K becomes 90K. After five 10K additions, that is 45K active and 5K locked.
That 90/10 split is simple, but it changes how I read capital efficiency.
The real comparison is active stake vs owned stake, not simply “how much was added.”
One 100K top-up and ten 10K top-ups both leave 90K active and 10K locked before considering transaction costs. So splitting additions does not appear to escape the 10% inactive portion.
Across 100 provisioners each adding 4,000 DUSK, 400,000 enters positions but only 360,000 joins active consensus stake. The remaining 40,000 is still owned, just not participating.
That matters because DUSK rewards depend partly on active stake relative to total active stake.
My question is smaller but uncomfortable: if repeated top-ups keep creating locked balances, when does operational flexibility start costing more than the convenience of adding stake gradually?
