After the DUSK conditional reward is recaptured into the national treasury, will node APR be forced to rely on transaction fees?
Look at that economic model audit report from POL Finance. The allocation of 19.86 DUSK per block is written in stone: block producers get 70% base + up to 10% conditional rewards (conditional reward, issued based on certificate credits; if you don’t obtain enough, they are burned). Then verification committee gets 5%, approval committee 5%, and the foundation 10%.
That 10% conditional reward is not automatically fully paid out—if the block producer’s certificate doesn’t include enough credits, the shortfall is immediately destroyed and does not go into anyone’s pockets. The OpenDusk forum is now arguing about “redirecting part of the originally-to-be-burned block reward into the community treasury.” What’s being moved is exactly this conditional reward deficit that was already going to be burned—not the base 70%.
So will node APR be forced to make up the difference through fees? Consider it in two layers.
First layer: the first 36 years of the emission period. In the block rewards, the newly minted 19.86 DUSK follows geometric decay (halving every 4 years). On top of that, every block also adds the full transaction fee (fees paid in DUSK: both L2 execution and L1 DA burn DUSK) and puts it into the block reward pool, allocated 70%/5%/5%/10%. With the mainnet staking ratio around 171M/500M circulating (about 171M+ per the official site real-time), APR is still in the 20%+ range, driven by the newly minted rewards plus low fees. The portion of conditional rewards that gets burned never entered APR in the first place. Moving it into the OpenDusk treasury (“burned → change to multisig”) has zero impact on node take-home rewards, so there is no situation of “APR drops because the conditional reward is missing.”
Second layer: after 36 years, newly minted rewards go to zero. Then APR relies entirely on the transaction-fee pool. At that time, whether the DuskEVM mainnet (2027) + NPEX bond DvP + XSC dividend distribution each time adjusts the Hedger variable to burn DUSK will be the key to whether the per-block fee pool can replace the 19.86 newly minted. Based on the NPEX estimate of 200 million euros in outstanding inventory, bond DvP might generate only a few thousand transactions per day; if the per-transaction fee is something like 0.0x DUSK, the fee pool would only cover the tiny part in the later decayed period (e.g., in cycle 9, 0.0776 DUSK per block), and cannot cover the early 19.86. Therefore, it’s not “recaptured conditional rewards force nodes to rely on fees.” It’s: “in the 36-year emission tail, fees are what it was always going to rely on anyway; whether the conditional rewards get burned or not doesn’t change that outcome.”
I run a 500U-equivalent provisioner on the mainnet, and in the logs there are many blocks with conditional_credits=0. That 1.98574 DUSK is indeed burned, but the base 13.90018 still comes through, and the APR calculator doesn’t fluctuate.
When you calculate DUSK long-term APR, do you count only the newly minted rewards, or do you draw a separate line for the fee pool after 36 years?
@Dusk $DUSK #dusk
Look at that economic model audit report from POL Finance. The allocation of 19.86 DUSK per block is written in stone: block producers get 70% base + up to 10% conditional rewards (conditional reward, issued based on certificate credits; if you don’t obtain enough, they are burned). Then verification committee gets 5%, approval committee 5%, and the foundation 10%.
That 10% conditional reward is not automatically fully paid out—if the block producer’s certificate doesn’t include enough credits, the shortfall is immediately destroyed and does not go into anyone’s pockets. The OpenDusk forum is now arguing about “redirecting part of the originally-to-be-burned block reward into the community treasury.” What’s being moved is exactly this conditional reward deficit that was already going to be burned—not the base 70%.
So will node APR be forced to make up the difference through fees? Consider it in two layers.
First layer: the first 36 years of the emission period. In the block rewards, the newly minted 19.86 DUSK follows geometric decay (halving every 4 years). On top of that, every block also adds the full transaction fee (fees paid in DUSK: both L2 execution and L1 DA burn DUSK) and puts it into the block reward pool, allocated 70%/5%/5%/10%. With the mainnet staking ratio around 171M/500M circulating (about 171M+ per the official site real-time), APR is still in the 20%+ range, driven by the newly minted rewards plus low fees. The portion of conditional rewards that gets burned never entered APR in the first place. Moving it into the OpenDusk treasury (“burned → change to multisig”) has zero impact on node take-home rewards, so there is no situation of “APR drops because the conditional reward is missing.”
Second layer: after 36 years, newly minted rewards go to zero. Then APR relies entirely on the transaction-fee pool. At that time, whether the DuskEVM mainnet (2027) + NPEX bond DvP + XSC dividend distribution each time adjusts the Hedger variable to burn DUSK will be the key to whether the per-block fee pool can replace the 19.86 newly minted. Based on the NPEX estimate of 200 million euros in outstanding inventory, bond DvP might generate only a few thousand transactions per day; if the per-transaction fee is something like 0.0x DUSK, the fee pool would only cover the tiny part in the later decayed period (e.g., in cycle 9, 0.0776 DUSK per block), and cannot cover the early 19.86. Therefore, it’s not “recaptured conditional rewards force nodes to rely on fees.” It’s: “in the 36-year emission tail, fees are what it was always going to rely on anyway; whether the conditional rewards get burned or not doesn’t change that outcome.”
I run a 500U-equivalent provisioner on the mainnet, and in the logs there are many blocks with conditional_credits=0. That 1.98574 DUSK is indeed burned, but the base 13.90018 still comes through, and the APR calculator doesn’t fluctuate.
When you calculate DUSK long-term APR, do you count only the newly minted rewards, or do you draw a separate line for the fee pool after 36 years?
@Dusk $DUSK #dusk