The Tiny Detail That Makes Dusk’s Sortition Interesting
@Dusk I’ve been looking deeper into Dusk’s Deterministic Sortition, and the more I study it, the more I like the small design choices hiding underneath the main idea. I first saw the weight model as pretty straightforward: more DUSK means more weight, so larger provisioners get stronger selection odds. But then I noticed what happens after selection. The chosen provisioner loses 1 DUSK of weight before the next extraction. I know 1 DUSK is tiny compared with a large position, so I don’t see this as some magic solution to whale concentration. What interests me is the behavior it creates. I see it as a small friction against repeated selection, while still keeping stake important for security. The advantage remains, but it cannot be reused perfectly unchanged every time. I think that’s a smarter approach than simply forcing a hard cap, and I’m curious how meaningful this becomes as stake distribution evolves
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk $MRNA.US
@Dusk I’ve been looking deeper into Dusk’s Deterministic Sortition, and the more I study it, the more I like the small design choices hiding underneath the main idea. I first saw the weight model as pretty straightforward: more DUSK means more weight, so larger provisioners get stronger selection odds. But then I noticed what happens after selection. The chosen provisioner loses 1 DUSK of weight before the next extraction. I know 1 DUSK is tiny compared with a large position, so I don’t see this as some magic solution to whale concentration. What interests me is the behavior it creates. I see it as a small friction against repeated selection, while still keeping stake important for security. The advantage remains, but it cannot be reused perfectly unchanged every time. I think that’s a smarter approach than simply forcing a hard cap, and I’m curious how meaningful this becomes as stake distribution evolves
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk $MRNA.US
