I used to think staking rewards were mostly payment for locking capital. Looking at @Dusk_Foundation made me realize the reward design is really paying for specific consensus work.
Provisioners enter this system by staking at least 1,000 $DUSK . Once active, they can be selected to generate blocks or join validation and ratification committees under Dusk’s Succinct Attestation consensus.
Each block reward combines newly emitted DUSK with all transaction fees collected in that block. The generator receives 70%, plus as much as another 10% depending on the credits included in the block certificate. That variable portion matters: it encourages the generator to include known committee votes rather than ignore useful consensus evidence. Any part of that additional 10% that is not distributed gets burned.
The remaining allocation separates other responsibilities clearly: 5% goes to the validation committee, 5% to the ratification committee, and 10% to the development fund. Rewards therefore follow contribution instead of treating every participant as if they performed the same job.
Penalties complete the design. Failed participation can trigger soft slashing, suspending a provisioner and moving active stake into locked stake. Provably invalid behavior including invalid votes or signing conflicting proposals or votes can trigger hard slashing and burn part of the offender’s stake.
Dusk funds these incentives through 500 million DUSK emitted over 36 years, with emissions halving every four years. The result is a security loop built from rewards, fees, burns, and credible penalties. #dusk $AKE $LAB
Do you think this division of rewards gives generators and committees the right incentives over the long term?
Provisioners enter this system by staking at least 1,000 $DUSK . Once active, they can be selected to generate blocks or join validation and ratification committees under Dusk’s Succinct Attestation consensus.
Each block reward combines newly emitted DUSK with all transaction fees collected in that block. The generator receives 70%, plus as much as another 10% depending on the credits included in the block certificate. That variable portion matters: it encourages the generator to include known committee votes rather than ignore useful consensus evidence. Any part of that additional 10% that is not distributed gets burned.
The remaining allocation separates other responsibilities clearly: 5% goes to the validation committee, 5% to the ratification committee, and 10% to the development fund. Rewards therefore follow contribution instead of treating every participant as if they performed the same job.
Penalties complete the design. Failed participation can trigger soft slashing, suspending a provisioner and moving active stake into locked stake. Provably invalid behavior including invalid votes or signing conflicting proposals or votes can trigger hard slashing and burn part of the offender’s stake.
Dusk funds these incentives through 500 million DUSK emitted over 36 years, with emissions halving every four years. The result is a security loop built from rewards, fees, burns, and credible penalties. #dusk $AKE $LAB
Do you think this division of rewards gives generators and committees the right incentives over the long term?