The One-DUSK Friction
@Dusk i’ve been stuck on Dusk’s Deterministic Sortition and the weight decay is what keeps pulling me back. on paper it’s simple: more DUSK means more weight, so bigger provisioners have better odds. but Dusk doesn’t freeze that weight. after a provisioner is selected, its weight drops by 1 DUSK before the next draw.
one DUSK feels tiny, especially against large stakes. it doesn’t remove the advantage. it just makes repeating the selection slightly harder. you start strong, you get picked, and your odds tick down a notch for the very next slot. across a full committee that small friction compounds.
i like that it isn’t a blunt cap. stake still matters as the security signal. this just nudges against the same few names showing up over and over. it’s subtle incentive design, not a fix for centralization. i’m curious how much it matters as distribution shifts. if the set widens, that 1 DUSK step could do real work.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk $SKYAI
@Dusk i’ve been stuck on Dusk’s Deterministic Sortition and the weight decay is what keeps pulling me back. on paper it’s simple: more DUSK means more weight, so bigger provisioners have better odds. but Dusk doesn’t freeze that weight. after a provisioner is selected, its weight drops by 1 DUSK before the next draw.
one DUSK feels tiny, especially against large stakes. it doesn’t remove the advantage. it just makes repeating the selection slightly harder. you start strong, you get picked, and your odds tick down a notch for the very next slot. across a full committee that small friction compounds.
i like that it isn’t a blunt cap. stake still matters as the security signal. this just nudges against the same few names showing up over and over. it’s subtle incentive design, not a fix for centralization. i’m curious how much it matters as distribution shifts. if the set widens, that 1 DUSK step could do real work.
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk $SKYAI