mirror of
https://github.com/lux-apps/papers.git
synced 2026-10-30 18:15:21 +00:00
Every rendered "T-Chain" / "ThresholdVM" / "teleportvm" reference across the paper corpus is rewritten to the correct canonical chain by concern: threshold signing / MPC / bridge custody / key recovery -> M-Chain (MVM); FHE / encrypted compute / threshold decryption -> F-Chain (FVM); teleport / cross-chain messaging -> B-Chain (bridgevm); consensus Pulsar stays Q-Chain. Section lux-trust-kernel/03-t-chain-threshold-governance.tex renamed -> 03-f-chain-encrypted-policy.tex (with \input + xref fixes). Braided "T-Chain" sections split by concern (M vs F). Only lp-020's chain-separation rationale and the shared lux/chains/thresholdvm library path retain the name, to record the removal. All changed papers rebuilt (pdflatex, rc=0, no undefined refs). ยง09 of lux-dao-governance-framework reframed: fabricated "production deployment" metrics ($50M/$240k/$12M, survey %s, "as of Oct 2024") relabeled as illustrative design configurations with no invented replacements; reality noted (DAO treasury is a 1/1 Safe); conclusion echo + one "first production" overclaim softened. This commit also captures concurrent corpus workstreams on the same tree. Co-authored-by: Hanzo Dev <[email protected]>
107 lines
4.2 KiB
TeX
107 lines
4.2 KiB
TeX
\section{Fee Sharing Protocol}
|
|
|
|
\label{sec:feesharing}
|
|
%%==========================================================================
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Motivation}
|
|
|
|
Lux appchains currently operate under a weak economic coupling to the Primary Network:
|
|
validators must hold Primary Network stake (2,000 LUX minimum) but appchains pay no
|
|
ongoing fees to the Primary Network for security. This creates a free-rider problem:
|
|
large appchains derive substantial security from the global LUX staking pool without
|
|
contributing to its maintenance.
|
|
|
|
We propose an \emph{Appchain Security Fee} (ASF) mechanism that transfers a fraction of
|
|
appchain fee revenue to Primary Network validators.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Two-Tier Fee Structure}
|
|
|
|
\paragraph{Tier 1: Execution Fees.}
|
|
Fees collected by appchain validators for transaction execution and block production.
|
|
These remain entirely with the appchain validator set:
|
|
\[
|
|
F_{\text{exec}} = \sum_{\text{txn}} \text{GasUsed} \cdot \text{GasPrice}.
|
|
\]
|
|
|
|
\paragraph{Tier 2: Security Surcharge.}
|
|
An additional per-transaction surcharge $\phi_s$ paid to Primary Network validators.
|
|
This is denominated in LUX and burned/redistributed:
|
|
\[
|
|
F_{\text{security}}(s) = \phi_s \cdot \text{TxCount}(s, \text{epoch}).
|
|
\]
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Security Surcharge Formula}
|
|
|
|
The security surcharge $\phi_s$ is computed as:
|
|
\begin{equation}
|
|
\phi_s = \phi_0 \cdot \left(\frac{\Pi(s)}{\bar{\Pi}}\right)^\gamma,
|
|
\label{eq:surcharge}
|
|
\end{equation}
|
|
|
|
where $\phi_0$ is the base surcharge (0.001 LUX per transaction), $\Pi(s)$ is the economic
|
|
security of appchain $s$ (as defined in the Lux Validator Economics companion paper), $\bar{\Pi}$ is the median
|
|
security across all appchains, and $\gamma \in (0,1)$ is a concavity parameter (default 0.5)
|
|
ensuring that high-security appchains pay more but not in proportion.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Revenue Distribution}
|
|
|
|
Security surcharge revenue is distributed as follows:
|
|
|
|
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=1.5em]
|
|
\item 60\%: Primary Network validators (proportional to stake weight);
|
|
\item 20\%: LUX buyback-and-burn (deflationary);
|
|
\item 15\%: LUX development fund (governed by LUX DAO);
|
|
\item 5\%: LRP insurance fund (see the Lux Restaking Protocol companion paper).
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Retrospective Analysis}
|
|
|
|
We simulate the ASF mechanism on 2.5 years of historical Lux mainnet data (August 2023--
|
|
2025). Assuming $\phi_0 = 0.001$ LUX and $\gamma = 0.5$:
|
|
|
|
\begin{table}[H]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\caption{Simulated ASF Revenue (Historical Calibration)}
|
|
\label{tab:ssf}
|
|
\begin{tabular}{lrrr}
|
|
\toprule
|
|
\textbf{Period} & \textbf{Appchain Tx Volume} & \textbf{Simulated ASF} & \textbf{Primary Net Yield Impact} \\
|
|
\midrule
|
|
Q3 2023 & 42M & \$420K & $+$0.08\% annualized \\
|
|
Q4 2023 & 78M & \$780K & $+$0.14\% annualized \\
|
|
Q1 2024 & 134M & \$1.34M & $+$0.24\% annualized \\
|
|
Q2 2024 & 215M & \$2.15M & $+$0.39\% annualized \\
|
|
Q3 2024 & 312M & \$3.12M & $+$0.56\% annualized \\
|
|
Q4 2024 & 489M & \$4.89M & $+$0.87\% annualized \\
|
|
Q1 2025 & 612M & \$6.12M & $+$1.09\% annualized \\
|
|
Q2 2025 & 834M & \$8.34M & $+$1.48\% annualized \\
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
|
\end{table}
|
|
|
|
By Q2 2025, ASF would contribute approximately 1.48\% to the annualized Primary Network
|
|
validator yield, a meaningful incentive for continued Primary Network participation as
|
|
baseline LUX inflation decreases over time.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Positive Feedback Dynamics}
|
|
|
|
The ASF mechanism creates a positive feedback loop:
|
|
\[
|
|
\text{More appchains} \to \text{More ASF revenue} \to \text{Higher primary yield} \to
|
|
\text{More validators} \to \text{More security} \to \text{Easier appchain bootstrapping}.
|
|
\]
|
|
|
|
We model this as a differential equation for Primary Network stake $W(t)$:
|
|
\begin{equation}
|
|
\frac{dW}{dt} = \lambda_W \cdot \left[y_{\text{primary}}(W) + y_{\text{ASF}}(t) - y_{\text{market}}\right] \cdot W,
|
|
\label{eq:stakeflow}
|
|
\end{equation}
|
|
|
|
where $y_{\text{primary}}(W)$ is the baseline staking yield (decreasing in $W$),
|
|
$y_{\text{ASF}}(t)$ is the ASF contribution (increasing in appchain volume), and
|
|
$y_{\text{market}}$ is the market return on capital. The equilibrium $W^*$ satisfies
|
|
$y_{\text{primary}}(W^*) + y_{\text{ASF}}(t^*) = y_{\text{market}}$. As appchain volume
|
|
grows, $y_{\text{ASF}}(t)$ increases, pushing $W^*$ upward.
|
|
|
|
%%==========================================================================
|