mirror of
https://github.com/lux-apps/papers.git
synced 2026-11-02 11:39:52 +00:00
zeekay
f4ee7a0525
Bylines, paper authorship, correspondence addresses and the founder blurb under each post named an individual. They name the organisation that published the work instead: the brand on posts and pages, the research byline on papers, and research@ in place of a personal address. Both are what these repositories already used elsewhere — nothing new was coined. Co-authors are untouched. Where a paper named someone else alongside, they stay named; only the one byline changed. Bibliography entries, running heads, PDF metadata and affiliations move with it, so a citation still resolves to whoever the cited paper names. Sample and fixture data uses the placeholder name these tests already use elsewhere, so no assertion changed meaning.
68 lines
3.1 KiB
TeX
68 lines
3.1 KiB
TeX
\documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{article}
|
|
\usepackage{../shared/luxcover}
|
|
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
|
|
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
|
|
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amsthm}
|
|
\usepackage{graphicx}
|
|
\usepackage{hyperref}
|
|
\usepackage{algorithm}
|
|
\usepackage{algpseudocode}
|
|
\usepackage{booktabs}
|
|
\usepackage{multirow}
|
|
\usepackage{array}
|
|
\usepackage{xcolor}
|
|
\usepackage{float}
|
|
\usepackage{enumitem}
|
|
\usepackage{mathtools}
|
|
\usepackage{pgfplots}
|
|
\pgfplotsset{compat=1.18}
|
|
|
|
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
|
|
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
|
|
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
|
|
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
|
|
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
|
|
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}
|
|
|
|
\hypersetup{
|
|
colorlinks=true,
|
|
linkcolor=blue,
|
|
citecolor=blue,
|
|
urlcolor=blue
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
\title{\textbf{Validator Economics in Proof-of-Stake:\\Incentive Alignment for Lux Network}\\[6pt]
|
|
\large Delegation Mechanics, Commission Structures, Slashing Conditions,\\Reward Distribution, and Game-Theoretic Equilibrium Analysis}
|
|
|
|
\author{
|
|
Lux Research\thanks{Corresponding author: [email protected]}\\
|
|
\textit{Lux Industries Inc}\\
|
|
\texttt{[email protected]}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
\date{2023}
|
|
|
|
\begin{document}
|
|
|
|
\luxcoverpage
|
|
|
|
\begin{abstract}
|
|
We present a comprehensive economic analysis of validator incentives in the Lux Network Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus system. Validators secure the network by staking LUX tokens and participating in consensus, earning rewards proportional to their stake and performance. Delegators extend the system by entrusting tokens to validators in exchange for a share of rewards. This paper formalizes the complete validator economic model, including: (i)~a delegation mechanism with bounded commission rates and minimum stake thresholds that ensures Sybil resistance; (ii)~a multi-tier slashing protocol with graduated penalties for downtime, equivocation, and coordinated attacks; (iii)~a reward distribution algorithm that accounts for uptime, stake weight, and appchain participation; and (iv)~a game-theoretic analysis proving that honest validation is a dominant strategy under rational assumptions. We derive the Nash equilibrium of the validator participation game, show that the commission market converges to a competitive rate under free entry, and demonstrate through simulation that the protocol achieves target validator decentralization (Nakamoto coefficient $\geq 20$) within 100 epochs. The model is parameterized for Lux Network's multi-appchain architecture, where validators may simultaneously validate multiple appchains and earn compounded rewards.
|
|
\end{abstract}
|
|
|
|
\input{sections/01-introduction}
|
|
\input{sections/02-system-model}
|
|
\input{sections/03-delegation-mechanism}
|
|
\input{sections/04-slashing-protocol}
|
|
\input{sections/05-reward-distribution}
|
|
\input{sections/06-game-theoretic-analysis}
|
|
\input{sections/07-multi-appchain-validator-economics}
|
|
\input{sections/08-decentralization-metrics}
|
|
\input{sections/09-simulation-results}
|
|
\input{sections/10-validator-lifecycle-management}
|
|
\input{sections/11-comparison-with-other-pos-systems}
|
|
\input{sections/12-related-work}
|
|
\input{sections/99-conclusion}
|
|
|
|
\end{document}
|