State of #Avalanche: a) number of validators at 944, 😎 b) TVL at 213.0M $AVAX, c) GINI at 84.8%:
1/ My long terms followers will have noticed, that I've added a 2nd vertical bar to the graph. The 1st *left-hand-side* vertical bar is the 30%-vs-70% split, and the 2nd *right-hand-side* vertical bar is the 70%-vs-30% split w.r.t. to stakes.
2/ Why did I do that? Well, the LHS 30%-vs-70% split tells us that 853 out of 944 validators control 30% of the stakes, and the remaining 944 - 853 = 91 validators control 70% of the stakes.
3/ So, the LHS 30%-vs-70% split tells us that in #Avalanche a transaction needs the approval of at least of those 91 mega-validators to get processed.
4/ The RHS 70%-vs-30% split tells us that 922 validators control 70%, and the remaining 944 - 922 = 22 mega-validators control 30% of the stakes.
5/ Why is this RHS 70%-vs-30% split important? Well, it means that in #Avalanche these *22* mega-validators can *censor* your transaction, because in each voting round of the consensus algorithm the quorum needs to be larger than 70%.
6/ So summarized: In #Avalanche a TX is required to have the approval of the largest *91* mega-validators to pass, and out of these *22* monster-validators can reject your TX and censor it.
7/ Let's continue our analysis: Actually, it is possible to *group* validators by their _reward addresses_ and then repeat the same analysis we've done above. Here is the GINI graph for those validators groups:
8/ As observable in #Avalanche, there a) are 884 such validator *groups* [by their _reward address_], b) the TVL is obviously still 213.0M $AVAX, and c) GINI is higher with 89.6%, due to even higher stake concentration.
9/ As this graph shows, in #Avalanche 884 - 832 = *52* mega-validator (groups) control 70% of the stake, and 884 - 875 = *9* monster-validator (groups) control 30% of the stake.
10/ This implies that in #Avalanche a TX needs the approval of the largest *52* mega-validator (groups), and a rejection by the largest *9* monster-validator (groups) leads to a censoring of a TX.
11/ So, we have successfully put an *upper bound* regarding the (de)centralization of the #Avalanche network: At most *9* entities control whether a TX gets processed or not! It's up to our followers to decide for themselves if such a setting is decentralized or not.
I call these largest 9 monster-validator (groups) the "Censors". Their P-chain addresses & node IDs are (in descending) order:
CENSOR#1:… w/total-weight of 21000000000000000.
Node IDs: KNLkh3KVKFFhBWujmcZ5P3p2fJc3BbdNA,
NodeIDs: 6kDsBHKX9q4veBHoCjyHh94CyLNobXiY4
NodeIDs: 2JZva9683sZuXueZvphJfBnZLd9JTmy13
NodeIDs: HpMSfYT2ox1vkr1hFNMwmdWuq8QWhvH2u
NodeIDs: Pu5SGCYS3hxAeqCtmuP82mFVTDQAmzWeF
NodeIDs: AWPFmXs1VyVmGod6eg14ZC67QZafBN8BZ
NodeIDs: C3aMR9tsKqTNQra8FbqpFkMgHV5DtuJGx
NodeIDs: EZ38CcWHoSyoEfAkDN9zaieJ5Yq64YePY

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with NoTex Editor

NoTex Editor Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @notexeditor

4 Jun
State of #Avalanche: a) number of validators at 965, 🥳 b) TVL at 220.5M $AVAX, 🤑 c) GINI at 84.6%: Image
1/ GINI is a measure for *inequality*: A min. value of 0% would be very good for decentralization, and would imply perfect equality among validator stakes. A max. value of 100% would be very bad for decentralization, and would imply perfect inequality among validator stakes.
2/ So, a GINI of 0% would mean all validators have the same stake, and a GINI of 100% would mean a single validator has all the stake.
Read 14 tweets
30 May
1/ I've been looking to poke holes into #Avalanche for *two* years, writing an entire simulator for 1 million+ nodes in the process. Anything you throw at it, has either been easily solved or is easily solveable.. it's just unbreakeable:
2/ Protective ephemeral centralization by the #Avalanche foundation? That's easy to fix: distribute $AVAX via sales, tax larger validator rewards, subsidize smaller validators or modify staking to voting relationship w/o affecting safety too much.
3/ Liveness suffering due to theoretical fat-tails distributions like Pareto or Cauchy? Easy to fix: apply adaptive staking vote shaping to measure & recognize such distributions in real time. Applt counter measure by dynamic staking power adaptation.
Read 10 tweets
27 May
1/ Why #Avalanche is even better than I initially thought (part 2)?
2/ In our previous thread we discussed how *fast* the distributed #Avalanche *consensus* mechanism can sync all honest nodes:
3/ Above you see how after *only* 3 rounds the entire set of honest participants are in sync: Despite 15% being faulty (or malicious), the system manages to achieve the max. possible consensus level of 85% (for the overall network).
Read 32 tweets
27 May
State of #Avalanche: a) number of validators at 982, 😎 b) TVL at 258.7M $AVAX, 🤑 c) GINI at 85.6%:
WTF: TVL is *down* by 40M $AVAX in the last 7 days? I guess somebody is pumping up validators numbers, and trying to reduce the *apparent* GINI I'm measuring.. 🤣 Note that *real* GINI is by definition _worse_, due to the top validators belonging to the foundation..
1/ Why the socio-economic structure of #Avalanche and #Turkey are similar? Let me explain:
Read 16 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!