On staking incentives: the sweet spot sits at 69% participation. Here's the math—stake ratios follow a power law distribution, meaning returns scale non-linearly. Once you hit the 1/sqrt(2) threshold, additional stake locks in diminishing security gains. Push past that, and you're mostly just tying up capital with marginal protocol benefit. So validators hunting optimal returns should target that 69% zone, not chase ever-higher stakes.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 6
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
NFTRegrettervip
· 14h ago
How is the number 69% so perfectly timed? It seems the market always loves to play this game.
View OriginalReply0
BuyTheTopvip
· 14h ago
Is the number 69% really that amazing? It feels like a bunch of mathematical formulas brainwashing again.
View OriginalReply0
OnchainDetectivevip
· 15h ago
The 69% figure... is a bit too much of a coincidence. According to on-chain data, large holders' staking behavior has indeed been concentrated in this range recently, but the transaction patterns are abnormal—tracking through multiple addresses reveals that the flow of funds is clearly uneven. The obvious correlation and typical coordinated staking methods have already targeted the address.
View OriginalReply0
ContractExplorervip
· 15h ago
Why is the number 69% so mesmerizing... But honestly, over-staking is playing with fire, and capital utilization efficiency is directly compromised.
View OriginalReply0
WhaleMinionvip
· 15h ago
Is the 69% figure real or just another attempt to fool us?
View OriginalReply0
LightningAllInHerovip
· 15h ago
The number 69% is a bit interesting, but I still think many validators don't really care about these things—they just go all-in and that's it.
View OriginalReply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
English
  • بالعربية
  • Português (Brasil)
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Español
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Русский
  • 繁體中文
  • Українська
  • Tiếng Việt