An Alternative EOS Staking Algorithm

Kenneth Griffith
Jan 2, 2019 · 2 min read

This is a continuation of my thinking from the article:

I want to put out a possible alternative staking algorithm for discussion and feedback. Consider the following alternative rule set, as a possible way to implement Blumer’s suggestion. (This is my own idea, not endorsed by Mr. Blumer, or

  1. A particular token may only be staked to one Block Producer at any given time.
  2. A token staked to a given Block Producer is locked, and requires a period of time to be unlocked. (30 days, for example).
  3. All tokens staked to a particular Block Producer shall be collateral for good performance by that Block Producer.
  4. Block Producers are free to negotiate with their stakers however they see fit.

The tricky bit is number 3. If bad performance can be quantified as something that a computer can recognize as true/false, then it could be enforced on chain. Otherwise, it would require an arbitrator or human judge, which has proven to be a big can of worms.

Let’s say that “bad performance” is defined as failing to forge blocks on time, or forging invalid blocks with one or more transactions that break the rules.

If a BP triggers the condition of “bad performance” the staked tokens would get locked, the BP gets kicked off the top 21, and then a human has to decide what the damages are and who gets paid from the collateral tokens, and then refund the remainder to the token stakers.

Traditionally, that is what judges and arbitrators do. I’m not sure it is possible to write a computer program to fulfill this function.

This set of rules is on-chain enforceable, except for deciding what to do when “bad performance” has been triggered. It provides the right set of incentives to both users and block producers.

Users may be paid a return for staking their tokens to a block producer. But by staking their tokens, they are also taking some risk on the performance of that block producer. They could lose their tokens if the BP performs badly.

This set of rules follows the principle that Nasim Taleb calls “skin in the game”. The decision makers must put their money at risk to get the benefit of their decision. This leads to good decisions most of the time.

This solution might not be the best solution. I just wanted to get the conversation going, and get people thinking about how to balance the risks with the rewards.

Get Best Software Deals Directly In Your Inbox


Coinmonks is a non-profit Crypto educational publication.

Sign up for Coinmonks

By Coinmonks

A newsletter that brings you week's best crypto and blockchain stories and trending news directly in your inbox, by Take a look.

By signing up, you will create a Medium account if you don’t already have one. Review our Privacy Policy for more information about our privacy practices.

Check your inbox
Medium sent you an email at to complete your subscription.


Coinmonks is a non-profit Crypto educational publication. Follow us on Twitter @coinmonks Our other project —

Kenneth Griffith

Written by


Coinmonks is a non-profit Crypto educational publication. Follow us on Twitter @coinmonks Our other project —

Medium is an open platform where 170 million readers come to find insightful and dynamic thinking. Here, expert and undiscovered voices alike dive into the heart of any topic and bring new ideas to the surface. Learn more

Follow the writers, publications, and topics that matter to you, and you’ll see them on your homepage and in your inbox. Explore

If you have a story to tell, knowledge to share, or a perspective to offer — welcome home. It’s easy and free to post your thinking on any topic. Write on Medium

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store