Abstract:In this paper, we investigate the impact of reward schemes and committee sizes motivated by governance systems over blockchain communities. We introduce a model for elections with a binary outcome space where there is a ground truth (i.e., a "correct" outcome), and where stakeholders can only choose to delegate their voting power to a set of delegation representatives (DReps). Moreover, the effort (cost) invested by each DRep positively influences both (i) her ability to vote correctly and (ii) the total delegation that she attracts, thereby increasing her voting power. This model constitutes the natural counterpart of delegated proof-of-stake (PoS) protocols, where delegated stakes are used to elect the block builders. As a way to motivate the representatives to exert effort, a reward scheme can be used based on the delegation attracted by each DRep. We analyze both the game-theoretic aspects and the optimization counterpart of this model. Our primary focus is on selecting a committee that maximizes the probability of reaching the correct outcome, given a fixed monetary budget allocated for rewarding the delegates. Our findings provide insights into the design of effective reward mechanisms and optimal committee structures (i.e., how many DReps are enough) in these PoS-like governance systems.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The main problems that this paper attempts to solve are how to design an effective reward mechanism and determine the optimal committee size (i.e., the number of representatives) in the Proof of Stake (PoS) blockchain governance system to maximize the probability of making correct decisions. Specifically, the paper focuses on the following two core issues: 1. **Design of the reward mechanism**: How to design a reward scheme so that the Delegated Representatives (DReps) are motivated to put in enough effort to improve the accuracy of voting and attract more delegated voting rights. The key here is to find a balance that can not only encourage representatives to work actively but also not exceed the preset budget. 2. **Selection of the committee size**: Given a budget, how many representatives should be selected to ensure that the election results are as close as possible to the "correct" results. This involves understanding the impact of different - sized committees on the quality of the final decision and whether there is a relatively small group of representatives sufficient to achieve high - quality decisions. ### Model overview The paper introduces an election model in a binary outcome space, where there is a "correct" outcome (ground truth). Each stakeholder can choose to delegate their voting rights to a group of Delegated Representatives (DReps). The effort level (cost) of each representative not only affects their ability to vote correctly but also the amount of delegated voting rights they attract, thereby increasing their voting weight. ### Key findings - **Deficiencies of the proportional distribution reward mechanism**: The paper finds that simple proportional sharing of rewards will lead to a low - quality Nash equilibrium, that is, representatives put in too little effort, resulting in the probability of making correct decisions approaching the result of random selection (1/2). - **Advantages of the threshold reward mechanism**: In contrast, adopting a threshold reward mechanism (Threshold mechanism), that is, only representatives who collect enough delegated voting rights can receive rewards, can induce a higher level of effort, and all equilibrium states are close to the optimal effort level. - **Optimal committee size**: For different types of cost functions (such as concave, convex, concave - convex combinations), the paper explores the optimal committee size. For example, under a concave cost function, a single representative is optimal; while under a convex cost function, the optimal number of representatives is closely related to the budget. ### Formula summary - **Voting weight formula**: \[ w_i=\frac{x_i}{\sum_j x_j} \] where \(x_i\) is the effort level of the \(i\)-th representative. - **Success probability formula**: \[ P_{\text{succ}}(x)=\Pr\left[\sum_{i = 1}^n w_i\cdot X_i>\frac{1}{2}\right]+\frac{1}{2}\Pr\left[\sum_{i = 1}^n w_i\cdot X_i=\frac{1}{2}\right] \] where \(X_i\) is a Bernoulli random variable, indicating whether the \(i\)-th representative votes correctly. - **Optimization objective**: \[ \max_{x}P_{\text{succ}}(x)\quad\text{s.t.}\quad\sum_{i = 1}^n c(x_i)\leq B \] Through these studies, the paper provides theoretical support and practical guidance for the effective design of the PoS blockchain governance system.

Reward Schemes and Committee Sizes in Proof of Stake Governance