IRS: An Incentive-compatible Reward Scheme for Algorand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Founded in 2017, Algorand is one of the world's first carbon-negative, public blockchains inspired by proof of stake. Algorand uses a Byzantine agreement protocol to add new blocks to the blockchain. The protocol can tolerate malicious users as long as a supermajority of the stake is controlled by non-malicious users. The protocol achieves about 100x more throughput compared to Bitcoin and can be easily scaled to millions of nodes. Despite its impressive features, Algorand lacks a reward-distribution scheme that can effectively incentivize nodes to participate in the protocol. In this work, we study the incentive issue in Algorand through the lens of game theory. We model the Algorand protocol as a Bayesian game and propose a novel reward scheme to address the incentive issue in Algorand. We derive necessary conditions to ensure that participation in the protocol is a Bayesian Nash equilibrium under our proposed reward scheme even in the presence of a malicious adversary. We also present quantitative analysis of our proposed reward scheme by applying it to two real-world deployment scenarios. We estimate the costs of running an Algorand node and simulate the protocol to measure the overheads in terms of computation, storage, and networking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".