Merge cf8b20f04 66f6749d into master (gate: green on cf8b20f0, recorded by tools/ci/pre-push.sh; landed on the box mirror)
This commit is contained in:
igneum-labs
commit
ee4de43219
6 changed files with 12 additions and 12 deletions
|
|
@ -298,7 +298,7 @@ Pin: Leadership tests, first box (Ergo).
|
|||
|
||||
Status: Conceded (8 October 2026): no "number one" claim before comparative results and adoption exist.
|
||||
|
||||
Answer: No present-tense rank is served. Published claims name the evaluated release, evidence and boundary conditions. An independently substantiated pass of the acceptance standard would support a serious case that Igneum is in contention for leadership among GPU-first networks and would not award a numerical rank; it would not guarantee adoption, perpetual GPU profitability, defeat of all future chips or a numerical number-one ranking. The tests that would earn it are miners staying through hard conditions, customers repeatedly paying for proofs, and the network running without the founding team (D5); none is met yet.
|
||||
Answer: No present-tense rank is served. Published claims name the evaluated release, evidence and boundary conditions. Designed to compete for leadership among GPU-first networks. That is the scoped wording until a ranking is measured (the Token Value volume’s rule VR-30, scoped claims only, 9 October 2026): an independently substantiated pass of the acceptance standard would not award a numerical rank, nor guarantee adoption, perpetual GPU profitability or the defeat of every future chip. The tests that would earn it are miners staying through hard conditions, customers repeatedly paying for proofs, and the network running without the founding team (D5); none is met yet.
|
||||
|
||||
Evidence: `docs/plans/igneum-2.0.md` (Leadership tests, second to fifth boxes).
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -263,7 +263,7 @@
|
|||
<li><strong>Proof verification in consensus.</strong> On the Igneum 2.0 devnet, yes, from block zero (verifier_in_consensus set, the node's own start line; running since its first block at 17:14 UK on 8 October 2026). It is the prerequisite of the no-rescue network exercise (Deliverable 5), which is still owed; an earlier devnet ran with the rule off.</li>
|
||||
<li><strong>Proving on every card.</strong> No. NVIDIA proves; AMD and Apple mine. The proving stack is judged on the full pipeline: inputs, proving, aggregation, verification, payment, memory and the mining income forgone.</li>
|
||||
<li><strong>What proofs do not give.</strong> Proven execution is not automatically finality. EVM compatibility is not Ethereum security. ZK technology does not automatically make transactions private.</li>
|
||||
<li><strong>A ranking.</strong> No. Igneum makes no leading or number-one claim. Published claims name the evaluated release, evidence and boundary conditions. An independently substantiated pass of the acceptance standard would support a serious case that Igneum is in contention for leadership among GPU-first networks and would not award a numerical rank; it would not guarantee adoption, perpetual GPU profitability, defeat of all future chips or a numerical number-one ranking. Benchmarks against Ravencoin’s KAWPOW, Ergo and Firo’s reference miner are owed work; no result exists yet.</li>
|
||||
<li><strong>A ranking.</strong> No. Igneum makes no leading or number-one claim. Published claims name the evaluated release, evidence and boundary conditions. Designed to compete for leadership among GPU-first networks. That is the scoped wording until a ranking is measured (the Token Value volume’s rule VR-30, scoped claims only): an independently substantiated pass of the acceptance standard would not award a numerical rank, nor guarantee adoption, perpetual GPU profitability or the defeat of every future chip. Benchmarks against Ravencoin’s KAWPOW, Ergo and Firo’s reference miner are owed work; no result exists yet.</li>
|
||||
<li><strong>A finished protocol.</strong> The sustained-mining finality rule is the newest piece and the one that external review will try hardest to break. The specification, the review and the benchmarks are published as they happen.</li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
<p>Everything in this document is subject to the gates on the roadmap. Nothing in it is an offer to sell anything. Found an error, or a criticism this document does not answer? Email <a href="mailto:hello@igneum.network">hello@igneum.network</a>, or open an issue on the public specification repository: <a href="https://git.igneum.network/igneum-network/spec/issues" rel="noopener">git.igneum.network/igneum-network/spec/issues</a>. Post reaches Igneum Labs LTD, Unit IH-00-01-01-OF-01, Level 01, Innovation One, Dubai International Financial Centre.</p></div>
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -226,7 +226,7 @@
|
|||
<tr><td>Launch rate</td><td class="num"><span data-rm="fees.emission.launch_rate_base_units_per_daa_second">31,688,087,810,000,000,000</span> base units a DAA second at 18 decimals (the literal 3,168,808,781 of <code>emission.rs</code> 104, 10<sup>9</sup> IGN x 10<sup>8</sup> / 31,557,600 floored, widened by <code>rescaled(DEVNET_DECIMALS, EVM_DECIMALS)</code> at <code>emission.rs</code> 129 in the devnet4 parameters: one billion IGN in year one, the same rate as mainnet)</td><td><code>emission.rs</code> 85 to 123; <code>igneum.rs</code> 34</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>Ramp</td><td class="num">2,592,000 s (30 days) from 10 percent</td><td><code>igneum.rs</code> 76 <code>launch_ramp</code></td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>Step</td><td class="num">63,115,200 s (two years), the rate halved each step (decay 2<sup>31</sup> of 2<sup>32</sup>)</td><td><code>emission.rs</code> 85 to 123</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>Tail</td><td class="num">none: the curve runs to zero and the sum is the hard cap, 4,000,000,000 IGN</td><td><code>emission.rs</code> 69 to 71</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>Tail</td><td class="num">none in the code: the curve runs to zero and the sum is the hard cap, 4,000,000,000 IGN; the tail and the cap are pending decisions of the Token Value volume (D01 to D06)</td><td><code>emission.rs</code> 69 to 71</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td>Where each runs</td><td>The Igneum 2.0 devnet (18 decimals, the rescaled schedule); mainnet (18)</td><td><code>params.rs</code> 2158, 1764</td></tr>
|
||||
</tbody>
|
||||
</table></div>
|
||||
|
|
@ -256,7 +256,7 @@
|
|||
</table></div>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>The proving-fee market</h2>
|
||||
<p>A card’s second income is the proving pool: 20 percent of every block, paid per shard against a valid proof record, plus 90 percent of every block’s proving payment, which users pay at the congestion price of proving capacity (designed; on the devnet that payment is still burned in full). Nothing from the priority fee, which stays whole to the block. The reason the design routes the proving charge to the provers: the operator simulation reads a fixed internal pool as a subsidy, not a price, and only the congestion-priced user-funded fee restores service after a lasting proving spike (35 periods against never; modelled). The price a prover must charge an outside customer is the subsidy it forgoes while it proves, which falls as one over the network’s hash rate; the market itself is designed and not built. The hard cap and the absence of any development fund are unchanged.</p>
|
||||
<p>A card’s second income is the proving pool: 20 percent of every block, paid per shard against a valid proof record, plus 90 percent of every block’s proving payment, which users pay at the congestion price of proving capacity (designed; on the devnet that payment is still burned in full). Nothing from the priority fee, which stays whole to the block. The reason the design routes the proving charge to the provers: the operator simulation reads a fixed internal pool as a subsidy, not a price, and only the congestion-priced user-funded fee restores service after a lasting proving spike (35 periods against never; modelled). The price a prover must charge an outside customer is the subsidy it forgoes while it proves, which falls as one over the network’s hash rate; the market itself is designed and not built. The hard cap and the absence of any development fund are unchanged in the code; both sit among the pending monetary decisions of the Token Value volume (D01 to D06).</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>The client fee and the fund it fills</h2>
|
||||
<div class="tbl"><table>
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ blockquote{margin:10px 0;padding:10px 14px;border-left:3px solid var(--line-2);c
|
|||
<blockquote>You claim to be the best GPU network before anyone outside has checked anything.</blockquote>
|
||||
<div class="status"><span class="badge b-conceded">Conceded</span> <span class="did">8 October 2026): no "number one" claim before comparative results and adoption exist.</span></div>
|
||||
<div class="pin"><b>Pin</b> Leadership tests, fifth box (served ranking language); second to fourth boxes.</div>
|
||||
<details><summary>The answer as first written</summary><p>No present-tense rank is served. Published claims name the evaluated release, evidence and boundary conditions. An independently substantiated pass of the acceptance standard would support a serious case that Igneum is in contention for leadership among GPU-first networks and would not award a numerical rank; it would not guarantee adoption, perpetual GPU profitability, defeat of all future chips or a numerical number-one ranking. The tests that would earn it are miners staying through hard conditions, customers repeatedly paying for proofs, and the network running without the founding team (D5); none is met yet.</p></details>
|
||||
<details><summary>The answer as first written</summary><p>No present-tense rank is served. Published claims name the evaluated release, evidence and boundary conditions. Designed to compete for leadership among GPU-first networks. That is the scoped wording until a ranking is measured (the Token Value volume’s rule VR-30, scoped claims only, 9 October 2026): an independently substantiated pass of the acceptance standard would not award a numerical rank, nor guarantee adoption, perpetual GPU profitability or the defeat of every future chip. The tests that would earn it are miners staying through hard conditions, customers repeatedly paying for proofs, and the network running without the founding team (D5); none is met yet.</p></details>
|
||||
</article>
|
||||
|
||||
<p class="intro" style="margin-top:var(--sec)">Source: the project's Igneum 2.0 criticism ledger, a file in the repository, rendered to this page at build time. A criticism that is not here, or that shows an entry is wrong, is added with credit if wanted: <a href="mailto:hello@igneum.network">hello@igneum.network</a> or <a href="https://git.igneum.network/igneum-network/spec/issues" rel="noopener">an issue on the specification repository</a>.</p>
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ body.all .pager{display:none}
|
|||
</div>
|
||||
<div class="meta">
|
||||
<span>Published <b>3 October 2026</b> · updated <b>8 October 2026</b></span>
|
||||
<span>Coin <b>IGN</b> · cap <b>4,000,000,000</b></span>
|
||||
<span>Coin <b>IGN</b> · cap <b>4,000,000,000</b> (a decision pending)</span>
|
||||
<span>Status <b>The Igneum 2.0 devnet is live</b></span>
|
||||
<span>Method <b>one founder with AI systems</b> · external review before gate 3</span>
|
||||
<span>This is not an offer to sell anything</span>
|
||||
|
|
@ -575,7 +575,7 @@ body.all .pager{display:none}
|
|||
<h2>Economics</h2>
|
||||
<p>The coin is IGN. It is gas and the proving currency, and part of every payment on Igneum is burned. Outside customers pay in their own currency on their own chain at launch; settlement in IGN with a 10% burn follows when the proof bridge lets Igneum see the payment, in phase two.</p>
|
||||
<h3>Supply</h3>
|
||||
<p>Fair launch. No premine, no pre-sale, no allocation to anyone. Hard cap of 4 billion IGN, approached and never reached, because emission starts at 1 billion a year and halves every two years for ever. Nearly a quarter of all supply is mined in the first year and half in the first two. Emission ramps from 10% to 100% over the first 30 days so that nobody takes the first month before the rest of the world hears about it.</p>
|
||||
<p>Fair launch. No premine, no pre-sale, no allocation to anyone. The supply schedule, the cap, the tail and the fee routes are the six monetary decisions D01 to D06 of the Token Value volume, pending; what follows is the devnet’s code today, not a promise. Hard cap of 4 billion IGN, approached and never reached, because emission starts at 1 billion a year and halves every two years for ever. Nearly a quarter of all supply is mined in the first year and half in the first two. Emission ramps from 10% to 100% over the first 30 days so that nobody takes the first month before the rest of the world hears about it.</p>
|
||||
<div class="figure">
|
||||
<svg viewBox="0 0 760 300" role="img" aria-label="Half of the 4 billion cap is mined in the first two years" font-family="IBM Plex Mono, monospace" font-size="12">
|
||||
<text x="40" y="26" font-family="IBM Plex Sans, system-ui, sans-serif" font-size="15" font-weight="600" fill="var(--ink)">Half of the 4 billion cap is mined in the first two years</text>
|
||||
|
|
@ -611,7 +611,7 @@ body.all .pager{display:none}
|
|||
</tbody>
|
||||
</table></div>
|
||||
<h3>Where fees go</h3>
|
||||
<p>The base fee of every transaction is burned in full, Ethereum's rule, so a miner cannot fill blocks with its own transactions for free. The priority fee splits two ways: 80% to the miner and provers of that block, 20% to the apps whose code ran, by gas consumed inside each. External proving fees, once they settle on Igneum, pay 90% to the provers who delivered and burn 10%. The hard cap fixes supply. Emission is untouched by any of this: every coin minted still goes to miners and provers.</p>
|
||||
<p>The base fee of every transaction is burned in full, Ethereum's rule, so a miner cannot fill blocks with its own transactions for free. The priority fee splits two ways: 80% to the miner and provers of that block, 20% to the apps whose code ran, by gas consumed inside each. External proving fees, once they settle on Igneum, pay 90% to the provers who delivered and burn 10%. The hard cap in the devnet’s code fixes supply today (a decision pending). Emission is untouched by any of this: every coin minted still goes to miners and provers.</p>
|
||||
<h3>Every payment route</h3>
|
||||
<p>One row per route, so operator income and protocol income never blur. The protocol pays no address of its own, and a burn pays nobody. Rows 1 to 5 are the protocol. Row 6 is the project's software, outside the protocol, and is never added to the other five.</p>
|
||||
<div class="tbl"><table>
|
||||
|
|
@ -627,7 +627,7 @@ body.all .pager{display:none}
|
|||
</table></div>
|
||||
<p class="src"><b>Sources:</b> specification sections 2.5 and 5.1 to 5.4; the measurement record in the repository (docs/bench-log.md) for the earlier devnet's receipts and the dev-fee count.</p>
|
||||
<h3>Security after the subsidy</h3>
|
||||
<p>The cap stays at 4 billion. There is no tail emission. The schedule is a bet, not a measurement: a halving halves emission income overnight if price and fees do nothing. Kaspa's steeper monthly reduction kept its hashrate while its price rose (approximate). Long term, security has to be paid by fees and, if it is built and bought, the proving market. The external market is Designed, not built, and is out of the numbers below. As designed, outside customers buy proofs as dollars-priced work settled in IGN, and 90% of every job goes to the provers who delivered it. The table shows the first year in which the block subsidy on its own pays miners less than the power of about 3,000 consumer cards, at three flat prices. The prices are inputs chosen to span two orders of magnitude. The model (modelled, 3 October 2026) runs a 300 W card at 124 MH/s on electricity at USD 0.12 per kWh. One rule sits beside the cap. If external proving revenue is under one fifth of the block subsidy over any 90-day window after year 5, the question of a tail reward goes to the miners' signalling vote. The protocol never changes emission by itself.</p>
|
||||
<p>The cap stays at 4 billion in the code today, and no tail emission is coded; the year-five tail vote below is written beside that, an unresolved tension and a pending decision (D01 to D06), not a promise. The schedule is a bet, not a measurement: a halving halves emission income overnight if price and fees do nothing. Kaspa's steeper monthly reduction kept its hashrate while its price rose (approximate). Long term, security has to be paid by fees and, if it is built and bought, the proving market. The external market is Designed, not built, and is out of the numbers below. As designed, outside customers buy proofs as dollars-priced work settled in IGN, and 90% of every job goes to the provers who delivered it. The table shows the first year in which the block subsidy on its own pays miners less than the power of about 3,000 consumer cards, at three flat prices. The prices are inputs chosen to span two orders of magnitude. The model (modelled, 3 October 2026) runs a 300 W card at 124 MH/s on electricity at USD 0.12 per kWh. One rule sits beside the cap. If external proving revenue is under one fifth of the block subsidy over any 90-day window after year 5, the question of a tail reward goes to the miners' signalling vote. The protocol never changes emission by itself.</p>
|
||||
<div class="tbl"><table>
|
||||
<thead><tr><th>Price per IGN</th><th>First year the subsidy alone pays under the power of 3,000 cards</th><th>Subsidy to miners that year</th></tr></thead>
|
||||
<tbody>
|
||||
|
|
@ -686,7 +686,7 @@ body.all .pager{display:none}
|
|||
<section id="ember">
|
||||
<h2>Ember, the miner</h2>
|
||||
<p class="lead">Igneum Ember is the one-click miner. It runs the node, mines the hourly program, proves shards and keeps your key, on Windows, macOS and Linux.</p>
|
||||
<p>Ember is a supervisor with a face. It starts a node, waits until it is synced, starts one miner per card, reads every line they print into the dashboard, and restarts what fails. It has run the devnet's cards since 4 October 2026. Everything in the first table is in the shipped app. The second table is the six levers set on 4 October 2026 to make it the fastest miner for this chain, each with its state and what has been measured.</p>
|
||||
<p>Ember is a supervisor with a face. It starts a node, waits until it is synced, starts one miner per card, reads every line they print into the dashboard, and restarts what fails. It has run the devnet's cards since 4 October 2026. Everything in the first table is in the shipped app. The second table is the six levers set on 4 October 2026 to raise the miner’s rate on this chain, each with its state and what has been measured.</p>
|
||||
<h3>What it does</h3>
|
||||
<div class="tbl"><table>
|
||||
<thead><tr><th>Feature</th><th>What happens</th></tr></thead>
|
||||
|
|
@ -868,7 +868,7 @@ body.all .pager{display:none}
|
|||
<li><strong>Proof verification in consensus.</strong> On the Igneum 2.0 devnet, yes, from block zero (verifier_in_consensus set, the node's own start line; running since its first block at 17:14 UK on 8 October 2026). It is the prerequisite of the no-rescue network exercise (Deliverable 5), which is still owed; an earlier devnet ran with the rule off.</li>
|
||||
<li><strong>Proving on every card.</strong> No. NVIDIA proves; AMD and Apple mine. The proving stack is judged on the full pipeline: inputs, proving, aggregation, verification, payment, memory and the mining income forgone.</li>
|
||||
<li><strong>What proofs do not give.</strong> Proven execution is not automatically finality. EVM compatibility is not Ethereum security. ZK technology does not automatically make transactions private.</li>
|
||||
<li><strong>A ranking.</strong> No. Igneum makes no leading or number-one claim. Published claims name the evaluated release, evidence and boundary conditions. An independently substantiated pass of the acceptance standard would support a serious case that Igneum is in contention for leadership among GPU-first networks and would not award a numerical rank; it would not guarantee adoption, perpetual GPU profitability, defeat of all future chips or a numerical number-one ranking. Benchmarks against Ravencoin’s KAWPOW, Ergo and Firo’s reference miner are owed work; no result exists yet.</li>
|
||||
<li><strong>A ranking.</strong> No. Igneum makes no leading or number-one claim. Published claims name the evaluated release, evidence and boundary conditions. Designed to compete for leadership among GPU-first networks. That is the scoped wording until a ranking is measured (the Token Value volume’s rule VR-30, scoped claims only): an independently substantiated pass of the acceptance standard would not award a numerical rank, nor guarantee adoption, perpetual GPU profitability or the defeat of every future chip. Benchmarks against Ravencoin’s KAWPOW, Ergo and Firo’s reference miner are owed work; no result exists yet.</li>
|
||||
<li><strong>A finished protocol.</strong> The sustained-mining finality rule is the newest piece and the one that external review will try hardest to break. The specification, the review and the benchmarks are published as they happen.</li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
<p>Everything in this document is subject to the gates on the roadmap. Nothing in it is an offer to sell anything. Found an error, or a criticism this document does not answer? Email <a href="mailto:hello@igneum.network">hello@igneum.network</a>, or open an issue on the public specification repository: <a href="https://git.igneum.network/igneum-network/spec/issues" rel="noopener">git.igneum.network/igneum-network/spec/issues</a>. Post reaches Igneum Labs LTD, Unit IH-00-01-01-OF-01, Level 01, Innovation One, Dubai International Financial Centre.</p>
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -230,7 +230,7 @@
|
|||
<tr><td><b>Independent operation</b><div class="kv">D5</div></td><td>No-founder exercise on the real implementation.</td><td>A centrally supported demo.</td><td>PENDING: the no-rescue network exercise is owed; the devnet is the project’s own machines, its rented fleet and a few outside laptops.</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td><b>Commercial demand</b><div class="kv">Architecture and product</div></td><td>Repeat paid external jobs and workable operator margins.</td><td>Devnet payouts or subsidised volume.</td><td>EXCLUDED from every revenue figure today: the external proving market is designed, not built; no external job has been paid.</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td><b>Long-term funding</b><div class="kv">D4</div></td><td>Internal proving and security payments and maintenance runway.</td><td>Burn accounting or assumed appreciation.</td><td>MODELLED: the proving model on the economics page walks the halvings at today’s shard and key counts; the proving payment’s routing is designed behind its constant, burned in full today.</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td><b>Leadership</b><div class="kv">Leadership tests</div></td><td>Comparative results, adoption, retention and reliability over time.</td><td>A roadmap or unsupported rank.</td><td>EXCLUDED: no rank is claimed; the comparison set (Ravencoin KAWPOW, Ergo, Firo’s reference miner) is owed work, not a result.</td></tr>
|
||||
<tr><td><b>Leadership</b><div class="kv">Leadership tests</div></td><td>Comparative results, adoption, retention and reliability over time.</td><td>A roadmap or unsupported rank.</td><td>EXCLUDED: no rank is claimed; the served wording until a ranking is measured is “Designed to compete for leadership among GPU-first networks.” (VR-30); the comparison set (Ravencoin KAWPOW, Ergo, Firo’s reference miner) is owed work, not a result.</td></tr>
|
||||
</tbody>
|
||||
</table></div>
|
||||
<p class="src"><b>Source:</b> <code>docs/plans/igneum-2.0-plan.txt</code>, section 23 (the acceptance scorecard) and the pins in <code>docs/plans/igneum-2.0.md</code>; the Today column is the facts page’s label for the rows each gate cites, and moves only with those rows. The five labels: TEAM-REPORTED, MODELLED, PROPOSED, PENDING, EXCLUDED. The public mirror follows master; a link that answers 404 is a file not yet synced.</p>
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue