# M3f — Consensus & staking game sims ## 1. Component Consensus-layer simulation: models **Proof-of-Stake validation dynamics, staking pool game theory, and Byzantine fault tolerance** using evolutionary games and Markov chains. Pops here are **validators and staking pool operators** whose honesty is a dynamic, evolving strategy under financial incentives. Grounded in Cornell evolutionary consensus [8,9], ACM staking pool risk theorems [10], and Monash dynamic PBFT modeling [11]. ## 2. Status / certainty DESIGN-FIRST · ABSENT. Evolutionary PoS game theory C4 (Cornell [8]); staking pool Nash equilibrium proofs C4 (ACM [10]); Markov chain throughput models C4 (Monash [11]); MFG for validator populations C4 (Lasry & Lions 2007; validator-specific application C3); simulation parameterization C1. ## 3. Language & location TBD · `src/economy/sims/consensus/`. Needs Markov chain solvers and game-theoretic equilibrium computation. Julia, R, or Fortran. ## 4. Does / does-not - **Does:** simulate validator populations where honesty evolves via **evolutionary game theory** under bounded rationality [8]; model staking pool delegation as a game with proven reward- parameter thresholds enforcing subgame-perfect Nash equilibria favoring honest validation over malicious slashing [10]; simulate **throughput stability under shifting validator states** via Markov chains [11]; solve **Mean-Field Game equilibria for large validator populations** — coupled HJB (individual validator optimization) + Fokker-Planck (population density): $-\partial_t u + H(x, \nabla u) = F(x, m)$, $\partial_t m - \nabla \cdot (m \nabla_p H) = 0$ — captures emergent staking coordination without enumerating every validator; predict slashing risk, validator set stability, and staking yield across **six concurrent time horizons** at tick-advanced, 90:1 (1s wall = 90s sim); produce bounded predictions on consensus health and staking returns. - **Does-not:** validate blocks (this is a simulator); model AMM pools (M3c); model token supply (M3e — but consumes staking ratio from M3e as input). ## 5. Interface contract - Implements `query(PredictionQuery) -> BoundedPrediction` per M3 hub. - **Output bounds:** equilibrium stability ranges and yield intervals. Example: `{ value: 0.89, lower_bound: 0.82, upper_bound: 0.94, confidence: 8.80, time_horizon: "7d", sim_type: "consensus_staking" }` — fraction of validators honest in equilibrium. Example: `{ value: 4.2, lower_bound: 3.6, upper_bound: 5.1, confidence: 8.20, time_horizon: "30d", sim_type: "consensus_staking" }` — annualized staking yield (%). - **Time-horizon mapping** (all run concurrently, tick-advanced, 90:1 (1s wall = 90s sim)): | Horizon | Primary models | Update cadence | |---------|---------------|----------------| | Hourly | Markov chain validator state transitions | Every epoch | | Daily | Replicator dynamics strategy shifts, slashing events | Hourly roll | | Weekly | Staking pool Nash equilibrium recalculation | Daily roll | | Monthly | MFG equilibrium for validator population | Weekly roll | | Annual | Evolutionary stable strategies, yield trajectory | Monthly roll | | 5-year | Consensus mechanism structural evolution | Quarterly roll | - **Prediction types:** `validator_honesty_fraction`, `slashing_probability`, `staking_yield`, `pool_delegation_equilibrium`, `throughput_stability`, `consensus_liveness`, `mfg_validator_equilibrium`. - Calibration: ingests `on_chain_event` (validator set changes, slashing events) from M2. ## 6. Dependencies & stubs - M2 Data Feeds — validator/staking on-chain data; *stub:* canned validator snapshots. - M3e Tokenomics — staking ratio as macro input; *stub:* fixed ratio. - M3 Sims hub — lifecycle management; *stub:* manual init. ## 7. Invariants / laws - **L1 (C4):** validator honesty is a **dynamic equilibrium, not a fixed parameter** — it evolves via replicator dynamics as payoffs change. The sim must not assume fixed honesty rates. - **L2 (C4):** the staking pool reward threshold is **mathematically derived** — the sim must reproduce the subgame-perfect Nash equilibrium from the ACM proofs [10], not use ad-hoc thresholds. - **L3 (C4):** throughput is modeled as a **Markov chain** over validator states (active, pending, slashed, exited) — transitions are stochastic with rates calibrated from on-chain data [11]. ## 8. Build steps 1. Implement the evolutionary honesty game (replicator dynamics, bounded rationality). 2. Implement the Markov chain validator-state model. 3. Reproduce the staking pool Nash equilibrium reward threshold from [10]. 4. Implement MFG solver (HJB + Fokker-Planck) for large validator populations. 5. Wire M2 validator data → calibration of transition rates. 6. Wire M3e staking ratio input. ## 9. Tests Equilibrium: honesty fraction converges to Nash equilibrium under stable payoffs. Markov: stationary distribution matches expected validator state proportions. Threshold: pool delegation equilibrium matches the ACM proof for test parameters. Bounds: all outputs bounded. Liveness: throughput degrades when honest fraction drops below threshold. ## 10. Open items - Which PoS protocol to model initially (Ethereum? a specific L2?). - Bounded rationality implementation (noisy best-response? epsilon-greedy? logit?). - Slashing severity parameterization. - Cross-sim: does consensus instability feed into M3b sociological panic signals?