Reported concern: one pool's balance is disproportionately large, and it is not
clear whether rewards are reaching miners. This makes the question answerable
from the chain rather than from impressions.
Measured on mainnet while building it, blocks 1–42,274:
account mined received sent recipients
QUANPOOL 10,171 5,207 0 0
qzomrwjT… 0 11,382 4,071 90
qzo1Pr3X… 0 3,875 7,528 986
qzo4QjZz… 0 1,257 2,448 742
qznbesUc… 0 1,600 0 0
Direction comes from each transfer event's own `from` and `to` — `Wormhole::
NativeTransferred` and `Balances::Transfer` both carry them — so every figure is
something the chain recorded.
**A nonce cannot answer this, and reaching for one is the obvious mistake.**
Wormhole transfers dispatch unsigned: `verify_private_batch` and
`verify_public_batch` have no signer at all. An address here can move a fortune
with a nonce of zero, and I nearly reported one as proof that nothing had ever
been sent.
The presentation reports flows and does not judge them, because the data cannot
settle what they mean. Two facts in the table above are why: several large
accounts send nothing — ordinary for a solo miner keeping what it earned — and
the accounts distributing to hundreds of recipients have never mined a block, so
payout wallets here are funded from somewhere other than mining addresses. There
is also no such thing as a "pool" on this chain: the word appears only in a name
its operator reports over telemetry, which `MinerFlow::attribution` carries so a
reader can weigh it.
What earns the feature its place is comparison. One miner's recipient count says
little; beside its neighbours' it says a great deal, and the reader draws the
conclusion rather than the site.
Refs #17
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jp6a8EDar9ueEhAxzep4V5
rob thijssen
06f3ece228
