The last piece of #17. It was specified as "the share of issuance held by the
top 1, 10 and 100" plus a Gini, and done literally that produces a number that
is true and says nothing — because the top account is the vesting pot holding
99.5% of the chain. The figure would sit near 1.000 and move only when the pot
paid out, describing an undistributed reserve rather than an economy.
So the pot is reported first and then excluded, by its own storage key rather
than by being the largest: "the biggest account" is a description that would
silently start meaning something else the day the pot drains. Everything else
is computed over what is left and labelled as being outside it.
The denominator is the counted balance, not issuance. The two differ, and in
the direction that matters: a wormhole exit credits its destination without
debiting the note's source, so balances summed across the chain exceed
issuance, and shares of issuance would add up to more than everything.
Measured on mainnet: 1,949 accounts, 27,245 QTC outside the pot, top 1 at
39.6%, top 10 at 72.2%, top 100 at 92.2%, Gini 0.965. That top holder is a
mining address — keyless, its balance a cumulative receipt that cannot fall
however much its operator pays out — so the panel says in its own words that
this is partly a statement about who mined most rather than who holds most.
The Gini lives in `blackbeard-core` with its own tests, per the rule about
statistics being easy to overstate and hard to notice: pinned against the
published coefficient for 1,2,3,4, and against a dust holder beside two whales,
which is the case an `f64` accumulator would round away and report as perfect
equality between the whales.
`RpcClient::storage_values` is new — `state_queryStorageAt`, which turns two
thousand round trips into four. Chunked at 500 rather than sent whole because
nothing documents a ceiling here, and an undocumented ceiling is one that gets
discovered in production.
Nothing renders unless the account walk reached the end of the map. Every share
divides by a total, and a partial sum makes all of them wrong while looking
entirely reasonable.
Closes#17
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
rob thijssen
da7f773564
