RFC: Bloodstone Tokenomics and Security Alignment

I am very pleased to announce that the Bloodstone team has agreed to our proposed spec in my previous completely verbatim, this means that the storage manifest will live on Blurt and other Bloodstone tenants will have the option to use Blurt or their own manifest registry or one supplied by Bloodstone.

This creates a trustless partnership with reduced risk to both parties.

I am finding the Bloodstone team to be very receptive to diplomatic criticism when done properly documented and presented for discussion.

After the aforementioned win I went on to discuss tokenomics gaps with the project, below is my documented enquiry given to the team yesterday, also special thanks to @nalexadre for his input and assistance on the matter:

Also please note the Bloodstone team and I are actively speaking to an exchange about a 2-for-1 listing of both our tokens, the introduction was facilitated by Anthony - Bloodstone founder.

Subject: Tokenomics and security alignment — observations and collaborative thought

As we think through the integration more deeply, we've been studying your tokenomics and network architecture and wanted to share some observations — not as criticism, but as an attempt to think through long-term alignment together.

We believe Blurt and Bloodstone have a real opportunity to build something first-class, and that means being thoughtful about infrastructure, economics, and security foundations.

What we noticed — tokenomics:

Looking at the on-chain data 1 and your economic white paper, we see:

+ Genesis pre-mine of 200M STONE allocated to the project treasury at relaunch

+ 969k STONE mined since relaunch ≈100 STONE/block × 9,687 blocks

+ This means 99.5% of current supply originated from the premine

+ Top 3 addresses hold 156.9M STONE combined 78.1% of supply

Our concern on tokenomics:

If Blurt were to pay for storage services in STONE — whether through storage fees, provider incentives, or any other mechanism — we would effectively be purchasing an asset where three entities control the vast majority of issuance for years to come.

At 100 STONE/block, it would take roughly 4+ years of continuous mining just to dilute those three wallets below 50% ownership, and 16 years to bring them below 25%. That's a long horizon for a token that would underpin storage economics.

For context on our side: The Blurt Core team started with approximately 15% of the token supply at launch. Over the years, through funding developers, infrastructure, and community initiatives, we've deliberately reduced our holdings to around 7%. We made this choice because we believe decentralized ownership is foundational to a healthy network — and we've walked that path ourselves.

Additional concern — 51% attack surface:

Your network uses four mining algorithms SHA256d, Neoscrypt, Yespower, ROD Neoscrypt . Multi-algorithm PoW networks have a known vulnerability: an attacker doesn't need to control all algorithms — only enough to tip the overall work calculation.

Real-world precedent: DigiByte discovered that "an attacker can 51% attack the network with roughly 60% of SHA256D and nothing else". They had to implement a geometric mean difficulty adjustment so that an attacker with 90% of SHA256d and 33% of other algorithms would still have insufficient hashpower.

SHA256d is particularly vulnerable because hashrate can be rented cheaply — an attack that would cost billions against Bitcoin is feasible against a smaller SHA256d chain.

Your white paper describes cross-algo subsidies and weight caps for payout distribution — but does Bloodstone have equivalent consensus-level protections e.g., geometric mean work calculation, algorithm-specific difficulty anchoring ? Or is the security model still reliant on the assumption that no single algorithm can be dominated?

Questions we'd love to explore together:

+ Treasury strategy — What is the planned use for the 200M STONE treasury? Are there specific allocation buckets development fund, ecosystem grants, liquidity provision, etc. and a timeline for disbursement?

+ Decentralization roadmap — Are there plans to reduce concentration over time e.g., staking incentives, grants, community distributions that would accelerate the dilution timeline?

+ Storage economics — If Blurt integrates STONE as a payment layer, what mechanisms exist to ensure the token's value isn't structurally captive to a small group of holders?

+ 51% attack mitigations — Does Bloodstone have consensus-level protections against SHA256d dominance geometric mean work, per-algorithm difficulty anchoring, or similar ? If so, we'd love to understand them. If not, what's the roadmap?

+ Transparency — Are the top wallets associated with known entities team, investors, foundation that have communicated lock-up or distribution schedules?

Our intent:

We're not here to dictate your tokenomics or security architecture — you've built an impressive technical system, and we respect that. But we want to be candid: for a long-term partnership to work, we need confidence that the economic and security foundations are as solid as the technical one.

We'd love to better understand your roadmap on these fronts. If there are materials or plans we haven't seen, please point us to them. And if these are open questions on your side too, we're happy to brainstorm solutions together — we've been through similar challenges ourselves. References

1 Bloodstone rich list block 9,687 : on-chain supply 200,968,698 STONE; top addresses at 30.27%, 25.43%, and 22.39%

2 Bloodstone Economic Model White Paper, July 2026 — details genesis premine of 199,999,998 STONE and 100 STONE/block era-0 subsidy

3 Bloodstone Decentralized Network White Paper, July 2026 — details four-algorithm architecture SHA256d, Neoscrypt, Yespower, ROD Neoscrypt

---

The Bloodstone team duly replied as follows

---

Bloodstone Treasury & Concentration Disclosure

Addendum to the Economic Model White Paper July 2026 · v1.0 draft Audience: Partners, integrators, and community Snapshot height: 9,704 indexed 8 July 2026

---

Executive summary

Bloodstone launched in June 2026 with a 199,999,998 STONE genesis premine paid to a single public address. That output was spent and re-split into project-operational wallets during the first weeks of mainnet. As of block 9,704 , on-chain supply is 200.97 million STONE 970,400 STONE from PoW at 100 STONE/block; the remainder is treasury-derived .

Concentration today is high. The top three addresses hold 77.1% of supply; the top ten hold 96.0% . This is not a broad holder base — it reflects project treasury custody that has not yet been disbursed at scale.

This addendum publishes what we know now: genesis history, a labeled wallet registry, allocation buckets, a 12–24 month disbursement framework, and partner-facing rails. It does not claim on-chain vesting or trustless treasury contracts — those do not exist yet.

---

1. Scope and methodology

Item Detail ------ -------- Data source Full UTXO scan via Bloodstone Core RPC scantxoutset + address index Rich list Live at Supply basis Sum of unspent outputs at tip 200,970,398 STONE at height 9,704 Wallet labels Derived from genesis documentation, mine / webuser wallet exports, and operational knowledge Update cadence Re-publish within 30 days of any treasury move ≥ 1M STONE , or quarterly, whichever is sooner

Limitation: Individual signatory names behind multi-key or offline custody are not included in v1.0. A v1.1 addendum will attach named controllers where legally permissible.

---

2. Genesis premine

Field Value ------- ------- Amount 199,999,998 STONE Genesis address SZNtmBMyx2Cr9VMrj5vk5EYTUn1naedu5N P2PKH Genesis block hash df04225074039e630dad825b24818a695462bd19cd585131a0568f50e9bf71d0 Coinbase message 22/Jun/2026: Bloodstone independent chain relaunch Legacy precedent Same premine magnitude as SpaceXpanse ROD; new chain, no inherited UTXO set Custody change vs ROD Single P2PKH treasury output instead of legacy 2-of-4 multisig

2.1 Post-genesis distribution

The genesis address no longer appears in the top 25 by balance at height 9,704. The premine was moved into multiple project-operational addresses between genesis and block 1,500 first documented mine wallet backup at height 1,510 .

This was an operational split , not a public sale or airdrop. No on-chain vesting schedule was encoded at genesis.

---

3. Concentration snapshot height 9,704

Metric Value -------- ------- Total on-chain STONE 200,970,398 PoW minted era 0, 100 STONE/block 970,400 0.48% of supply Treasury-derived approx. 200,000,000 99.5% Addresses with balance 49 Addresses scanned index 6,196 Top 1 holder 30.27% Top 3 holders 77.09% Top 10 holders 96.02%

3.1 Why this matters for partners

High rich-list concentration does not mean anonymous whales control float. Today it primarily means undisbursed project treasury sitting in a handful of cold and operational wallets. Partners should still treat this as an economic risk until disbursement is visible on-chain — but the remedy is published outflows , not assuming OTC purchases from independent holders.

3.2 Dilution vs decentralization

Era-0 PoW will mint 1.04 billion STONE after the 1,000 STONE fork at block 12,000 see Halving Schedule . If treasury wallets are static, premine share of total supply falls toward 16% by end of era 0.

Issuance alone does not decentralize control if the same entity captures PoW payouts or treasury never moves. This disclosure focuses on intended treasury outflows , not only inflation math.

---

4. Wallet registry top holders

Statuses: Cold = long-hold reserve; Operational = day-to-day disbursement; Earmarked = allocated bucket, not yet spent down; Spent = genesis output fully distributed.

Rank Address Balance STONE % supply Label Bucket Status ------ --------- ----------------- ---------- ------- -------- -------- — SZNtmBMyx2Cr9VMrj5vk5EYTUn1naedu5N 0 not top 25 — Genesis premine historical Genesis Spent 1 SaYQKHQrRMnjtbupzi1Bb9oEWe1rHf1jkk 60,834,404 30.27% Treasury cold reserve webuser3 reserve path Core treasury — unallocated Cold 2 SkAsaotDaF2y8KqJdZaFs9hnpwmaCA7Equ 51,105,020 25.43% Project custody — infrastructure reserve Infrastructure & core development Cold 3 SPWDbxeVc9BGUepmT5FDECTKr8ucdu91Hh 45,003,400 22.39% Treasury operational webuser2 reserve path Partner programs + ecosystem Operational 4 SarFkPCFripGoPSy6jKag8fYsKiMQhfP3L 11,000,000 5.47% Earmarked grants wallet webuser7 export Community distribution / grants Earmarked 5 SNK6tDSHYVybJt5HTj5BSwb1PYhoSuZAz6 8,030,801 4.00% Project custody — operational reserve Infrastructure reserve Operational 6 SbqkZPjC…

Note on ranks 2 and 5: Not present in published wallet exports; labeled from operational custody mapping. Signatory-level attribution deferred to v1.1.

---

5. Allocation buckets policy framework

Total treasury envelope: 200M STONE genesis premine, now distributed across registry wallets above .

Bucket Target share of premine Purpose Primary wallets today -------- ------------------------- --------- ------------------------- Infrastructure & core development 25–30% Node, pool, mesh, Android/desktop miners, security, hosting Rank 2, rank 5 partial Ecosystem grants 15–20% Builders, mesh operators, storage replicators Ranks 6–7, rank 4 partial Partner programs 15–20% Bulk storage quotas, integrator allocations e.g. Blurt Rank 3, rank 8 Community distribution 10–15% Faucets, onboarding, mesh rebates, mining incentives Ranks 4, 10 Liquidity / market making 5–10% CEX/DEX routes when live Rank 9 Core treasury — unallocated 15–25% Strategic reserve; reduces only via published decisions Rank 1

These are target ranges , not on-chain locks. Actual balances may drift until disbursement tooling and quarterly true-ups are in place.

---

6. Disbursement plan 12–24 months

6.1 Principles

1. No silent re-concentration — treasury moves ≥ 1M STONE are announced with destination label and bucket. 2. Partner-first rails — integrators receive STONE from designated outposts , not OTC from cold reserves. 3. Measurable reduction — we track top-3 % of supply and top-10 % of supply each quarter. 4. Blurt benchmark — reduce partner dependence on spot float before bulk storage invoices go live.

6.2 Quarterly outflow targets STONE

Period Target gross outflow Channels -------- ---------------------- ---------- Q3 2026 2–5M Mesh replication pilots, small builder grants, faucet Q4 2026 5–10M Partner outpost funding, ecosystem grants, community campaigns H1 2027 15–25M Blurt bulk quota if contracted , LAN/mesh operator rebates H2 2027 20–35M Continued partner programs, liquidity seeding if markets exist 2028 30–50M / year Sustained grants + partner quotas; signatory disclosure v1.1

Cumulative target: ≥ 50M STONE disbursed from treasury-labeled wallets by July 2027 , ≥ 120M STONE by July 2028 , subject to partnership cadence and market conditions.

6.3 Concentration targets top-3 % of total supply

Date Target top-3 share Notes ------ ------------------- ------- July 2026 today 77% Baseline — pre-disbursement January 2027 ≤ 65% First partner outpost flows visible July 2027 ≤ 55% PoW dilution + ≥ 50M STONE disbursed July 2028 ≤ 40% Era-0 PoW 500M STONE; treasury policy mature

These targets assume no net treasury re-accumulation from pool payouts to the same cold wallets. Pool operator wallets are excluded from treasury bucket accounting.

---

7. Partner outpost rail

Integrators including Blurt should not source large STONE blocks from rich-list addresses on the open market.

7.1 Designated partner outpost proposed

Item Detail ------ -------- Purpose Ring-fenced STONE for bulk storage quotas and BLURT→STONE memo credits Funding source Rank 3 operational wallet and/or fresh partner bucket rank 8 Address To be published before first production invoice separate P2PKH; not a cold reserve BLURT memo format storage:<STONE ADDRESS :<bytes per Mesh Storage Partnership draft Reporting Monthly statement: opening balance, credits, debits, chunk bytes stored

7.2 Blurt bulk quota illustration

At Blurt’s cited €22.80 / 1.2 TB / month benchmark, a contracted bulk rate would be invoiced against outpost balance , not spot OTC. BLURT payment optional via outpost memo rail when live.

---

8. What is not on-chain today

Item Status ------ -------- Time-locked vesting contracts Not deployed Multisig treasury with published signers Not deployed genesis used single P2PKH On-chain bucket enforcement Not deployed Automated per-GB storage debits Proposed — mesh coordination live; billing rules in progress Individual signatory names Deferred to v1.1

---

9. Transparency commitments

Commitment Cadence ------------ --------- Rich list Live refreshed 10 min TTL This disclosure Updated quarterly or within 30 days of major treasury moves Treasury move log Publish TXIDs + destination labels for moves ≥ 1M STONE Wallet registry Amend when labels or buckets change Signatory disclosure v1.1 by Q4 2026 On-chain vesting proposal RFC after first year of disbursement data

---

10. Related documents

Document URL ---------- ----- Economic Model White Paper Blurt Partnership Response Halving Schedule Blurt Mesh Storage Partnership Live rich list Subsidy schedule API

---

Bloodstone · July 2026 · Addendum v1.0 draft

Cheatsheet <br /

The team also produced these presentation slides:

Bloodstone consensus code tour presentation

Presentation demo with AI voiceover

In closing, once again I invite the community to shape the future and participate constructively in this discussion, please make observations and recommendations. The core team will, in any event, do its best to ensure a net positive outcome for Blurt, but without community discussion we simply cannot please everyone if no discussion takes place.

---

Aesop's Fable - The Wind and The Sun - a fable I grew up with. The parable of the sun and wind illustrates the idea that persuasion is more effective than force. In this fable, the sun and the wind compete to remove a traveler's jacket. The wind tries hard, but the traveler wraps his jacket tighter, making it impossible for the wind to remove it. Finally, the sun shines gently, causing the traveler to feel warm and eventually take off his jacket. This story teaches that gentleness and persuasion can lead to greater results than force or harshness.