Maybe you do, but "lucky" blocks will almost always have "messy" rewards, going to 7 or 8 decimal places.
I just plotted a chart showing how likely various rewards are:
What it's saying is that:
98.4682% of the time, your reward is exactly 0.1
99.5% of the time, your reward is very close to 0.1 (0.1003 or less),
99.6% of the time, your reward is 0.106 or less,
99.7% of the time, your reward is 0.2256 or less,
99.7659% of the time your reward will be less than 1,
99.8% of the time, your reward is 2.4948 or less,
99.8475% of the time, it's less than 10,
99.9% of the time, it's less than 47.702,
99.9239% of the time, it's less than 100,
That curve looks just about perfect
Dooglus, You've went above and beyond!
We love it so much we went ahead and added it to the OP Post.
Did some fiddling in an attempt to render up a similar curve last night - amounting to much gnashing of teeth and little progress.
"The Brains" made essentially the same argument to me last night that you have just made in the thread here.
Hopefully the both of you are correct; and the lottery system is protected by the rarity, incentives, and structure of the reward.
If we find that isn't the case, nothing prevents us from reviewing the situation and improving the code base of coarse.
Even with conventional proof-of-stake, there is a certain output (coin pile) size that is most "efficient". In conventional proof-of-stake, this efficiency comes from the additional coins earned through compound interest, with the sweet spot being the point at which you stake an output immediately once it is mature, without having enough weight to stake prior.
In CLAMS, this should be quite similar, except of coarse that the efficiency and reward comes from staking additional lottery blocks as opposed to maximizing compound interest.
I think Dooglus' explanation of how this would function in terms of splitting up outputs was quite accurate with my understanding, and so I will re-post it here:
Each time you use a transaction output to create a block, it takes 510 blocks before the resulting (slightly bigger) output is "mature". While you're waiting for the 510 blocks you can't spend or mine with that output.
You can split your output into 2 smaller outputs (by sending half of its value to yourself). Each smaller output will on average take twice as long to mine a block and so won't make a net difference to your "income", except if the 510 block waiting period is significant. That is, if your large coin is big enough that you would normally expect it to mine a block within 510 blocks, it's worth splitting it up until the parts are small enough that they each take an average of more than 510 blocks each to mine.
There may be some additional efficiency gained in CLAMS that is similar to the "compound interest" argument.
Successfully staking more often will not earn you additional compound interest (as the reward is not based on the size or age of your output (coin pile)). However, if your pile is inefficient and not staking shortly after reaching maturity - the additional coins from previous staking would increase weight and make the next staking somewhat easier. Does that make any sense?
I want to thank Dooglus and Phzi for answering questions here in the post while I was away.
I know I speak for the entire team when I say, "Thank you" for your involvement.
We have a wide and reasonably fair distribution, though work needs to be done to "shout it to the rooftops".
We have a Proof-Of-Pearl/Lottery system, that has stake incentives that are fair, even, and align with the interests and security of the network.
The next target is ease-of-use, utility, and liquidity.
Also, I have made a pledge to myself to be much more pro-active and communicate better, concerning information and transparency with any future updates!
We have some projects that we are currently working on, that we aren't quite ready to let out of the bag just yet, but nothing is set in stone and additional ideas are what it is all about.