Delegation

TL;DR

Asentum uses Cosmos-style delegated proof-of-stake. Anyone holding ASE can delegate their tokens to a consensus validator and earn a share of the rewards that validator generates. Delegators don't run any software — they pick a validator they trust, sign one transaction, and start earning. Validators with more total stake (their own plus delegated) have proportionally higher chances of being chosen for the active consensus committee each epoch.

What delegation is

In a proof-of-stake blockchain, validators are the nodes that produce blocks and vote on consensus. To participate, validators have to put up collateral — they "bond" tokens that can be taken away (slashed) if they misbehave.

Delegation lets you put your own tokens behind someone else's validator, sharing in the rewards they earn — and the penalties they incur. You don't run any software. You don't manage any keys beyond your normal wallet. You point your stake at a validator and let them do the work.

It's the difference between:

• Validating — you run a node, you keep it online, you respond to consensus rounds, you take operational responsibility, you earn the full reward.
• Delegating — you pick someone who is already validating, you give them your stake to count toward their voting power, you earn a portion of what they earn.

Why delegation matters for Asentum

Asentum's foundational goal is real decentralization — not the kind where 21 well-funded nodes call themselves a network, but the kind where thousands of independent participants share in securing and governing the chain. Delegation is how we get there. Without it:

1. Most ASE would sit idle. Token holders who couldn't or wouldn't run nodes would have no way to put their stake to work.
2. The validator set would be limited to the technical-and-wealthy intersection. You'd need both the operational skill to run a node and enough capital to make it worthwhile.
3. Skilled operators with no capital would be locked out. Some of the best validators in any PoS network are people who know how to run reliable infrastructure but don't personally hold a lot of tokens.
4. Holders would have no aligned interest in network health. A token holder who isn't earning anything from the network is just speculating on price.

How it works mechanically

1. You hold some ASE in a wallet.
2. You browse validators in the wallet UI, on a block explorer, or through asentum validators list in the CLI. Each validator has a profile: identity, commission rate, uptime history, slashing history, total stake bonded.
3. You pick a validator and choose how much ASE to delegate.
4. You sign a delegation transaction — a single tx that bonds your tokens to that validator.
5. Your tokens are now bonded. They count toward the validator's voting power. They're no longer freely transferable.
6. You earn rewards. Every epoch, the validator's earnings are distributed: validator commission off the top, then the rest pro-rata across all stake bonded to them (including the validator's own self-bond).
7. You can claim rewards at any time with a withdrawal transaction.
8. You can undelegate at any time. The undelegated tokens enter the unbonding period (~14 days). During unbonding they don't earn rewards but do remain slashable.

A worked example

Imagine a validator named Foothill with the following state:

• Foothill's self-bond: 50,000 ASE
• Foothill's commission rate: 10%
• Total delegated to Foothill (across many delegators): 150,000 ASE
• Foothill's total voting power: 200,000 ASE

Suppose you're a delegator named Sam, and you delegate 5,000 ASE to Foothill.

Now Foothill earns 100 ASE in block rewards during a given epoch. The reward distribution works in two steps:

1. Validator commission: Foothill takes 10% off the top → 10 ASE.
2. Pro-rata distribution of the remaining 90 ASE across all 200,000 ASE of bonded stake:
   • Foothill's self-bond share: 50,000 / 200,000 × 90 = 22.5 ASE
   • Sam's share: 5,000 / 200,000 × 90 = 2.25 ASE
   • Other delegators split the remaining 65.25 ASE proportionally

So Foothill the operator earns: 10 (commission) + 22.5 (their self-bond's share) = 32.5 ASE total this epoch. Sam the delegator earns: 2.25 ASE this epoch.

Slashing for delegators

This is the part most people gloss over, and it's the most important to understand.

If Foothill misbehaves — double-signs, has prolonged downtime, etc. — they get slashed. All bonded stake to that validator is slashed proportionally, including delegators.

Worked example: Foothill gets slashed 5% for downtime.

• Foothill's total bonded stake: 200,000 ASE
• Slash amount: 10,000 ASE removed from bonded supply
• Foothill's self-bond loses: 5% × 50,000 = 2,500 ASE
• Sam's delegated stake loses: 5% × 5,000 = 250 ASE

Why this is critical: without shared slashing, delegators would have zero incentive to pick good validators — they'd just chase the highest published rewards regardless of who's behind them. Bad actors would attract delegations they don't deserve. Shared slashing is the mechanism that forces delegators to actually care who they delegate to.

It also means delegation is not "risk-free yield." Delegators are taking real economic risk on the operational quality and honesty of the validator they pick. Picking a competent, long-running validator is a real decision that has real consequences.

Parameters (current placeholders)

These are the numbers in play. They will be revisited before mainnet, but they define the current shape of the system.

How to choose a validator

Some things to look at when picking a validator (these will all be visible in wallets and explorers):

• Uptime history. Has this validator been online consistently? Missed blocks erode trust.
• Slashing history. Has this validator ever been slashed? Once is forgivable; multiple times is a red flag.
• Self-bond ratio. How much of the validator's voting power is the operator's own money? Higher self-bond means more skin in the game.
• Commission rate. Lower is better for delegators in the short term, but rates that are too low (e.g. 0%) might be a teaser to attract delegations before being raised.
• Commission history. A validator who frequently raises rates is one to watch.
• Total voting power. Delegating to a small validator helps decentralize. Split your delegations across several mid-sized validators if you can.
• Communication and reputation. Anonymous validators aren't bad by default, but accountable operators have more reason to behave.

Risks and tradeoffs