We probably want "research contributed" as our metric, which is what we do today with the RAC. What I don't like about the current setup is that there is a need to rush between projects in order to maximize profits. I would much rather see a system where you are rewarded more or less equally regardless of which project you choose. You can then pick the project you feel deserves your computing power without having to see your magnitude plummet just because of it.
I'm trying to think of a system where each project is given a slice of the total available magnitude based on how much it has progressed since the last superblock. Then that slice is divided to each of its members based on how much they contributed, kind of like how it would work if you had a pool of pools. The flaw I can't solve is how to determine how much a project has progressed. You can't just base it on percentual credit increase since that favors new projects.
- The upside is that moving computation will have a smaller impact on your magnitude.
- The downside is that one strong, new cruncher can cause a massive progress boost to a small project.
Something along those lines at least. It's still broken but that's where I want to end up. In a world where you don't have to chase the smallest project in order to profit.