How Yuma Consensus 3 Makes Bittensor More Fair
YC3 is the next evolution of Bittensor's consensus mechanism. It optimizes emissions to reward validators for recognizing innovation quickly.
See also: Yuma Consensus Yuma Consensus 3 (YC3) Migration Guide
Introduction: Understanding Yuma Consensus
At the heart of every Bittensor subnet lies a fundamental challenge: how do you fairly distribute rewards for work, when that work can include a wide range of different digitial commodities or services? Bittensor approaches this as a distributed judgment problem: Validators serve as judges for the whole community, with trust in them being measured by the total stake they have been delegated. Their ratings of the performance of miners (who produce the commodities and services for each subnet) determine emissions to those miners.
But how can we keep validators honest and hard-working to make sure that they do their best effort to accurately judge the miners?
Yuma Consensus is Bittensor's solution. Validators continuously rank the quality of work done by miners in their subnet, with the rankings of validators being trusted in proportion to how much stake they have received from the community. Lazy or dishonest validators lose emissions for submitting inaccurate rankings, which is likely to cause the community to move their stake to more relabile validators. Hence the community's trust in a given validator, embodied as stake, is linked over time to the emissions earned by the miners that validator rates. Hence validators are kept honest and miners are kept working hard to produce the best commodities possible.
But how does this work in detail? Each validator submits their rankings of miners they've evaluated. The algorithm then looks at all these rankings and tries to figure out which validators are giving the most reliable, honest evaluations. Validators who consistently make good predictions about which miners other validators will eventually recognize as the best, get more influence in the system. Meanwhile, validators that give stale or otherwise inaccurate evaluations lose out.
The system builds "bonds" between validators and miners over time. When a validator consistently recognizes a miner's good work, their bond with that miner strengthens, leading to better rewards for both parties. This creates a powerful incentive for validators to be diligent, honest, and forward-thinking in their evaluations.
But the earlier versions of this system had some significant flaws—particularly when it came to rewarding validators who were ahead of the curve in recognizing promising miners, and ensuring fairness for validators with smaller stakes. Yuma Consensus 3 solves these problems.
The Evolution of Consensus
The Yuma Consensus mechanism, which determines how emissions are distributed, has evolved through several iterations to address fairness concerns.
The Limitations of Earlier Versions
Yuma Consensus V1
The first version of the algorithm distributed validator rewards based on stake and consensus weight, but had significant limitations:
- Small validators faced unfair rounding issues
- Limited mechanisms for recognizing early adopters of promising miners
Yuma Consensus V2
The second version introduced a more sophisticated bonding mechanism with exponential moving averages, but still struggled with:
- Unfair penalties for small validators due to rounding errors
- Insufficient rewards for validators who recognized good miners early
- Uniform alpha parameters that didn't account for individual validator-miner relationships
- A serious bug in bond distribution, when validator participation changed dramatically.
The last and most serious of these issues was that bonds were only redistributed when validators holding at least 50% of total stake cast votes for a given miner. This created a situation where:
- Bonds would freeze when validators stopped actively voting for a miner.
- Historical allocations persisted for months, even when those validators were no longer evaluating the miner.
- New evaluators were locked out until enough high-stake validators resumed voting.
- Unfair reward distribution occurred when miners became relevant again - old bond holders received rewards despite not currently evaluating, while active evaluators received minimal bonds
Yuma Consensus V3
Yuma Consensus 3 addresses these fundamental issues with several breakthrough improvements:
Per-Bond EMA Scaling
The most significant innovation in YC3 is that each validator-miner bond pair now gets its own adjustment rate (alpha value) rather than using a single rate for all bonds. This allows individual relationships to evolve at different speeds based on performance and consensus differences.
When Liquid Alpha is enabled, the system calculates individual alpha values for each validator-miner pair using a sigmoid function. When Liquid Alpha is disabled, it falls back to a uniform alpha calculation based on the bonds moving average parameter.
Fair Scaling for All Validators
Bond values are computed using fixed-point arithmetic and then converted to u16 for storage efficiency, allowing precise fractional relationships while maintaining a 0-65535 storage scale. This fixes the disadvantages that plagued small-stake validators in previous versions.
Early Recognition Rewards
Validators who identify promising miners before they become widely recognized can now start accumulating bonds early. This creates proper incentives for proactive evaluation rather than just following the crowd.
The alpha sigmoid function calculates adjustment rates based on the difference between a validator's current weights and the network consensus. When a validator's weight for a miner differs significantly from consensus, the sigmoid determines whether to increase or decrease the bond adjustment rate, rewarding early recognition while preventing manipulation.