Omniousdocs
Market integrity◆ Points era

The economics of honesty

One upheld substitution costs about 25 honest fills. Cheating is unprofitable by construction, not by policy.

The integrity lane is not a court; it is a price system. Every number in it is a published constant (terms version s0-2026.07.1, exposed by the API), and together they are chosen to make one statement true: cheating has negative expected value, at every fill size, before anyone even files.

the stake / slash calculatorpublished constants · s0-2026.07.1
⚑ challenger stakes
200 bps ≈ $2.00

max(25 bps, 1x charge). Locked while open.

provider slashed if upheld
4,650 bps ≈ $46.50

max(250 bps, 25x net earn of 186 bps).

$ bounty to the challenger
2,325 bps ≈ $23.25

Half the slash.

✕ burned
2,325 bps ≈ $23.25

The other half is credited to no one.

An upheld challenge on this receipt costs the provider the earnings of about 25honest fills of the same size. A rejected challenge burns the challenger's 200 bps stake instead.

The three constants

  • Stake = max(25 bps, 1x the receipt's charge). Points are denominated at 100 bps per dollar of settled volume, so challenging a $2.00 fill costs a 200 bps stake. The floor makes spamming micro-fill challenges cost something real.
  • Slash = max(250 bps, 25x the provider's net earn). Net earn already subtracts the router fee. Winning one dishonest fill and losing the challenge costs the provider roughly 25 honest fills of the same size.
  • Challenger share = 50%. Half the slash pays the bounty. The other half burns.

Why these shapes

Why 25x: a substitution cheat saves the provider some fraction of serving cost per fill, far less than the full charge. For cheating to pay at a 25x penalty, the provider would need the detection probability across canaries, audits, and bounty hunters to stay under a few percent forever. The economics fail long before the detection rate does.

Why burn half: if the whole slash went to the challenger, a provider could stage challenges against itself through a friendly challenger and convert its own slash into a round trip, cheaply laundering a bad record into bounties. Burning half makes every staged uphold a guaranteed net loss for the pair.

Why stake scales with the receipt: big receipts have big bounties attached, so the price of being wrong about one scales with the prize for being right. The expected-value math for a challenger stays honest at every fill size.

points now, token laterAll balances are pure derivations over settlement rows: usage records on one side, challenge rows on the other. No balance table exists to migrate, which is why the same rows can re-denominate to the token at TGE with the history intact. See The S1 points program.
As a providerRead the calculator from your side: the slash on your typical fill size is the insurance premium you never pay as long as you serve what you claim.
As a challengerYour edge is evidence quality. The constants fix your downside (the stake) and your upside (half the slash); what moves your expected value is how often you are right.
where this lives in code