Spearmint (SPMTC) — Preliminary Technical Comparison Meeting Notes

Date: October 26, 2025 • Type: Comparison session (no decisions)

Purpose: compare and contrast Spearmint’s current technical/economic direction against patterns used by top‑20 crypto assets. This is a comparison meeting, not a decision meeting.

1) Scope & Objectives

Establish a feature‑accurate baseline for SPMTC economics and protocol mechanics.
Map that baseline against top‑20 tokenization patterns (issuance, burns, governance, distribution, transparency).
Identify modeling questions, attack surfaces, and metrics to track prior to any decision forum.
No parameter changes were proposed or ratified in this meeting.

2) Transparency & Verifiability

Public‑by‑default docs: monetary policy, parameter ranges, halving cadence, and block‑target rationale.
On‑chain proofs: timelock‑guarded processes where applicable; public Proof Log with signed build hashes and acquisition ranges.
Versioned changelog for all economics/protocol notes with timestamped diffs and rationale.
Signed releases, reproducible builds; telemetry dashboards (supply, difficulty, pool concentration, reorg/orphan rates).

3) Current SPMTC Direction (baseline for comparison)

3.1 Protocol

Consensus: Proof‑of‑Work (SHA‑256), Bitcoin‑Core‑derived.
Block target: 30s (≈1,051,200 blocks/year).
Difficulty: ADR (Aggressive per‑block retargeting) to contain short‑horizon hash spikes.
Finality policy: DBF — elevated confirmation depth for high‑value settlement.
Mining pools: ckpool‑style transparency; exportable telemetry.

3.2 Monetary Policy

Total supply: ~210,000,000 SPMTC (fixed).
Genesis issuance: block reward 50 SPMTC.
Halving schedule: accelerated ~6‑month halvings for ≈5 years → annual halvings (longevity phase).
Pre‑launch acquisition: 8% via provable solo mining; details published in the Proof Log.
Fees: standard PoW transaction fees to miners; no base‑fee burn.

4) Comparison Highlights — SPMTC vs. Top‑20 Patterns

Dimension	SPMTC (baseline)	Common Top‑20 Patterns	Implications / Notes
Consensus	PoW (SHA‑256)	PoS prevalent; fee burns (EIP‑1559‑style)	SPMTC avoids usage‑linked deflation; relies on hash‑based security and fee market.
Supply Policy	Fixed cap ~210M; accelerated → annual halvings	Mix of caps + burns; some uncapped with burns	Cap provides scarcity; absence of burns trades off elasticity for simplicity and auditability.
Block Cadence	30s target; ADR + DBF	Varies; faster L1s often PoS	Faster PoW requires careful reorg economics; ADR reduces exploit windows.
Distribution	8% pre‑launch via solo mining; 92% via mining emissions	Escrows, treasuries, large airdrops common	Proof Log + signed artifacts emphasize verifiability vs. discretionary unlocks.
Fee Treatment	Fees → miners; no base‑fee burn	Burns widely used (ETH/BNB/AVAX)	No usage‑driven supply sink; simpler accounting; miner‑only accrual.
Governance	Code‑driven, releases signed; no token‑weighted governance implied	On‑chain governance and treasuries common	Minimizes governance attack surface; fewer levers for monetary discretion.

5) Risk & Attack Surface (technical)

Hash‑rate volatility: ADR mitigates, but extreme step‑changes can still create reorg pressure.
Short‑range 51% scenarios: DBF raises economic cost/time; monitoring orphan/reorg metrics is essential.
Pool centralization: ckpool transparency aids detection; consider soft‑incentives for pool dispersion.
Fee market thinness: impacts miner revenue during low activity; model breakeven under conservative fees.

Suggested mitigations

Adaptive DBF guidance keyed to observed variance bands.
Alerting on hash‑rate deltas, stale rate spikes, and miner share concentration.
Economic modeling for reward/fee sufficiency across difficulty regimes.

6) Measurement & Monitoring

Core KPIs

Blocks/day, orphan rate, average reorg depth, variance bands.
Hash‑rate delta (1h, 6h, 24h), pool Gini/Nakamoto coefficient.
Issuance per epoch, cumulative supply, miner revenue (fees vs. subsidy).

Dashboards

Real‑time supply and halving countdowns.
Difficulty/ADR response visualizations.
Pool share and centralization monitors.

7) Open Questions (for modeling before any decisions)

What ADR parameters minimize oscillation while remaining attack‑responsive?
Recommended DBF confirmation thresholds by value tiers (retail vs. exchange settlement).
Economic breakeven curves for miners at various fee environments and energy costs.
Telemetry thresholds that should trigger incident disclosures.

8) Next Steps

Run adversarial simulations for ADR/DBF under volatile hash inputs.
Publish initial Proof Log structure (hashes, acquisition block ranges, build artifacts).
Draft public dashboards schema and data sources.
Prepare a decision‑oriented brief after modeling results are available.

Reminder: This document records a comparison meeting only. It does not enact parameter changes.