The $MANAV mining-rate calculator
Slide the inputs. The number is what one day of your role earns at the current epoch's emission rate. The math is the same Proof of Human Work formula every payout uses.
This is an estimator, not a payout oracle. Real-time emissions reconcile every hour against witness signatures and freshness decay. The Trust Score amplifies log-arithmically — going from 100 to 200 helps, going from 800 to 900 barely moves the needle. By design: reputation rewards consistency, not gaming.
What the inputs mean
Role sets a baseline weight derived from the role-attestation graph. Engineering and sales get higher caps because their artifacts are easier to magnitude-verify (commits merged, deals closed). Hours is hours-of-attributable work, not hours at desk; only the work that left a witnessed artifact counts. Trust Score is your dynamic reputation, derived from prior witnessed work and decaying without contribution. Halving epoch mirrors Bitcoin's emission curve — every two years emission halves, so a hour is worth 2× a hour at the same Trust Score.
Why this exists
The fastest objection to PoHW is "this sounds like proof-of-LinkedIn." The calculator is the response. Plug in actual numbers; see actual outputs. The economics aren't a forward-looking promise — they're a function. We publish the function so anyone can audit the payouts.
Common objections
The honest objections: protocols without products fail, and tokens without revenue are speculative. We answer the first with a hosted commercial layer and design partners shipping today; the second with a fee model where the protocol earns from real agent verifications, not from token velocity.
Frequently asked questions
Is this about a token, or a protocol? A protocol first. The token exists to align incentives — humans earn for attested work, relying parties spend to verify, the network captures a small fee. The protocol stays useful even if the token's price is volatile; the token gets useful only when the protocol is.
How is this not just another crypto identity project? Most crypto identity projects answer 'is this a unique human?' and stop. This one answers 'what did this human authorize?' which is a different question. The substrate (hardware-attested device, recoverable, revocable) is also designed for enterprise compliance, not just consumer Sybil resistance.
What happens if the chain has an outage? Verification continues. Signatures verify locally; the chain anchors audit roots periodically, not per-action. A multi-day chain outage would delay forensic anchoring but not block any agent action that already had a valid delegation.
Where to start
Move from this to proof of human work for the technical design and proof of human work spec for the economic shape. The protocol and the token are designed to be read in that order — design first, incentives second.
Adjacent reading
For the protocol math, see the PoHW spec. For the regulatory posture on the token, see why $MANAV is not a security. For the launch design, see the genesis airdrop. The three together set design, regulation, and distribution — usually enough to decide whether the token is interesting at all.
Why the curve looks like Bitcoin's, and why it isn't
The emission curve resembles Bitcoin's in shape — front-loaded distribution, halving-style decay, asymptotic supply ceiling — and the resemblance is intentional. The economics that made Bitcoin's curve work are well-understood, and we did not invent a reason to deviate from them. What is different is the work being rewarded. Bitcoin pays for hash. Manav pays for verifiable human contribution to the trust network — issuance, witness signatures, attestation participation, dispute resolution. The reward function is the same shape; the underlying labor is fundamentally different. The implication is that the network does not waste energy and does not concentrate among entities with cheap electricity. It concentrates among entities with high-quality human participation, which is the resource the protocol is trying to coordinate. The curve is a tool for bootstrapping a network whose value is human attestation, not computational arbitrage. That is the part of the design most analyses miss when they read the curve as a Bitcoin clone.
The number that matters most
The number most readers should anchor on is not the maximum emission, the halving cycle, or the staking yield. It is the cost-to-mint of a counterfeit identity at peak emissions, which the curve fixes at a level that no rational attacker can afford. Every other parameter follows from that anchor. The economics work only if the anchor holds; they hold trivially if it does. Read the curve as a single durability statement and the model becomes legible.
If your protocol's economics can't fit on a calculator page, it's not economics. It's marketing.