It's just the pool size. Bad thing about DGM is the confusion of how it works. I missed the last 20% of that really long block, and received 40% of my normal payout. I still have no idea why it does that.
Consider DGM like a capacitor, you build up charge in the beginning, and as long as you keep mining, you don't lose charge. Once you stop mining, you lose charge slowly and you get paid out even if you aren't "charging" the capacitor by mining, until it's completely empty.
Isnt that what normal old prop / score does?
In some sense, pretty much any reward system is similar to a capacitor if you stretch the analogy enough. But quantitatively, DGM behaves much more like a physical capacitor than other methods, which is why the analogy is more appropriate for it.
Notably, in hoppable methods the effect of shares on the capacitor depends on the pool's history, so some times are better than others.
It's just the pool size. Bad thing about DGM is the confusion of how it works. I missed the last 20% of that really long block, and received 40% of my normal payout. I still have no idea why it does that.
DGM doesn't care about the pool's history. When you mine continuously the capacitor is at its full charge level (with some caveats irrelevant to the current topic). When you stop mining the capacitor starts discharging in a way that doesn't depend on the fact that 6.7M shares were already submitted in the round. What matters is not that you missed 20% of the block, but that you didn't mine for 1.7M shares, which with the current parameters is enough for your score to decay to the 40% level. Other hopping-proof methods are similar.
The mistake people make is thinking that the proportional method is some sort of gold standard other methods should measure up to. It's not, it's just a broken method. Looking at the % of shares submitted in the current round is meaningless.
