Wallet Score Calculation

The wallet score is computed using a Time-Weighted Average Balance (TWAB) methodology. Rather than capturing a snapshot of a wallet's holdings at a single point in time, the TWAB tracks the integral of the SHIP wallet's balance over a rolling observation window, producing a score that reflects both the volume of tokens held and the duration for which they have been held.

Formally, the score is defined as:

$$\text{Score}(t) = \frac{1}{T} \left( \sum_{i=1}^{k} B_i \cdot \Delta t_i + \sum_{j \in S(t)} n_j \cdot C \right)$$

Where:

• T = the length of the rolling observation window

• t = the current time (the moment at which the score is calculated)

• k = the number of segments within the window, each balance change (purchase, sale, transfer, or staking action) creates a new segment

• Bᵢ = the wallet's total SHIP balance during segment i, including both held and staked tokens

• Δtᵢ = the duration of segment i

• S(t) = the set of positions currently locked in the staking contract at time t

• nⱼ = the number of SHIP in staked position j

• C = the fixed staking time credit

The left sum inside the parentheses captures organic score accumulation: the product of balance and time for each segment, rewarding holders proportionally to how much they hold and for how long. The right sum captures the staking bonus: for each currently staked position, the number of locked tokens is multiplied by a fixed time credit of 180 days, reflecting the instant boost granted in exchange for the lock-up commitment. Together, these two components produce a score where staked tokens benefit twice, once through organic time accumulation alongside all other tokens, and once through the additional staking credit. The entire expression is then divided by T to normalize the result into a time-weighted average.

Rolling Window

The score is calculated over a rolling window of fixed duration. Only activity within this window contributes to the current score. This design ensures that the ecosystem remains accessible to new participants: any holder who commits for the full duration of the window can reach the maximum score attainable for their position size, regardless of when they entered the ecosystem.

Effect of Holding

A wallet that simply holds tokens without staking sees its score increase linearly over time within the observation window. A newly acquired position contributes minimally to the score at first, but its weight grows with each passing day. Conversely, selling tokens immediately reduces the ongoing balance, and the impact of that reduction compounds as the lower balance persists across the remainder of the window. This creates a natural asymmetry: building a score is gradual, but damaging it is immediate.

Effect of Staking

When a holder locks tokens in the staking contract, those tokens receive an instant time credit equivalent to six months of holding. In TWAB terms, the staked tokens are treated as though they had already been present in the wallet for six months at the moment of staking, immediately boosting the score without waiting for time to elapse organically. This credit reflects the commitment inherent in the lock-up: by accepting to immobilize their tokens for a fixed period, the holder demonstrates conviction that the system rewards upfront.

Staked tokens remain locked for a fixed duration and cannot be traded, transferred, or withdrawn until the lock-up expires.

Once staked, tokens continue to accrue time weight normally beyond the initial six-month credit. A holder who stakes early in the observation window therefore benefits both from the instant boost and from the continued organic accumulation over the remaining window duration, producing the highest possible score trajectory within the system.

Examples

The following scenarios illustrate how the wallet score behaves under different holder actions. All scenarios are evaluated at Day 30 for comparison purposes. The score is expressed in days-tokens, which represents the raw numerator of the TWAB formula before division by the observation window. Since all wallets are compared at the same point in time, the relative ranking is identical whether expressed as raw days-tokens or as the final normalized score.

Scenario 1: Simple Holding

Alice buys 1,000 SHIP on Day 0 and holds without any further action.

Period	Balance	Duration	Contribution
Day 0 → Day 30	1,000	30 days	30,000

Score at Day 30: 30,000 days-tokens

This is the baseline scenario. The score grows linearly, day after day, with no acceleration.

Scenario 2: Holding vs. Staking

Bob also buys 1,000 SHIP on Day 0, but stakes his entire position immediately.

Period	Balance	Duration	Contribution
Staking credit (instant)	1,000	180 days	180,000
Day 0 → Day 30 (organic)	1,000	30 days	30,000

Score at Day 30: 210,000 days-tokens (180,000 + 30,000)

Bob's score is 7× Alice's on Day 30. The six-month time credit creates an immediate and substantial gap. Both scores continue to grow at the same rate from this point, the staking advantage does not fade, but it does not compound either. Alice can never close the gap through holding alone; she would need to stake to match Bob's trajectory.

Scenario 3: Late Entry with More Capital

Charlie enters the ecosystem on Day 20 with 5,000 SHIP, five times Alice's position, and holds without staking.

Period	Balance	Duration	Contribution
Day 20 → Day 30	5,000	10 days	50,000

Score at Day 30: 50,000 days-tokens

Charlie surpasses Alice (30,000) despite having only 10 days of holding history, but it cost him 5× the capital to do so. Against Bob (210,000), Charlie would need to hold his 5,000 tokens for 42 days without staking, or stake immediately to close the gap far faster. This illustrates the core TWAB dynamic: capital can compensate for time, but the exchange rate is expensive.

Scenario 4: Selling Impact

Diana buys 1,000 SHIP on Day 0, then sells half her position on Day 15.

Period	Balance	Duration	Contribution
Day 0 → Day 15	1,000	15 days	15,000
Day 15 → Day 30	500	15 days	7,500

Score at Day 30: 22,500 days-tokens (15,000 + 7,500)

Diana's score is 25% lower than Alice's (30,000), even though she still holds 500 tokens. The damage is immediate and persistent: from Day 15 onward, every day contributes only half as much as it would have if she had held. The longer the reduced balance persists within the observation window, the more the score deteriorates relative to a full holder.

Scenario 5: Partial Staking

Eve buys 1,000 SHIP on Day 0, holds for 10 days, then stakes half her position (500 tokens) on Day 10.

Period	Balance	Duration	Contribution
Day 0 → Day 10 (full balance, held)	1,000	10 days	10,000
Day 10 → Day 30 (500 held, unstaked)	500	20 days	10,000
Staking credit on 500 (instant)	500	180 days	90,000
Day 10 → Day 30 (500 staked, organic)	500	20 days	10,000

Score at Day 30: 120,000 days-tokens (10,000 + 10,000 + 90,000 + 10,000)

Eve's score sits between Alice's pure hold (30,000) and Bob's full stake (210,000). The staking credit on just 500 tokens accounts for 75% of her total score. This demonstrates that even partial staking has a transformative effect on the wallet score, and that the decision to stake is the single most impactful action a holder can take.

Comparative Summary at Day 30

Holder	Action	Position	Score	vs. Alice
Alice	Hold 1,000	1,000	30,000	1.0×
Bob	Stake 1,000	1,000 (locked)	210,000	7.0×
Charlie	Hold 5,000 (entered Day 20)	5,000	50,000	1.7×
Diana	Hold 1,000, sell 500 at Day 15	500	22,500	0.75×
Eve	Hold 1,000, stake 500 at Day 10	1,000 (500 locked)	120,000	4.0×

Summary of Score Dynamics

Action	Effect on Score
Buy and hold	Gradual linear increase over the observation window
Stake	Instant boost (6-month time credit) followed by continued organic growth
Sell	Immediate reduction, compounding over time as the lower balance persists
Unstake (after lock-up)	Tokens return to standard holding weight; no retroactive penalty, but the staking time credit no longer applies to future accrual