Delegator checkpoint

An indexer's indexing reward cut is 92%. Your share of indexing rewards is:

The cut is what the indexer keeps. 8% goes to the delegation pool and your claim is your proportional share of it. Reading the cut backwards is the most common error in this role.

You delegate for 60 days and then undelegate. Roughly what fraction of your total committed time earns nothing?

60 days earning plus 28 days thawing is 88 days committed, of which 28 earn nothing. That is close to a third. Short holdings are punished hardest, which is why the mechanism rewards leaving positions alone.

An indexer is over its delegation capacity. The effect is:

Excess is accepted and cannot be used, so the dilution is shared across the pool. An indexer that was a sound choice when you delegated can become a poor one purely through other people's deposits.

Which of these is currently true of delegated stake and slashing?

Present in the mechanism, currently disabled for this service, and activatable by governance. Both of the confident short answers are wrong in different directions.

GIP-0089 redirects 20% of protocol issuance. For a delegator this means:

Indexing rewards come from issuance and are the larger part of most delegators' return. Any rate measured before 2026-08-31 is describing a larger pot than the one that now exists.