GPoS: Geospatially-aware Proof of Stake

TL;DR

This work highlights a critical yet underexplored dimension of blockchain decentralization: geospatial dispersion of validators. It introduces Geospatially-aware Proof of Stake (GPoS), which blends stake with a Geospatial Diversity Index (GDI) to compute voting power via $\omega_i = \lambda s_i + (1-\lambda) GDI'_i$ and $\rho_i^* = \frac{\omega_i}{\sum_j \omega_j}$, with $\lambda$ constrained to maintain stake-dominant security. Using empirical data from Aptos, Avalanche, Ethereum, Solana, and Sui, the authors demonstrate a 45% average reduction in the Gini coefficient of eigenvector centrality (GEC) across blockchains, indicating markedly improved geospatial decentralization, while showing negligible performance overhead in HotStuff and CometBFT experiments. They also introduce the GDI and a proximity-based Gini measure to quantify local and global decentralization, and provide an on-chain reconfiguration and dispute framework to deter location spoofing. The findings suggest that GPoS can meaningfully enhance resilience to regulatory and regional risks, price-incentivize broad geographic participation, and be adopted by existing PoS ecosystems, though formal safety and liveness proofs under the modified voting power remain for future work.

Abstract

Geospatial decentralization is essential for blockchains, ensuring regulatory resilience, robustness, and fairness. We empirically analyze five major Proof of Stake (PoS) blockchains: Aptos, Avalanche, Ethereum, Solana, and Sui, revealing that a few geographic regions dominate consensus voting power, resulting in limited geospatial decentralization. To address this, we propose Geospatially aware Proof of Stake (GPoS), which integrates geospatial diversity with stake-based voting power. Experimental evaluation demonstrates an average 45% improvement in geospatial decentralization, as measured by the Gini coefficient of Eigenvector centrality, while incurring minimal performance overhead in BFT protocols, including HotStuff and CometBFT. These results demonstrate that GPoS can improve geospatial decentralization {while, in our experiments, incurring minimal overhead} to consensus performance.

Figures (14)

• Figure 1: Boxplots illustrating the distribution of eigenvector centrality measures, showing percentiles, mean, median, and Gini coefficients.
• Figure 2: Gini coefficients for eigenvector centrality scores across blockchains, with varying $\lambda$ values.
• Figure 3: Minimum stake required for GPoS is higher than PoS ($\lambda =1$), across blockchains.
• Figure 4: Consensus TPS and Latency Analysis for HotStuff and CometBFT.
• Figure 5: KDE plot showing Ethereum's stake distribution, with a notable concentration in Europe and North America, indicating potential geospatial centralization.

Theorems & Definitions (1)

• Definition 1: Geospatial Diversity Index of a Validator